I don't know, what they think is unclear.
The new law did not change anything about the concealment requirements. We are still required to conceal our guns (the definition of concealment can be found in the law).
The new law addresses ONLY unintentional exposure of the gun, which is in most cases a momentary event. Once you realize your gun is exposed (or someone points it out to you) — you are to conceal it immediately; otherwise it becomes intentional.
The same rule applies to printing. If it is some formless, ambiguous protrusion — you have nothing to worry about. If you can clearly see the shape of the gun (or even the make of the gun with a serial number
), then it is NO LONGER A CONCEALED WEAPON.I don't really understand what the debates are about. Somehow people managed to infer that the "printing" is an equivalent to the unintentional exposure of the gun.
Well, if you know that your gun is printing to the point that you can tell it is a gun — then it is intentional.
The short version: if an average observer can tell that you have a gun (even if it is fully covered) — then you are failing to conceal.
CONCEALED does not mean simply COVERED. It means HIDDEN, KEPT SECRET, INDISCERNABLE.
Therefore, if you are walking around with a clear gun-shaped protrusion on your hip — it is NO LONGER SECRET, NOR IS IT HIDDEN.
The new law has not changed the definition of "CONCEALED."
That's just my 2 cents on the issue.
