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

[BJG]

I was a police detective in south Louisiana. As to me using the term "imprinting", it was a typographical error. I know that the correct term is "printing". Many others were using the term "imprinting" and it was stuck in my mind.

As for establishing criminal intent, I'm well aware of what is necessary. (In Louisiana, there is specific intent and general intent, and the degree of intent needed to prove an offense varies with the severity of the crime.)


Let's say that I choose to conceal carry my full-sized 1911 in an OWB holster. During the winter, I would be wearing a coat in public which would adequately conceal my pistol. Conceal meaning that if a police officer saw me, he would have no idea that I'm even carrying a pistol. Even if he saw a slight bulge at certain angles, he might not know if it's a handgun, a cell phone case, or something else. Now summer comes around and I want to continue to carry my 1911 in my OWB holster because that's all I have. Of course I won't wear a coat in 100-degree Texas heat, so I decide to wear a comfortable, thin shirt as my covering garment. The pistol is entirely contained within the length of my shirt, but now when that police officer sees me in public, the outline of the pistol grip and holster is relatively easily discernible. Now, I had no intent to violate any laws, I simply wanted to carry my pistol comfortably. The officer stops me because he can clearly see that I have a handgun under my shirt, and asks for my CHL. I tell the officer that I was not trying to be detected, and that I simply could not wear my coat because it was too hot outside. Just wearing my shirt alone is much more comfortable. Do you think that the officer would believe or be satisfied by my response? Do I satisfy the state's definition of "concealed" in relation to carrying a handgun?


While the above is a hypothetical situation, it's one in which some others on this discussion thread are deeming as one that I would be within my rights with and should not fear arrest or prosecution. Is that the case?

 

[schang]

I was a police detective in south Louisiana. As to me using the term "imprinting", it was a typographical error. I know that the correct term is "printing". Many others were using the term "imprinting" and it was stuck in my mind.

As for establishing criminal intent, I'm well aware of what is necessary. (In Louisiana, there is specific intent and general intent, and the degree of intent needed to prove an offense varies with the severity of the crime.)


Let's say that I choose to conceal carry my full-sized 1911 in an OWB holster. During the winter, I would be wearing a coat in public which would adequately conceal my pistol. Conceal meaning that if a police officer saw me, he would have no idea that I'm even carrying a pistol. Even if he saw a slight bulge at certain angles, he might not know if it's a handgun, a cell phone case, or something else. Now summer comes around and I want to continue to carry my 1911 in my OWB holster because that's all I have. Of course I won't wear a coat in 100-degree Texas heat, so I decide to wear a comfortable, thin shirt as my covering garment. The pistol is entirely contained within the length of my shirt, but now when that police officer sees me in public, the outline of the pistol grip and holster is relatively easily discernible. Now, I had no intent to violate any laws, I simply wanted to carry my pistol comfortably. The officer stops me because he can clearly see that I have a handgun under my shirt, and asks for my CHL. I tell the officer that I was not trying to be detected, and that I simply could not wear my coat because it was too hot outside. Just wearing my shirt alone is much more comfortable. Do you think that the officer would believe or be satisfied by my response? Do I satisfy the state's definition of "concealed" in relation to carrying a handgun?


While the above is a hypothetical situation, it's one in which some others on this discussion thread are deeming as one that I would be within my rights with and should not fear arrest or prosecution. Is that the case?

Well said! That is my question... and I still don't know the answer. <shrug>

 

[BJG]

You cannot get a definitive answer for my hypothetical (yet very valid) situation because the law has yet to be fully tested. I cannot find any cases where the above incident occurred (or a similar incident), where an arrest was made and a decision handed down by the courts. I do not believe that the summer carry situation I described satisfies the state's definition of a properly concealed handgun, regardless of intent. And speaking of intent, the excuse I gave the officer in my hypothetical situation for obvious printing made no sense to a reasonable person. How could I not know that the handgun would be so easily detected? And if I gave no statement at all for my actions, still, I think that a reasonable person would conclude that I must have intended for the handgun to be easily seen.

The vast majority of CHL holders are very responsible people and are not likely to push the envelope to see how much a handgun can "print" before a police officer intervenes. Who wants to risk suspension and/or revocation of their CHL to prove a point? Simply ensure that your handgun is as undetectable as possible and you're good to go. If the wind blows your shirt up and exposes the pistol, it's ok because the law has that covered. But to say that it's ok to clearly "print" a concealed handgun because it's not a crime in Texas is irresponsible. The law is still somewhat vague and untested, and is still open to what a police officer might deem and testify to as an intentional failure to conceal (not talking about unintentional exposure).

 

[txinvestigator]

I was a police detective in south Louisiana. As to me using the term "imprinting", it was a typographical error. I know that the correct term is "printing". Many others were using the term "imprinting" and it was stuck in my mind.

As for establishing criminal intent, I'm well aware of what is necessary. (In Louisiana, there is specific intent and general intent, and the degree of intent needed to prove an offense varies with the severity of the crime.)


Let's say that I choose to conceal carry my full-sized 1911 in an OWB holster. During the winter, I would be wearing a coat in public which would adequately conceal my pistol. Conceal meaning that if a police officer saw me, he would have no idea that I'm even carrying a pistol. Even if he saw a slight bulge at certain angles, he might not know if it's a handgun, a cell phone case, or something else. Now summer comes around and I want to continue to carry my 1911 in my OWB holster because that's all I have. Of course I won't wear a coat in 100-degree Texas heat, so I decide to wear a comfortable, thin shirt as my covering garment. The pistol is entirely contained within the length of my shirt, but now when that police officer sees me in public, the outline of the pistol grip and holster is relatively easily discernible. Now, I had no intent to violate any laws, I simply wanted to carry my pistol comfortably. The officer stops me because he can clearly see that I have a handgun under my shirt, and asks for my CHL. I tell the officer that I was not trying to be detected, and that I simply could not wear my coat because it was too hot outside. Just wearing my shirt alone is much more comfortable. Do you think that the officer would believe or be satisfied by my response? Do I satisfy the state's definition of "concealed" in relation to carrying a handgun?


While the above is a hypothetical situation, it's one in which some others on this discussion thread are deeming as one that I would be within my rights with and should not fear arrest or prosecution. Is that the case?

Our intent does not refer to an intent to violate the law. The intent necessary for an offense is the intent not to conceal. Our Government Code defines concealed firearm as one whose presence is not discernable to a person of normal observation.

I would argue that a police officer is a person of extraordinary observation.

So the answer to your scenario, IMO, is that it depends on the actual visibility of the outline of the handgun. Hope this makes sense.....

 

[BJG]

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.

 

[Younggun]

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

I think you would get a lecture from the officer about proper concealment and why your handgun is not concealed.

Printing is not illegal. But it seems to me if you put your shirt on and look in the mirror and thing "wow, you can really tell I got a gun in my hip" and go out anyways you now intend to go out with it plainly visible.

From their it will be the officers discretion on how he or she decides to handle the situation.

I'm just a guy with a CHL so maybe TXI or one of the LEOs can chime in an say how far off base I am.

The reason we say printing is not illegal is because it's not. People freak out because there is a visible bump under their shirt because of the grip. I don't care if someone realizes I have a gun but until we get OC in Texas I attempt to take the advantages the CC offers. That means if I have to raise my shirt to draw my gun I don't want the BG to know its their so I try to keep it hidden fairly well.

I do go out at times when it would be fairly easy to someone who was observant to figure out there was a good chance I had a gun on me, but they would have to be looking for it and 99% of the population is not going to be.

 

[BJG]

Maybe we're thinking of different definitions when we refer to "printing" of a concealed handgun. 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. I would not consider printing to be a slight bulge that could easily be caused by any other number of normal, everyday objects.

Still, I'm not so confident in the clarity of the law and/or the consistent discretion of each police officer.

 

[Younggun]

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

Still don't feel that would be a problem.

Now if it looks like you starched your shirt in to the shape of the gun.....lol.

 

[Bithabus]

Maybe we're thinking of different definitions when we refer to "printing" of a concealed handgun. 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.

This is not failure to conceal. Concealed carry does not mean deep cover carry. It is OK if someone "suspects" you are carrying. If a peace Officer asks to see your creds, just show him. There are no cases because nobody has been arrested for this. It is not a concern.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

not legal

Expanding on what bithabus said, they can OC if the activity uses that gun. Hunting does, target shooting does, etc. Other things like BBQ, 4-wheeling, hiking, etc do not. In summary, a landowner can not give permission to OC on their property, just as they cannot give permission to DUI on their property.

hmmm, guess someone should let my local gun range know...all the employees open carry...

 

[Bithabus]

hmmm, guess someone should let my local gun range know...all the employees open carry...

Do people at your range engage in target shooting?

 

[Charlie]

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.

I've been carrying concealed, outside the waistband, 1911 (small, medium, and large), in Texas for 18 yrs.+. When and if it gets cold, I've got a coat on. When it's hot (90% of the time), I wear light shirts, T shirts, fishing shirts, etc. I've never been asked about it, harassed, kidded about, or even noticed by anyone (to my knowledge) and many of my friends are associated with law enforcement. So your scenario has been tested (not necessarily on purpose) on a daily basis for more than 6000 days. This subject has been debated many times and those that are new to concealed carry seem to be the only one's worried about it (and many times because of what their CHL class instructor told them). A lot of non-believers come on forums, ask questions, get the law quoted to them, and then argue about it when they don't get the answer they like. If an individual feels like they have to carry IWB wearing three layers of clothing with shirt tails down a foot below their waistline, so be it. Just my two bits.

 

[Renegade]

hmmm, guess someone should let my local gun range know...all the employees open carry...

hmm, guess you missed my first sentence.

 

[Charlie]

Expanding on what bithabus said, they can OC if the activity uses that gun. Hunting does, target shooting does, etc. Other things like BBQ, 4-wheeling, hiking, etc do not. In summary, a landowner can not give permission to OC on their property, just as they cannot give permission to DUI on their property.

Plinkin' is an activity, right? So you can BBQ, 4-wheel, hike, etc. as long as you're plinkin' while you're doin' it! Not being a smart ass, just that it's what we do when we go to the ranch in Mt. Home. Mostly eatin' and hiking around (plinking). So we're legal, right?

 

[Renegade]

Plinkin' is an activity, right? So you can BBQ, 4-wheel, hike, etc. as long as you're plinkin' while you're doin' it! Not being a smart ass, just that that's what we do when we go to the ranch in Mt. Home. Mostly eatin' and hiking around (plinking). So we're legal, right?

Yes, but you have missed the entire point of what sb299 is going to allow, which is you will soon be able to OC when you are not engaged in any firearm activity.

 

[BJG]

Some of you guys are still very confident in your position of how permissive the "failure to conceal" aspect is, and how much one can acceptably "print" a concealed handgun. I say if you're that confident, then test your theory in front of 10 different police officers.

 

[Charlie]

Yes, but you have missed the entire point of what sb299 is going to allow, which is you will soon be able to OC when you are not engaged in any firearm activity.

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).

 

[Charlie]

Some of you guys are still very confident in your position of how permissive the "failure to conceal" aspect is, and how much one can acceptably "print" a concealed handgun. I say if you're that confident, then test your theory in front of 10 different police officers.

Would 4 officers be good enough? Like when you meet them for lunch at the cafe (3 or 4 times a month?).

 

[Bithabus]

Some of you guys are still very confident in your position of how permissive the "failure to conceal" aspect is, and how much one can acceptably "print" a concealed handgun. I say if you're that confident, then test your theory in front of 10 different police officers.

Thousands of people do that every day. I do that every day. You don't know what you are talking about.

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).

It was not legal, unless your friends were engaged in a firearm related sporting activity. Just because they got away with it doesnt mean it was legal. After Sept 1 OC BBQ or OC 4 wheeling parties will be legal.

 

[BJG]

Would 4 officers be good enough? Like when you meet them for lunch at the cafe (3 or 4 times a month?).

You know them personally, so you'll be the recipient of favoritism, so that's not really what I'm talking about. Try it with some of the hard-asses in downtown Dallas.