TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

can2boy wrote:i would have called security. ignorance of the law excuses no one.

The law says "intentional failure to conceal," not "printing while bending over in a rest room.

So what you're saying is ignorance of the law doesn't excuse ignorant posts?

On topic, I really do enjoy the "Your Second Amendment is showing" approach to helping out a fellow CHLer and letting them know they need to pull their shirt down.

longhorn_92 wrote:We should call security every time someone shows us their plumber's crack....now that is a crime!

i would have called security. ignorance of the law excuses no one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless Security in an off duty LEO hired as Security, or otherwise "comissioned", he would not be in a position to tell him to lift his T-shirt to expose the weapon, or to detain him until an LEO arrives.

TX CHL 1997
CO CHP 2005

Baba Brad wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but "printing" in itself is not against the law. Willful failure to conceal is not the same as printing.

Depends on your definition of "printing," and your interpretation of the definition of "concealed Handgun" in CG 411.171

Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

I would hope that "openly" means not covered by clothing under the law. But, if it means, "Completely obvious; blatant" then a gun thrown in a pocket of tight pants, where the outline of the gun is obvious to a "reasonable person," who knows what a DA might do?

rdcrags wrote:

i would have called security. ignorance of the law excuses no one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless Security in an off duty LEO hired as Security, or otherwise "comissioned", he would not be in a position to tell him to lift his T-shirt to expose the weapon, or to detain him until an LEO arrives.

TX CHL 1997
CO CHP 2005

As I read it, this is true. He might be better infomed than a LEO, though...?

G26ster wrote:

Baba Brad wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but "printing" in itself is not against the law. Willful failure to conceal is not the same as printing.

Depends on your definition of "printing," and your interpretation of the definition of "concealed Handgun" in CG 411.171

Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

I would hope that "openly" means not covered by clothing under the law. But, if it means, "Completely obvious; blatant" then a gun thrown in a pocket of tight pants, where the outline of the gun is obvious to a "reasonable person," who knows what a DA might do?

thank you! that's exactly what i read! now i know my handbook is a little outdated. (2005-06) but my instructor warned us and he put it in idiot terms. if somebody can outline a gun under your shirt then they can call the cops on you! OP can even tell that it was a glock. you can say printing is not a crime..... but what i'm asking is are you willing to take the chance! thank you. i'm done with this thread! good luck people and print all you want. to each is own...

can2boy wrote:

G26ster wrote:

Baba Brad wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but "printing" in itself is not against the law. Willful failure to conceal is not the same as printing.

Depends on your definition of "printing," and your interpretation of the definition of "concealed Handgun" in CG 411.171

Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

I would hope that "openly" means not covered by clothing under the law. But, if it means, "Completely obvious; blatant" then a gun thrown in a pocket of tight pants, where the outline of the gun is obvious to a "reasonable person," who knows what a DA might do?

thank you! that's exactly what i read! now i know my handbook is a little outdated. (2005-06) but my instructor warned us and he put it in idiot terms. if somebody can outline a gun under your shirt then they can call the cops on you! OP can even tell that it was a glock. you can say printing is not a crime..... but what i'm asking is are you willing to take the chance! thank you. i'm done with this thread! good luck people and print all you want. to each is own...

....don't pick up your marbles and go home yet..... I don't think anyone here really cares if you print or don't.... but, I think
you saying you'd call security on a fellow CC'er....well, that kinda tends to upset a lot of folks, me included. The "your 2nd ammendment is showing" comment shouldn't offend anyone. I for one, would greatly appreciate a fellow CHL holder pointing out an unintentional outline or print problem. However, I would definitely NOT appreciate someone intentionally trying to cause me
problems with LEO's or even a security guard by reporting me as "man with a gun" instead of giving me a discrete heads up.
YMMV

gemini wrote: I for one, would greatly appreciate a fellow CHL holder pointing out an unintentional outline or print problem. However, I would definitely NOT appreciate someone intentionally trying to cause me problems with LEO's or even a security guard by reporting me as "man with a gun" instead of giving me a discrete heads up.
YMMV

While i agree that giving a heads up would be nice, how would someone know that person has a CHL? What if that person is not allowed to carry at all and is carrying illegally? Personally, if the printing wasnt too bad, i wouldnt say anything. IMO, the majority of people who do not carry probably never even notice it or they would think its a cell phone. Would i have contacted the police or security? Probably not because i wouldnt want to cause that person legal problems.

cubbyjg wrote:While i agree that giving a heads up would be nice, how would someone know that person has a CHL? What if that person is not allowed to carry at all and is carrying illegally? Personally, if the printing wasnt too bad, i wouldnt say anything. IMO, the majority of people who do not carry probably never even notice it or they would think its a cell phone. Would i have contacted the police or security? Probably not because i wouldnt want to cause that person legal problems.

I would admit to stereotyping in such a situation. Does the person look to me like they would/should have a CHL? Do they look like a gang-banger?
Do they have a wife and kids nearby lending to a "legitimate" appearance? It is all very subjective I admit.

Purplehood wrote:

cubbyjg wrote:While i agree that giving a heads up would be nice, how would someone know that person has a CHL? What if that person is not allowed to carry at all and is carrying illegally? Personally, if the printing wasnt too bad, i wouldnt say anything. IMO, the majority of people who do not carry probably never even notice it or they would think its a cell phone. Would i have contacted the police or security? Probably not because i wouldnt want to cause that person legal problems.

I would admit to stereotyping in such a situation. Does the person look to me like they would/should have a CHL? Do they look like a gang-banger?
Do they have a wife and kids nearby lending to a "legitimate" appearance? It is all very subjective I admit.

Is he wearing a Hawaiian Shirt?....

can2boy wrote:i would have called security. ignorance of the law excuses no one.

I find breathing into a paper lunch sack helps after reading such a post. If that doesn’t work I repeat to myself “Life is crazy but I am calm" ten times which usually works.

i don't buy it one bit. if you need somebody else to tell you your gun is showing or printing...... hmmm. back to the drawing board

can2boy wrote:i would have called security. ignorance of the law excuses no one.

When an LEO pulls you over and gives you a warning, do you ask him to ticket you instead?

As Purplehood stated, i would also have to stereotype and ask similar questions before opening my mouth. I didnt think about that