Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
That which is not illegal is legal.
If the statutes don't mention magazines -- magazines are not regulated.
Don't you think there are some anti-gun DAs and courts that would prosecute someone for failure to conceal due to visible magazines? The argument would go like this:
Since nobody (except the odd activist trying to make a point) is going to carry magazines without an accompanying gun, visible magazines are accompanied by a gun. If the gun is not visible, it must still be there somewhere.
Concealment laws are not just about whether the gun is directly visible, but whether someone could infer with high accuracy that you are carrying a gun. That's why printing is not good. Presumably the legislatures are worried (unreasonably, but still) that awareness of gun carry causes angst among the general urban population.
I think laws against open carry and laws against printing are stupid, but I don't see how to argue that open carrying magazines is legal when printing isn't.