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

[Brains]

I cleaned my guns on the back patio tonight, and I have a wrought iron fence. I'm a bad man.

 

[Younggun]

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

I cleaned my guns on the back patio tonight, and I have a wrought iron fence. I'm a bad man.

Completely legal I every way.

 

[Brains]

I know, I was just being a smart ass

 

[vmax]

so, how did open carry die?

is it totally dead?

 

[Bithabus]

deleted

 

[Bithabus]

It does seem that this law clears up an argument from a while back about having friends over and OCing at a backyard BBQ.

I don't think it clears up the old argument (since the answer was clear), but it does change the answer.

How does it do that? Not disagreeing with you, just looking for reasoning....

Your backyard is not a public place.

 

[matefrio]

so, how did open carry die?

is it totally dead?

I think after today there is no way to do it unless a special session is held.

 

[BJG]

I'm not sure what type of case law there is on the matter, but the dictionary definition of "conceal" is to hide from view, to prevent recognition, to place out of sight. Depending on how the courts interpret the phrase "fails to conceal" can affect a potential prosecution of a situation of obvious imprinting. For example, if a police officer sees an undistinguishable bulge under a CHL holder's clothing, that would probably not be enough for an arrest. However, if the CHL holder was carrying a handgun that was covered by only a thin, slightly snug shirt that provided a clearly distinguishable imprint of a handgun, then the officer might have probable cause for an arrest based on an interpretation of "failure to conceal", because the handgun is clearly recognizable. Does anyone want to push the limits and be a test case for the court system? Do you have enough money for attorney fees?

 

[MM120]

My CHL class implied that it was illegal to imprint so that was my understanding as well. Maybe they were talking about how subjective the term "intentional failure to conceal" could be. It could at least make for annoying day in court whether someone intentionally failed to conceal by wearing the wrong style of clothes or something.

Same here.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

I'm not sure what type of case law there is on the matter, but the dictionary definition of "conceal" is to hide from view, to prevent recognition, to place out of sight. Depending on how the courts interpret the phrase "fails to conceal" can affect a potential prosecution of a situation of obvious imprinting. For example, if a police officer sees an undistinguishable bulge under a CHL holder's clothing, that would probably not be enough for an arrest. However, if the CHL holder was carrying a handgun that was covered by only a thin, slightly snug shirt that provided a clearly distinguishable imprint of a handgun, then the officer might have probable cause for an arrest based on an interpretation of "failure to conceal", because the handgun is clearly recognizable. Does anyone want to push the limits and be a test case for the court system? Do you have enough money for attorney fees?

that's what TLS is for!!!


*running for cover*

 

[tx_transplant]

As for this bill, to me it has the look of a solution in search of a problem. And appears to be a bit of a political ploy. It comes across as pro gun legislation on it's surface, but really has no substance. It will be used by politicians in upcoming elections to show just how gun friendly they are.

I have read and heard from SO many people that are excited about printing and accidental exposure now being protected, I am dumbfounded. The belief that printing is an offense seems to be very widespread, and I don't get it. The penal code is pretty black and white, but yet people that have been taught otherwise just won't listen.

 

[JaredW]

Read on another website that the main thing this bill does is reverse the decision in the Dallas Court of Appeals in the McDermott case by adding the words "force or" before "deadly." This would allows CHLs to use TPC 9.04 to handle a situation, contrary to the holding in McDermott.

 

[BJG]

So, Graywolf, you're agreeing to be our test case?

 

[BJG]

Anyone who wants to clearly imprint their concealed handgun and give police officers a chance to see it, be my guest and please report back to us how the encounter went.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

Sorry, I don't have TLS! Otherwise...

 

[Renegade]

Anyone who wants to clearly imprint their concealed handgun and give police officers a chance to see it, be my guest and please report back to us how the encounter went.

That becomes intentional.

It is hard to intentionally replicate unintentional printing.

 

[BJG]

That becomes intentional.

It is hard to intentionally replicate unintentional printing.

Intent is something that is decided by the courts. Others on this thread suggested that printing of a concealed handgun was not illegal, as well as some that were either asking or felt that the requirement to conceal would be met even though a simple t-shirt was worn that could still show an outline of the pistol. I'm interested in knowing the court's opinion on an indistinguishable bulge versus a clear outline in regard to "failure to conceal". I believe the spirit of the new law that we're discussing is to protect the CHL holder in the event that his handgun becomes unintentionally visible (as in not covered by clothing) during a normal activity such as bending over, or if a gust of wind blows aside your coat. I'm not so sure that the law is making it ok to strap on a full-size 1911 in an OWB holster, slipping on a regular t-shirt, and calling it good. I guess my root question is: How perfectly must one conceal a handgun to satisfy the court's interpretation of "concealed"? And I'm not talking about an unintentional exposure. I'm talking about just standing there doing nothing at all while wearing your pistol covered by whatever your choice of clothing is.

 

[Renegade]

Intent is something that is decided by the courts..

Yep, and it sure helps if you did not do something intentionally, like at the request of someone on the internets....

 

[Bithabus]

Intent is something that is decided by the courts. Others on this thread suggested that printing of a concealed handgun was not illegal, as well as some that were either asking or felt that the requirement to conceal would be met even though a simple t-shirt was worn that could still show an outline of the pistol. I'm interested in knowing the court's opinion on an indistinguishable bulge versus a clear outline in regard to "failure to conceal". I believe the spirit of the new law that we're discussing is to protect the CHL holder in the event that his handgun becomes unintentionally visible (as in not covered by clothing) during a normal activity such as bending over, or if a gust of wind blows aside your coat. I'm not so sure that the law is making it ok to strap on a full-size 1911 in an OWB holster, slipping on a regular t-shirt, and calling it good. I guess my root question is: How perfectly must one conceal a handgun to satisfy the court's interpretation of "concealed"? And I'm not talking about an unintentional exposure. I'm talking about just standing there doing nothing at all while wearing your pistol covered by whatever your choice of clothing is.

I can tell you're new to this. Printing is not a concern in Texas. Unless you shrink wrap a t-shirt to yourself your gun will not be so conspicuous as to violate the current statute. The Police do not arrest people for a shirt blowing up or a jacket riding up. This is nonsense perpetuated by gun store commandos and worthless CHL instructors.

SB 299 does give us liscensed open carry in private locations not owned or controlled by the carrier, which is something we don't currently have. After Sept 1 you can have your friends over (assuming they have CHL) and hang out in your backyard or your house with your handguns openly displayed.

 

[Renegade]

SB 299 does give us liscensed open carry in private locations not owned or controlled by the carrier, which is something we don't currently have. After Sept 1 you can have your friends over (assuming they have CHL) and hang out in your backyard or your house with your handguns openly displayed.

BBQ FTW.

Where I really see it being advantage is on ranches and such. If I invite some friends over for hiking or 4-wheeling or horseback riding, they can now legally OC.