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

[alexrex20]

I thought he was your nephew?

 

[winchster]

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

I thought he was your nephew?

Oh that's low.

 

[alexrex20]

 

[Tejano Scott]

Ok... I quit at p 20... Some good stuff in here about bulges though. I should quit stuffing socks down my pants.

 

[Charlie]

What do you think, TS? Are any of these failure to conceal? Printing, yes. This is a shirt that fits me, not too big, not too small. I'm carrying a 1911 about 2:30 on my right side. I can see it "print" in one picture, less in another, and none in the other. Have I broken any laws? I don't think so. Should a cop arrest me, I don't think so. Just throwing it out there. (sorry for the dirty mirror!)

 

[Brains]

To a casual observer I'd call that not only concealed, but completely invisible. Wouldn't even arouse any curiosity - there's no clear outline of anything a 'typical' person would either identify or consider suspicious.

One person told it to me like this. "People who don't want to see a gun, won't. If they see a bulge or a snag, their mind will tell them it's something they're familiar with. To them it's a cell phone case."

 

[Charlie]

The first one (top) shows an indefinite outline but it's still not "failing to conceal" IMO. If LE is out there "looking" for "printing" concealed guns, they'll probably find one. Lots of folks "overthink" things and that's OK on a forum, but not out in the general population, IMO.

 

[Charlie]

One with the shirt pulled up.

 

[BJG]

Charlie, I don't think you're even close to "failing to conceal" in the way I would judge it and according to what I believe is in the spirit of Texas law. You have a good holster that keeps the pistol close to your body, and your shirt does an adequate job of concealing. The little bulge here and there upon your movement would not likely catch the average person's eye. Now, if you had a holster that made the pistol poke out more, and you added about 30 pounds to your waistline, then maybe we would see something that would catch the average person's attention and maybe look more definitively like a pistol outline under your shirt. It's all just speculation without actually seeing something like that. That's why I feel that each case of an alleged "failure to conceal" must be judged individually and with one's own eyes. But I don't think that simply having a piece of fabric between one's pistol and another person's eyes adequately quashes a "failure to conceal" in ALL cases, as some persons on this thread believe. Ill-fitting clothes and improper holsters can certainly push a situation toward a valid instance of "failure to conceal".

 

[digitaltrip]

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

Them southpaws....

Smh.

 

[txinvestigator]

Charlie, I don't think you're even close to "failing to conceal" in the way I would judge it and according to what I believe is in the spirit of Texas law. You have a good holster that keeps the pistol close to your body, and your shirt does an adequate job of concealing. The little bulge here and there upon your movement would not likely catch the average person's eye. Now, if you had a holster that made the pistol poke out more, and you added about 30 pounds to your waistline, then maybe we would see something that would catch the average person's attention and maybe look more definitively like a pistol outline under your shirt. It's all just speculation without actually seeing something like that. That's why I feel that each case of an alleged "failure to conceal" must be judged individually and with one's own eyes. But I don't think that simply having a piece of fabric between one's pistol and another person's eyes adequately quashes a "failure to conceal" in ALL cases, as some persons on this thread believe. Ill-fitting clothes and improper holsters can certainly push a situation toward a valid instance of "failure to conceal".

Remember, it is not fail to conceal, it is INTENTIONALLY fail to conceal.

 

[BJG]

Remember, it is not fail to conceal, it is INTENTIONALLY fail to conceal.

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?

 

[Kenny D]

99% of the people that are around you when you are in public have their faces shoved into their cellphones. Look around when you walk around in public, how many are paying attention to you? Some of the LEOs in my area are doing the same thing when I see them, cell phone in hand and not looking at me.

YMMV

 

[BJG]

99% of the people that are around you when you are in public have their faces shoved into their cellphones. Look around when you walk around in public, how many are paying attention to you? Some of the LEOs in my area are doing the same thing when I see them, cell phone in hand and not looking at me.

YMMV

I agree. Very true in most cases, especially in today's smart phone age. I guess you have to be a really beautiful person or a really strange-looking person to draw attention without doing anything else.

 

[alexrex20]

I can't believe this guy is still going on about this...

 

[alexrex20]

Them southpaws....

Smh.

You're looking at a reflection.

 

[BJG]

I can't believe this guy is still going on about this...

 

[J. Fred]

I can't believe this guy is still going on about this...

+1000

 

[Charlie]

You're looking at a reflection.

Not a southpaw, reflection.

 

[Charlie]

Remember, it is not fail to conceal, it is INTENTIONALLY fail to conceal.

Exactly