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

[BJG]

Ok, I got some sleep.

BJG, the reason we keep saying printing is not illegal is because there is no law against it. The law is that the gun can't be plainly visible blah blah blah. That means printing is perfectly legal so long as the gun isn't plainly visible. The printing isn't what get you in trouble. You could never be charged with "printing".

Now if you are printing sooo bad that the handgun is plainly visible you might get hit for failure to conceal, but printing in and of itself is not illegal. Just like you might get stopped for driving to fast. Driving is not illegal but you can get a ticket for speeding. Yet we don't ever tell anyone that you could get in trouble for driving.

I completely understand that there is no statute that specifically uses the word "printing". I know that the proper charge would be "failure to conceal" if the "printing" was so obvious as to make it very clear that it was a handgun under a shirt and nothing else. A high degree of "printing" can lead to a charge of "failure to conceal". That's what I've been getting at if you look at all of my postings on this discussion thread.

 

[Younggun]

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

Exactly. Failure to conceal is illegal, printing is not. That is why we say printing is not illegal. If you are wearing an under armor shirt and calling it concealed you are probably being unreasonable and the law covers that.

 

[Younggun]

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

Would you tell an adult that drinking beer is illegal?

 

[BJG]

In some sense you would be legal if you sprayed some kind of dark adhesive on your stomach while you had a handgun laying on it so as to completely cover it up. It would leave a perfect imprint of the gun but would be concealed. I would not recommend doing this unless it was one of those crappy mod 1911. Probably draw some kind of unwanted attention but I think legally you would be ok...Discussion?

I was looking back at what got me into this whole discussion and I believe this statement is what caught my attention.

 

[Younggun]

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

Pretty sure that is an unreasonable opinion of "concealed" as the law defines it.

Not even sure that could be classified as printing, lol. Who knows, some cops might let you off......

 

[Charlie]

And I'll say it again, law enforcement makes the "field" decisions as to whether or not they "think" is is illegal. Courts and/or juries make the decision as to whether or not it "is" illegal.

 

[Charlie]

It seems that most of the people worried about printing are the one's that have just begun to carry concealed. I get the impression that they think "any" little bump that "might" show when standing or sitting will get them arrested. It is virtually impossible to carry a pistol of medium size (as in Glock 19) on your waist that will not create a slight bulge at some point with normal movement and that won't (or shouldn't) get you arrested. It's new to them so they worry excessively. And sometimes it's promoted by their CHL instructors. The situation should be addressed but should be done so in an accurate and reasonable manner.

 

[alexrex20]

Or just don't carry. That way you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Ever.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

People are getting hung up on their own idea of "printing"...

If I may be so bold...I shall try to restate BJG's issue (as I understand it)...

"Printing" is a variable (you can print a little or a lot).

1) At what degree of "printing" does it become "failure to conceal"?

2) Stating "printing is not illegal" could lead some to believe the degree of printing does not matter as long as it is covered. Everyone is responsible for learning the law as it is written (as well as try to deem the intent), but the fact that some folks on here are/were LEOs could cause someone to give them more credence than their own understanding and jeopardize their CHL because they misunderstood what was stated (that "printing is not illegal")...

In other words, someone might take that to mean "All printing is not illegal." The reality is that some "printing is illegal, if it reaches the point of "failure to conceal"

 

[Renegade]

If I may be so bold...I shall try to restate BJG's issue (as I understand it)...

"Printing" is a variable (you can print a little or a lot).

1) At what degree of "printing" does it become "failure to conceal"?

And the Penal Code has our answer:

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

 

[BJG]

People are getting hung up on their own idea of "printing"...

If I may be so bold...I shall try to restate BJG's issue (as I understand it)...

"Printing" is a variable (you can print a little or a lot).

1) At what degree of "printing" does it become "failure to conceal"?

2) Stating "printing is not illegal" could lead some to believe the degree of printing does not matter as long as it is covered. Everyone is responsible for learning the law as it is written (as well as try to deem the intent), but the fact that some folks on here are/were LEOs could cause someone to give them more credence than their own understanding and jeopardize their CHL because they misunderstood what was stated (that "printing is not illegal")...

In other words, someone might take that to mean "All printing is not illegal." The reality is that some "printing is illegal, if it reaches the point of "failure to conceal"

Thanks, Graywolf. That's pretty much my position in this discussion. There are many other laws on the books (that have nothing to do with guns) that leave a gray area as to when an action becomes so egregious as to constitute an offense. With extremes, the decision of legal/illegal is easier to make. It's somewhere in between that we rely on case law to guide us.

 

[Charlie]

I interpret printing and failure to conceal as two different things. Can anybody cite an example of someone charged with "failing to conceal" that was because they "printed" too much?
All below are my opinion only.
Answer to #1 = never
Answer to #2 = people with experience is specific areas should always garner more support than people without that experience initially (in general).

Which leads to the question regarding the requested cite above; Are there any officers here or former officers that have arrested someone for "printing" as the only charge against them? If there are, can we get a cite to the case? And the final disposition? I'm not saying they have or haven't, I just don't know of any.

 

[Renegade]

The irony of this thread is all the arguing over a provision in the law that will be gone in a few months.

At least argue what the new law says!

 

[biglucky]

The irony of this thread is all the arguing over a provision in the law that will be gone in a few months.

At least argue what the new law says!

+1

 

[Charlie]

There will always be something to argue about on the forum. Which is good because it brings out interesting information.

 

[Younggun]

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

This thread is missing a tough guy.

If we had a tough guy it could be epic.

 

[alexrex20]

Want me to PM doc roe?

 

[GRAYWOLF]

What are you looking for in this role?

I'll see if I can get in to character...

 

[JKTex]

The irony of this thread is all the arguing over a provision in the law that will be gone in a few months.

At least argue what the new law says!

This!! And over complicating it as well.

BTW, on the topic of "printing" (seeing the title of this thread drives me nuts) if you are carrying a handgun and you can clearly see the form of a handgun through your clothes, you need to reconsider your wardrobe. I can't imagine anything but something like spandex being bale to be tight enough to do that, and if you're wearing spandex, hopefully your wearing a shirt and it's not tucked in. That's a disturbing image.

 

[winchster]

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

Want me to PM doc roe?

Where is that guy?