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

[alexrex20]

Your tune hasn't changed in the past 300 posts of this thread. And neither nave ours. Why are you still here arguing? Are you just waiting for someone to agree with you?

Your passive aggressive trolling is no better than my supposed trolling. Quit acting like your shit don't stink...

 

[txinvestigator]

True, but a confession or a direct statement of intent is not necessary to prove intent in every case. The totality of the circumstances, an accused actions, and what a witness, victim, or police officer can testify to can all be used to meet the burden of intent (whatever level of intent it is that is alleged and/or necessary to prove that an offense was committed). I'm talking about all cases, not just a firearms-related case.

Do you agree?

I agree 100%. But since an element of the offense is intent, the officer must be able to articulate probable cause that the person had intent not to conceal.

 

[txinvestigator]

Your tune hasn't changed in the past 300 posts of this thread. And neither nave ours. Why are you still here arguing? Are you just waiting for someone to agree with you?

Your passive aggressive trolling is no better than my supposed trolling. Quit acting like your shit don't stink...

Good grief, take your own advice. Do you need a hug.

His points are valid.

 

[digitaltrip]

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

This week has made me completely brain dead.

I need a frosty beverage.

 

[alexrex20]

Good grief, take your own advice. Do you need a hug.

His points are valid.

All I need from you is some STFU. You're the most hated person on the forum, now that Doc Roe has left.

 

[alexrex20]

I'm upset that Tapatalk still shows posts by people on your ignore list...

 

[BJG]

I agree 100%. But since an element of the offense is intent, the officer must be able to articulate probable cause that the person had intent not to conceal.

True. Officer testimony would play a large role. And I've seen some officers who couldn't testify their way out of a wet paper bag, so to speak.

 

[txinvestigator]

All I need from you is some STFU. You're the most hated person on the forum, now that Doc Roe has left.

I feel bad for you. You remind me of a spoiled 3rd grader...." Everyone hates you". I hope you find some peace in life.

 

[Charlie]

All I need from you is some STFU. You're the most hated person on the forum, now that Doc Roe has left.

I disagree. I'd rather have straightforward information than bullshit even if I don't agree.

 

[alexrex20]

I feel bad for you. You remind me of a spoiled 3rd grader...." Everyone hates you". I hope you find some peace in life.

You remind me of the bitter old man that everyone lets act like a douche bag because they feel bad for him in his lonely later years.

 

[hkusp1]

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

WTF is going on up in here.

 

[digitaltrip]

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

WTF is going on up in here.

Admiration.

 

[Younggun]

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

Picked a good time to check on this thread.


Can somebody please pass the popcorn?

 

[Charlie]

 

[Driller]

Printing

You remind me of the bitter old man that everyone lets act like a douche bag because they feel bad for him in his lonely later years.

Ok to debate opinions but personal attacks are disrespectful.

Driller

 

[inceptor]

You remind me of the bitter old man that everyone lets act like a douche bag because they feel bad for him in his lonely later years.

This has been fun to watch up till this point.

As John Steinbeck once said: Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.

 

[Jaster83]

Now I've been skipping around pages, and kinda watching the banter, but not paying attention to who's saying what who is the ex-LEO, etc., so I'm not "picking a side" here. Just wanted that disclaimer in first.

How about we do away with the word "printing" because that is not a word used in the house bill at all. It creates confusion. One person may use "printing" in a way that the reader misinterprets.
Now this quote, again, I skipped around, is miss worded, and is not actually an interpretation of the bill:

... 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.

i would like to point out at this time that the bill changes the wording from
Old wording:
...and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
to
New wording:
intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.

Now, how I read the change is before, unintentionally showing the bulge of a handgun under a garment (ie. "printing") was not illegal. It was when you would intentionally would show the bulge or "print". Now if you're wearing bicycle shorts and every bulge in your pants is clearly displayed, I would say that this, while maybe not be an intentional failure to conceal, it would be an intentional disregard for whether or not it is concealed.

Now, after the change, no form of printing, intentional or otherwise, would be illegal (the last part they added about "plain view" completely eliminates all forms of "printing" from being convictable.) And in fact, if I'm carrying in the small of my back, and I lean over and my shirt rides up and it completely displays the grip of the gun, this would not be illegal. The only way to get busted for displaying a concealed pistol is to remove it from its holster and brandish it in some fashion, or to lift or remove the covering garment with the intention of displaying the weapon. Even if the bathroom, if I'm taking a leak, and in the process I'm at a urinal and some guy looks over and sees my IWB holster and pistol, I can't get in trouble because it's not my intention to display it, it's my intention not to piss on my clothes.
Even if it was my intention to completely reveal my pistol, because it is innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution, unless I announce, or somehow give actual VOICE to here's my pistol or manipulate the weapon while displaying it, there's no way to prove I knowingly and intentionally displayed it.

 

[duns]

I found this thread engrossing. Came across it tonight and (skim) read it in one sitting. Totally agreed with everything BJG said. His position as I understand it is that there are degrees of printing and some degree of printing could be deemed intentional failure to conceal. Seems obviously correct to me. The alternative that any bit of fabric over the gun suffices as concealment seems obviously wrong to me. I don't want to reopen the debate when it seems to be winding down but just to express my thanks to BJG for his reasoned arguments and his unfailing politeness and patience in the face of a few slightly unpleasant and many unnecessarily argumentative comments (IMO).

 

[TrevX]

Re

Regarding the BBQ cook thing at your house. Its a premises under your control, you can already legally open carry if I understand the law correctly. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

So this law wouldn't clear anything up there, because it was never illegal?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2 on CyanogenMod 10.1.

 

[Bithabus]

Regarding the BBQ cook thing at your house. Its a premises under your control, you can already legally open carry if I understand the law correctly. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

So this law wouldn't clear anything up there, because it was never illegal?

No