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

[BJG]

You do have case law involving the cases in Texas charging CHL holders with allowing their weapon to be visible? Right?

As I mentioned much earlier in this discussion thread, I'm not able to locate any case law regarding the matter. For those who are so confident that "printing" is not illegal, then I welcome them to see just how much they can "print" before it becomes an offense.

My point is that this is still very much a gray area and has remained untested by the courts. The blanket statement that "printing is not illegal" is overly broad and can get one in legal trouble, because there are many degrees of "printing". I would prefer to err on the side of caution and would suggest that others do the same. It's likely that most CHL holders are in fact erring on the side of caution, because we have not come across any test cases yet.

 

[txinvestigator]

Case law does not come at the trial court level.

 

[Bithabus]

It's likely that most CHL holders are in fact erring on the side of caution, because we have not come across any test cases

Or, maybe, printing is not illegal.

 

[Charlie]

Or, maybe, printing is not illegal.

Bingo! We have a winner!

 

[BJG]

I think you are misinterpreting what this means. A bulge under a t-shirt that might be a handgun is not "openly discernible" as a handgun. Maybe it is a phone or a colostomy bag or a snake bite kit. If someone has a shirt so tight (like an Under Armor compression shirt) and is wearing a Glock 20 OWB and ordinary Joe Six Pack can tell just by looking that Mr Tight Shirt is packing, then I agree he could be in violation. But this is a sci-fi example and is not useful to our real world discussion.

I am in agreement with this statement. As I mentioned in previous postings, an indistinguishable bulge is not "printing" in my opinion. Wearing an improper garment that does not adequately break up the lines of a handgun, and makes it fairly easy to recognize, very well may be "printing" enough to commit an offense. It doesn't have to be a skin-tight UnderArmor shirt for one to see that a person has a handgun under his shirt. The problem I have is with the blanket statement that "printing is not illegal" that continues to be repeated. I say that statement must be qualified with additional information and is not necessarily correct on its own.

 

[Bithabus]

I take printing to mean that although the surface of the handgun and holster is covered by a garment, there is still a large enough bulge visible that would catch someone's attention if they were looking in that direction, and that they might suspect that it is a handgun.

As I mentioned in previous postings, an indistinguishable bulge is not "printing" in my opinion.

One of my degrees is in philosophy. In philosophy, we would say your beliefs are inconsistent.

 

[Renegade]

Thanks. But, maybe you're confusing me with someone else as I haven't missed a fuckin' thing! I've only responded to others' unnecessary concern about "printing" and carrying out on the ranch (which I already knew was legal).

Yeah, you are still missing it.

 

[BJG]

One of my degrees is in philosophy. In philosophy, we would say your beliefs are inconsistent.

If you take all of my postings as a whole, you will see that the size and shape of the bulge is what concerns me when I question the statement that "printing is not illegal".

 

[Renegade]

That is not the point. I am trying to figure out the difference between a Range owner allowing people (employees, specifically) on his property that are not engaging in any shooting activity to OC and me allowing someone on my property to OC.

Well perhaps if we consulted the Penal Code it would be easer to figure out:


Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control;


That is pretty much it except for the MPA. Nowhere does a landowner have authority to allow someone to OC.
Now in most cases, the gun range employees have control of the property, so they get the exemption. Customers get the exemption, from 46.15.

 

[Younggun]

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

TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 3
CHAPTER 411. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
Subch. H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN
GC §411.171. DEFINITIONS.
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]In this subchapter: [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT][/FONT](3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

How bout this.

46.035
(A) a license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about his person under the authority if subchapter H, chapter 411, government code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

 

[Bithabus]

you will see that the size and shape of the bulge is what concerns me

 

[BJG]

Bithabus, you seem to be really good at extracting bits and pieces of statements in order to slant the overall message in a different direction. Are you a journalist?

 

[Bithabus]

Bithabus, you seem to be really good at extracting bits and pieces of statements in order to slant the overall message in a different direction. Are you a journalist?

Lol, no. But you are inconsistent. And IMO you're over-thinking this issue. You may be an expert on criminal procedure in Louisiana, but here in TX CHL holders just don't need to worry about printing. Even in Dallas.

 

[Younggun]

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

BJG, you question was answered a while back. You didn't like that answer so you push for a different answer. Now we don't really care and I'm being a troll cause I'm bored and immature.

If you question the credentials of those answering your questions go to their profile and look at their post history. If you still don't trust them then why bother asking them anymore.

Smith and Wesson sucks.

 

[BJG]

How bout this.

46.035
(A) a license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about his person under the authority if subchapter H, chapter 411, government code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

I'm aware of that law as well. So if you're able to see a clear outline of my handgun under my t-shirt, then I have failed to adequately conceal my pistol, right? Regardless of what statement I might make that I didn't "intend" to make my handgun easily discernible, my actions are not congruent with my statement. Actions and solid evidence are used to establish intent in a court of law, above what a person might provide in a statement.

 

[Younggun]

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

I'm aware of that law as well. So if you're able to see a clear outline of my handgun under my t-shirt, then I have failed to adequately conceal my pistol, right? Regardless of what statement I might make that I didn't "intend" to make my handgun easily discernible, my actions are not congruent with my statement. Actions and solid evidence are used to establish intent in a court of law, above what a person might provide in a statement.

Sounds like you know what your talking about. Thanks for setting us straight.

 

[BJG]

I'm simply trying to get you guys to think a little deeper and to not take the unqualified statement that "printing is not illegal" as an absolute truth. There are way too many different interpretations of "printing".

 

[Younggun]

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

Yup, my mindset is completely changed. I'm about to call everyone I've ever lied to and set them straight.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for having the persistence and taking the time to correct all of us. I now see that printing is most definitely illegal and will no longer carry my desert eagle under my spandex leotard.

 

[Kyle]

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

And that's where the law is vague, regarding the level as to "printing". It leaves a fair amount of discretion for the police and the courts. In the above scenario that I provided, I think that any reasonable person would conclude that there was a pistol under my shirt. But furthermore, you stated previously that this type of misdemeanor offense must occur in the presence of a police officer for an arrest to be made. So are you saying that because a police officer can be considered to have "extraordinary observation", then he is not able to make a valid arrest in this scenario?

All in all, I think we have to agree that the concealed carry laws are not fully court-tested and somewhat vague in certain areas. My scenario may never really be tested in real life because I don't think anyone is confident or brave enough to risk arrest and revocation of their CHL.

Most laws leave a fair amount of discretion to the officers and the court.

I had a recent encounter that could have landed my ass in jail and a loss of my chl, but the officer was really cool and understanding of our situation.

We took my girlfriends car down to the coast for the weekend; along the way we were stopped for expired plates (which turned into a stop for "fictitious plates" ) ... my girlfriend failed to inform me that one of our stops on the way was going to be at her folks house, where her new plates were, so we could put the proper plates on the car (technically her car shouldn't have been on the road)... Her mom sent her the new registration tag but forgot to send the plates...(fml)...

So I'm completely in the dark as to what is going on.. The officer asked us to step out of the vehicle, as im getting out, my shirt lifted and was stuck on my grip, the officer saw it, I didn't realize it (I'm flustered and pissed), but all he did was say "oops" and he fixes my shirt for me to cover the pistol. He then asked what I was carrying and if I liked it. I answered and we (my girlfriend) continued to explain the situation with the plates. He said, because of our story, and the fact that I'm a chl holder, he was just going to cite us for expired registration instead of impounding the car and throwing us in jail... Had I known any of this was going on, we would have taken my vehicle instead...

My point though; this officer could have hung me out to dry and added a failure to conceal on top....but he chose to be cool about it because it was harmless and obvious that it was accidental. Another officer could have made my life hell.

 

[BJG]

Yup, my mindset is completely changed. I'm about to call everyone I've ever lied to and set them straight.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for having the persistence and taking the time to correct all of us. I now see that printing is most definitely illegal and will no longer carry my desert eagle under my spandex leotard.

Exaggerate much?