TexasCHLforum.com

That's right, that's what I'm saying.

Usually the concern over printing, which is what the op was about, is associated with the process, or lack thereof, of fulfilling concealment per 411.171. The argument goes something like this...'I can't let my gun 'print' (or give itself away) because some reasonable person might openly discern that a handgun is present. And if it does then I am guilty of having a non-concealed handgun and have failed to conceal.' That used to be true until they more clearly defined that we must now intentionally display the gun in view of a person in public in order to be guilty. Keep in mind that no degree of display is specified. It doesn't say how much of the gun must be visible to be considered displayed.

That's great for us since we now have a clearer picture of what we must do to be guilty of non-concealment.

My point, especially as it relates to the concern of printing, is that while the above is true, 411.171 still is the definition of the word concealed where ever it is used, such as 30.05f2 and other places, unless there is a subsection specific definition covering it.

And to that point, I think so called printing, in view of the new rule, is much less of a concern than it used to be.

Yes, I think we are on the same page.

Sorry if I was the cause of any confusion.

tex

[quote="Keith B"]

PC 30.05 (f)(2) does not define what concealed is at all.

[quote]

And your point is?

What do you think the purpose of 411.171 is if not to define what they mean by concealed in the rest of the statutes (unless superseded by a subsection specific definition)?

tex

Keith B wrote:

thetexan wrote:... The test as it relates to printing, the subject of the op, is whether or not a gun is concealed, by definition, for those purposes where concealment is a requirement of the rule. I merely point out that where concealed is used as a criteria we turn to that definition to determine what constitutes concealed or non concealed. For example PC 30.05 f2. ...

PC 30.05 (f)(2) does not define what concealed is at all. {Correct} It just provides a defenses to prosecution if the person has a CHL and the only purpose for trying to charge them with trespass is they were carrying a concealed {? where do we go to find this definition?} weapon. 46.035 is the only place that the definition exists.{no, it is does not define what a concealed handgun is. It defines what constitutes displaying a handgun, more specifically, it defines the offense, more specifically still that the display must be intentional and in plain view of another person in a public place} And, printing is not illegal, period. As one instructor puts it 'Unless you can read the shirt is so tight you can read Glock on the grip of the gun then you are not in violation. {in this we agree, as I stated previously}

TPC 30.05
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun {the definition of concealed handgun used here is found in 411.171 as I stated earlier} of the same category the person was
carrying.

Don't confuse the definition of as concealed handgun (which relates to printing) with the definition of the offense of displaying a handgun...which is another way of describing an offense where one takes a 411.171 defined concealed handgun and displays it publically and intentionally to another person.

I think it is a mistake to interpret that 46.035 uses the word display to redefine or replace concealment defined in 411.171. I seems clear to me that the two work flawlessly together. They are talking about two different things...one the definition of concealed and by inversion unconcealed and two, what it takes to take a concealed handgun and become guilty of exposing it, or displaying it.

Everywhere you read the word 'concealed' in statute you can refer to 411.171 to find the definition. If you want to know what it takes to be guilty of 46.035 display, look to that definition.

You're certainly correct about intentionally displaying which is different from the previous 'fail to conceal'. I'm referring to the definition of a concealed handgun and by extension the definition of an unconcealed handgun. The test as it relates to printing, the subject of the op, is whether or not a gun is concealed, by definition, for those purposes where concealment is a requirement of the rule. I merely point out that where concealed is used as a criteria we turn to that definition to determine what constitutes concealed or non concealed. For example PC 30.05 f2.

The new intentional display standard applies to what one must do to be guilty of carrying a non concealed handgun,which,otherwise by statute must be concealed.

We have no disagreement.
Tex

The only test, of course, is whether a reasonable person using his ordinary observation can openly discern the presence of your handgun. 'Printing', the term we have coined to mean that something about your gun is 'showing through', is not actually defined or used in statute. As long as a person cannot point at your waist and reasonably argue that he openly discerns that you have a pistol you have not 'revealed' or 'unconcealed' your weapon. The key word here is the adverb 'openly'.

We all know what discern means. I might say that I discern that you are sad, or I discern that you are wearing Jockey underwear, or I discern that you are hungry. My discernment is a very nebulous thing almost unchallengeable. Who are you to say that I don't discern something? I suspect that using only the word 'discern' in the statute caused the writers to pause. They must have realized that there needed to be a modifier to it, and added 'openly' which seems to add a stricter definition to the less specific 'discern'. But what does 'openly discernible' mean. There appears to be no legal definition of that phrase so we must turn to the ordinary and common definition and usage. Here are some of the synonyms for the word 'openly' modifying 'discernible'...

blatantly, brazenly, candidly, face to face, flagrantly, forthrightly, fully, honestly, plainly, publicly, readily, simply, unabashedly, unashamedly, willingly, aboveboard, artlessly, frankly, in broad daylight, in full view, in public, in the open, ingenuously, naively, naturally, shamelessly, straight, under one's nose, unhesitatingly, unreservedly, wantonly, warts and all, without pretense, without reserve

My research has found no case law where this has been interpreted and if not, and until it is, it will be up to each prosecutor and judge to decide what that means. Reasonable and openly discernible are a pretty high standard to meet. Simpy believing that you discern my possession of a firearm must meet a test of reasonableness based on not simply being discernible but OPENLY discernible, whatever that means.

Two of the basic canons of statutory interpretation is that each word should be treated as if it was used for deliberate meaning, and that the legislature knows how to say what it means and means what it says.

tex