Printing

[Skiprr]

Some observations from a year ago about printing, gun belts, carry positions, and concealment fabrics: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41774&p=502898#p502898" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MasterOfNone]

Solid colors help as do patterns.

So, umm, what else is there besides solid colors and patterns?

Transparent and sheer (though I suspect he meant dark colors).

[WildBill]

Solid colors help as do patterns.

So, umm, what else is there besides solid colors and patterns?

Transparent and sheer (though I suspect he meant dark colors).

There are regular and irregular patterns. Geometric shapes such as triangles and poka-dots probably aren't as good for concealing as camo or Hawaiian shirt patterns.

[Excaliber]

there is no law against printing

This is an over-simplification. To quote GC 411.171(3):

"Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Nothing in this definition says that the gun must be seen. If a "reasonable person" using "ordinary observation" can "openly discern" "the presence of" the gun, it is not concealed.

That means that any reasonable person looking at it would know for sure it's a gun. That's a deliberately high threshold, and much different than someone who sees a lump under someone's clothing and guesses it's a gun when others presented with the same sight might guess it could be anything from a cell phone to a tool pouch to a chemotherapy pump.

[MasterOfNone]

there is no law against printing

This is an over-simplification. To quote GC 411.171(3):

"Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Nothing in this definition says that the gun must be seen. If a "reasonable person" using "ordinary observation" can "openly discern" "the presence of" the gun, it is not concealed.

That means that any reasonable person looking at it would know for sure it's a gun. That's a deliberately high threshold, and much different than someone who sees a lump under someone's clothing and guesses it's a gun when others presented with the same sight might guess it could be anything from a cell phone to a tool pouch to a chemotherapy pump.

My concern has always been the blanket statement that "printing is not illegal." It gives the impression that any gun that is covered by fabric is concealed. In reality, a severe degree of printing can be a failure to conceal.

[Excaliber]

there is no law against printing

This is an over-simplification. To quote GC 411.171(3):

"Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Nothing in this definition says that the gun must be seen. If a "reasonable person" using "ordinary observation" can "openly discern" "the presence of" the gun, it is not concealed.

to
That means that any reasonable person looking at it would know for sure it's a gun. That's a deliberately high threshold, and much different than someone who sees a lump under someone's clothing and guesses it's a gun when others presented with the same sight might guess it could be anything from a cell phone to a tool pouch to a chemotherapy pump.

My concern has always been the blanket statement that "printing is not illegal." It gives the impression that any gun that is covered by fabric is concealed. In reality, a severe degree of printing can be a failure to conceal.

While that's theoretically correct, it's not a practical problem.

You'd probably be really uncomfortable yourself if you went out in public in a condition like that.

It would be the CHL equivalent of failing to secure one's zipper.

[speedsix]

...it's amazing how unobservant most people are...a child would likely notice and question before an adult would...

[Jumping Frog]

My concern has always been the blanket statement that "printing is not illegal." It gives the impression that any gun that is covered by fabric is concealed. In reality, a severe degree of printing can be a failure to conceal.

Fortunately, mere failure to conceal is not illegal. INTENTIONAL failure to conceal is the crime. Arguing over the color of fabric begs the question. As long as it is covered AT ALL it seems difficult to prove intent. The crime is not reckless or negligent failure to conceal.

[smilner01]

there is no law against printing

This is an over-simplification. To quote GC 411.171(3):

"Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Nothing in this definition says that the gun must be seen. If a "reasonable person" using "ordinary observation" can "openly discern" "the presence of" the gun, it is not concealed.

Not really "printing", but I recently pirchased a crossbreed supertuck and wonder about exposed belt clips. I notice them sometimes on others, but I don't think the 'average' person would know what they are for.

[WildBill]

there is no law against printing

This is an over-simplification. To quote GC 411.171(3):

"Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Nothing in this definition says that the gun must be seen. If a "reasonable person" using "ordinary observation" can "openly discern" "the presence of" the gun, it is not concealed.

Not really "printing", but I recently pirchased a crossbreed supertuck and wonder about exposed belt clips. I notice them sometimes on others, but I don't think the 'average' person would know what they are for.

Don't be concerned. Belt clips are belt clips. They could be for anything.