Alright! SB 299 passed the house & senate. We are getting "imprinting" in Texas!!!!

[GRAYWOLF]

The cashier at Walmart is not in control of Walmart.

The greeter is in control of who has access...

 

[Charlie]

Since each case of inadvertent or unintentional printing can be unique and open to interpretation, I would need you to provide me with a clear and specific example. Then, I would be able to provide my opinion and/or how I would react in that given situation.

I am certainly not the only person on this forum with relevant experience regarding legal matters. But you must agree that there are different degrees of experience. Just because I can successfully install a ceiling fan does not make me an electrician, or provide me with his overall knowledge, skill, and awareness of risks.

I'm not asking you how you would react in any specific situation, I'm asking if you would agree with the term "unintentional" or "inadvertent" being added to the "printing is not illegal". I'm asking your opinion, based on your extensive experiences. You previously stated that "printing is not illegal" was an unqualified statement so I added some qualification to it. It's a simple statement to answer yes or no; do you agree with "unintentional (or inadvertent) printing is not illegal?"

 

[BJG]

I'm not asking you how you would react in any specific situation, I'm asking if you would agree with the term "unintentional" or "inadvertent" being added to the "printing is not illegal". I'm asking your opinion, based on your extensive experiences. You previously stated that "printing is not illegal" was an unqualified statement so I added some qualification to it. It's a simple statement to answer yes or no; do you agree with "unintentional (or inadvertent) printing is not illegal?"

I do agree with "unintentional" and "inadvertent" being added to the beginning of the phrase "printing is not illegal". I think to meet the burden of "unintentional" and "inadvertent", we would have to consider how the covering garment is being worn. If the garment is worn in its usual and intended fashion, and the handgun cannot be detected while you're just standing there doing nothing, that's ok in my opinion. If you move about doing daily activities and a slight bulge or outline develops occasionally (but only temporary), then I think that's ok too. However, if that bulge or outline is drawing attention, then maybe it's not as inconspicuous as it should be. I think at that point, we're flirting with intentionally failing to conceal. It's very subjective and situational.

 

[Younggun]

Alright! SB 299 passed the house & senate. We are getting "imprinting" in Texas

This isn't even fun anymore.

 

[BJG]

This isn't even fun anymore.

I agree. I'm kinda pooped out from all of this.

 

[Charlie]

I do agree with "unintentional" and "inadvertent" being added to the beginning of the phrase "printing is not illegal". I think to meet the burden of "unintentional" and "inadvertent", we would have to consider how the covering garment is being worn. If the garment is worn in its usual and intended fashion, and the handgun cannot be detected while you're just standing there doing nothing, that's ok in my opinion. If you move about doing daily activities and a slight bulge or outline develops occasionally (but only temporary), then I think that's ok too. However, if that bulge or outline is drawing attention, then maybe it's not as inconspicuous as it should be. I think at that point, we're flirting with intentionally failing to conceal. It's very subjective and situational.

Thank you for your response. I don't believe the lawmakers can make enough laws to cover all of those situations you mentioned, and I don't want them to try because I don't think most of them are smart enough to pour piss out of a boot. The bottom line, in my opinion, is it's NOT illegal to print (unintentionally, etc.) and therefore the citizen has NOT committed a crime until proven guilty in a court.

 

[BJG]

Thank you for your response. I don't believe the lawmakers can make enough laws to cover all of those situations you mentioned, and I don't want them to try because I don't think most of them are smart enough to pour piss out of a boot. The bottom line, in my opinion, is it's NOT illegal to print (unintentionally, etc.) and therefore the citizen has NOT committed a crime until proven guilty in a court.

I'm of the opinion that the laws are somewhat vague...maybe on purpose...maybe because they were not fully debated before passing. Laws are ever-changing, and hopefully any doubt will eventually be ironed out in time. If Texas would simply pass a bill allowing open carry, then all of this debate would be for naught. Hopefully one day.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what is acceptable "printing". No harm, no foul. It is debates like the one we have had on this thread that makes us consider other possibilities and situations that we never thought about before.

 

[BJG]

Now that all of this is kind of winding down, I want to say that I don't take offense to any of you guys for questioning me or putting me on the hot seat. It's your job, after all, because I'm the FNG (F*cking New Guy) to this forum. So in the spirit of friendship, group hug everyone?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[alexrex20]

This is not failure to conceal. Concealed carry does not mean deep cover carry. It is OK if someone "suspects" you are carrying. If a peace Officer asks to see your creds, just show him. There are no cases because nobody has been arrested for this. It is not a concern.

This.

I got "busted" for printing by a DPS officer at the gun rally at the capital. My friends agreed that I was not obviously printing, but I guess the officer caught me at the right moment, at the wrong angle... Anyway, he asked to see my CHL, I showed it to him, and he told me "Thanks, have a nice day and thank you for coming out to support your rights."

 

[BJG]

This.

I got "busted" for printing by a DPS officer at the gun rally at the capital. My friends agreed that I was not obviously printing, but I guess the officer caught me at the right moment, at the wrong angle... Anyway, he asked to see my CHL, I showed it to him, and he told me "Thanks, have a nice day and thank you for coming out to support your rights."

It sounds like you performed an "inadvertent and unintentional printing", which in most people's opinions (mine included) is not an issue. Overall, your handgun was adequately concealed under normal circumstances. And, you obviously got the good end of a pro-gun police officer's discretion. The majority of police officers would probably have reacted the same way.

 

[preyn2]

So after all this, is it safe to conclude that:

1. The law is written in black and white, and does a poor job of defining the various shades of gray that exist in real life?

2. The various shades of gray (degrees of printing, unintentional, intentional,etc) will have to be interpreted by the street cop when he notices your (obviously poorly) concealed handgun?

3. It's probably best to be pretty diligent about concealing the handgun, so that it's presence is not easily discernible?

 

[BJG]

So after all this, is it safe to conclude that:

1. The law is written in black and white, and does a poor job of defining the various shades of gray that exist in real life?

2. The various shades of gray (degrees of printing, unintentional, intentional,etc) will have to be interpreted by the street cop when he notices your (obviously poorly) concealed handgun?

3. It's probably best to be pretty diligent about concealing the handgun, so that it's presence is not easily discernible?

I'd have to agree. The police officer would be the first point of contact with the justice system in relation to an arrest for allegedly failing to properly conceal a handgun by a CHL holder. The strength of the case would rely heavily on officer testimony as to the CHL holder's appearance, actions, etc. From there, I'm not sure what the DA's Office would do with it or how a judge/jury would rule. I think most police officers support the rights of CHL holders, but still, the police officer has a range of discretion in this matter that could be good or bad depending on the officer's viewpoint.

 

[Driller]

Printing

We still talking about this. Basically printing is legal in Texas. Yes you might see some sort of buldge or gun outline but as long as it is 100% covered up it is by law concealed. There are other states that define concealed as to mean no printing while concealed, not in Texas. I dont really see how this new law will change much. Seems like it will make it easier for un educated LEO less likely to make a mistake by arresting an unintentional display of a handgun by a CHL.

Driller

 

[BJG]

We still talking about this. Basically printing is legal in Texas. Yes you might see some sort of buldge or gun outline but as long as it is 100% covered up it is by law concealed. There are other states that define concealed as to mean no printing while concealed, not in Texas.
Driller

So according to your statement, I'm good to go with my new setup as long as the pistol's surface is completely under the shirt?

 

[Younggun]

Alright! SB 299 passed the house & senate. We are getting "imprinting" in Texas

I think you would be arrested for having an ugly gun.

 

[Renegade]

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

 

[BJG]

I think you would be arrested for having an ugly gun.

What are you talking about? The pimp Batman look would be much admired by the police.

 

[BJG]

Do you see where we get in trouble by making absolute, unqualified statements and other people taking them word for word?

 

[winchster]

Alright! SB 299 passed the house & senate. We are getting "imprinting" in Texas

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Why confuse the debate with facts? Geez, haven't you been keeping up. Lol

 

[Younggun]

Alright! SB 299 passed the house & senate. We are getting "imprinting" in Texas

Do you see where we get in trouble by making absolute, unqualified statements and other people taking them word for word?

Printing is NOT illegal, having your handgun openly discernible is. They are not the same thing. You can print without the gun being openly discernible.