Texas conceal carry printing rumor or fact?

[TX1911fan]

Beaux Nehr, statutory law does NOT mean case law. Case law means case law. Statutory law means the statutes passed by the Legislature and included in the Code.

 

[Beaux Nehr]

What exactly do you find vague about the wording of Texas law?

Nonsense. Cite it please. If you threaten someone with a gun that's not the same thing as "printing". Totally different concept. This is a discussion about accidentally displaying your firearm when you bend over in Winn Dixie to get Doritos from the bottom shelf, not threatening an ex wife with a gun under a shirt.

Hi TexasRifleman, if you'll go back and read my post, you'll see that I included the answers to the arguments you're posing here.

Thanks



Please allow me to further clarify, TX1911Fan.

By "means", I meant to write, "I meant." I guess I should've just written common law and been done with it

 

[duns]

... these kinds of "oops my shirt slipped up" things simply don't result in catastrophes, shootings, arrests, public panic, etc. It just doesn't happen enough, if at all, to be concerned about.

The OP wasn't asking about the "oops my shirt slipped up" scenario but about printing through clothing. By my reading of the law, if the printing is so blatant that you must have known you were doing it, then it would be an intentional failure to conceal and an offense.

I have not been able to find any cases where printing was prosecuted - I tried Google scholar search as well as doing a general Google search. But Google Scholar seems to mainly return Appeal Court judgments. I have not been able to find any website where one can find out the judgments in ordinary every day court cases -- does anyone know of such a website? It would be really useful to know of such a website in order to clarify not just this question but many other hazy aspects of concealed carry law. As it is, we get everyone offering their own interpretations of the law and no one able to cite case law so that we can know exactly how a court might interpret the law.

 

[Boba Fett]

My problem with all of this is that it makes many people worry so much that they stop carrying. I've talked to people over the years that are so convinced of this that they don't renew their CHL's. That's a real shame and it's why I hate to see this told and retold so much without any evidence of it ever happening.

Now I understand your concern about such warnings from CHL instructors. I wasn't aware that people were doing that. I don't think anyone should stop carrying because they might print and someone could jump to the wrong conclusion. Especially when it's so simple to prevent.

I do think, and I believe this is how our instructor intended it, that people should practice good carry methods and be aware of their movements when they carry a firearm.
Have a good holster that protects you and your firearm and will prevent printing. Practice with your carry method of choice and be aware of the movements and actions (simple things like crouching versus bending over) that might cause your firearm to be exposed.

I've carried for several years now. I'm not paranoid or freaked out about a possible exposure or printing (certainly not to the point that I'd ever stop carrying), but I am conscious of how I'm carrying and my surroundings where I'm carrying.

 

[TexasRifleman]

By my reading of the law, if the printing is so blatant that you must have known you were doing it, then it would be an intentional failure to conceal and an offense.

Show the law on printing. Show where it's written anywhere that the outline of a handgun through clothes is not still concealed.

Show where someone was arrested for this in Texas. It's not doing any good to continue to insist that it's a crime when there is not one piece of evidence of any kind showing that it is. It may be, or it may not be. The law is not clear specifically on this idea of "printing". Well, "not clear" isn't exactly true. It's not mentioned at all. What IS clear is that it doesn't appear that ANYONE has ever been prosecuted for it in Texas.

I have not been able to find any cases where printing was prosecuted -

I really doubt there are any. I can't imagine a DA wasting his time on something like this, even if a cop arrested someone for it.

 

[waterhouse]

My problem with all of this is that it makes many people worry so much that they stop carrying.

I agree. I've asked people for their CHL in lieu on running s NICS check, guys that I know have had CHLs for years, and they say things like "it expired and I always worried it might show through my shirt, so it just isn't worth the trouble."

If you don't want to carry a gun, that's your choice. If you don't want to take the class and pay the money, I understand. But the fact that people are not carrying because they heard that printing or their shirt riding up is brandishing/a crime/will get you in trouble always bothered me. I try to tell them otherwise but most folks assume their gun dealer doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.

 

[duns]

Show the law on printing. Show where it's written anywhere that the outline of a handgun through clothes is not still concealed.

The law does not have to enumerate every possible scenario by which one might intentionally fail to conceal.

Show the law on printing. Show where it's written anywhere that the outline of a handgun through clothes is not still concealed. It's not doing any good to continue to insist that it's a crime when there is not one piece of evidence of any kind showing that it is.

The evidence for it being a crime is in the wording of the laws that I quoted earlier. Intentionally making the presence of the handgun openly discernible by ordinary observation to a reasonable person is a crime. If you intentionally make the presence of the handgun known by letting it clearly show through clothing, then that fits the description of the crime as described in the statute.

What IS clear is that it doesn't appear that ANYONE has ever been prosecuted for it in Texas.
I really doubt there are any. I can't imagine a DA wasting his time on something like this, even if a cop arrested someone for it.

Unless you have the ability to search the court records for trials/convictions under Section 46.035 (a), then you have no idea whether or not anyone has ever been prosecuted or convicted for printing and you are just speculating as we all are.

 

[TX1911fan]

duns, in Texas, only appellate and up decisions are reported, so you won't find any trial court decisions in a Google search. That's why you only found appellate decisions. The only way you'll know what happened in a trial court in Texas is if you find a newspaper report or you know the actual case and you search for the public transcript.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The only way you'll know what happened in a trial court in Texas is if you find a newspaper report or you know the actual case and you search for the public transcript.

People have been looking at this for years, this isn't a new topic. This idea of "printing" came up when Texas CHL's first came out, and in all those years no one can find a reference case to someone being charged with this supposed crime.

This just seems to be a non issue, not sure why people want to wring their hands over it.

 

[One-Time]

Sure is a lot of arguing over a simple point of law

It says intentionally, so if it in a front pocket and happens to print you are fine, if you DELIBERATELY show the gun it is then a violation of the law

I sure wish Floridas law was that clear

 

[MCgunner]

Hmm, what about this guy seen riding around the Houston area?

 

[Beaux Nehr]

So, would it be advisable to put on an undershirt and pants, put a 1911 in a cheap IWB holster and then go for a stroll through downtown Austin? So far, I've learned from this thread that it isn't illegal.

 

[tulsamal]

I'll tell you what my instructor said since it makes sense to me. I was asking him about carrying a gun on my belt inside of a Wilderness Safepacker. "Some people" had tried to tell me that carrying it that way wouldn't "be concealed because everybody will know what is inside of it." My instructor said there is a simple test the police would use if someone claimed to "see that guy over there has a gun."

"Was the gun an auto or a revolver?"

"Was it black, blue, silver, or what color?"

"Were the grips wood or plastic?"

If the person can't answer any of those questions, then they didn't "see" your gun!! "I saw a suspicious lump" isn't the same thing.

And I've carried my Safepacker every day since then.

Gregg

 

[dogtown tom]

How dare you....

tulsamal I'll tell you what my instructor said since it makes sense to me. I was asking him about carrying a gun on my belt inside of a Wilderness Safepacker. "Some people" had tried to tell me that carrying it that way wouldn't "be concealed because everybody will know what is inside of it." My instructor said there is a simple test the police would use if someone claimed to "see that guy over there has a gun."

"Was the gun an auto or a revolver?"

"Was it black, blue, silver, or what color?"

"Were the grips wood or plastic?"

If the person can't answer any of those questions, then they didn't "see" your gun!! "I saw a suspicious lump" isn't the same thing.

And I've carried my Safepacker every day since then.

Gregg

How dare you sir? Bringing common sense to a silly argument is an internet faux pas.

You have been warned.






.

 

[duns]

My instructor said there is a simple test the police would use if someone claimed to "see that guy over there has a gun."

"Was the gun an auto or a revolver?"

"Was it black, blue, silver, or what color?"

"Were the grips wood or plastic?"

If the person can't answer any of those questions, then they didn't "see" your gun!!

What an excellent test to determine if a handgun is concealed! Thanks for posting it.

As you say, if the observer can't answer any of the above questions, they haven't "seen" your gun. But what if the observer was able to answer the first question, i.e. from the printing the observer could say "It was a revolver". Have they then "seen" your gun?

 

[NavyLCDR]

"Was the gun an auto or a revolver?"

"Was it black, blue, silver, or what color?"

"Were the grips wood or plastic?"

I've also heard police use the "plain sight" rule as an excuse to conduct an illegal search by running a gun's serial number when they hold a gun during a stop "for officer safety". So if they are going to use the plain sight rule as a basis for that, would not a legitimate question to add to the list be, "What was the serial number of the gun?"

 

[Art Eatman]

Pore ol' horse...