concealment question

[mikadopolus]

I just finished my class and forgot to ask one question. If you carry your gun on your hip with your shirt over it, but you can see the bulge of the gun, is it still considered concealed?

[Jules]

Bulge away my friend!

Welcome to the forum

[USA1]

I'll know it's a gun.

...but don't worry, I won't tell.

[texanron]

Welcome to the forum! Don't be concerned about the bulge. As long as your not "printing" you'll be fine.

[cougartex]

Welcome to the forum and congratulations on taking the CHL class.

[A-R]

Always helpful with these kinds of questions to review the relevant statutes. I AM NOT A LAWYER - so do your own analysis. But here is mine:

Nowhere in the statutes do we find a prohibition on "printing" or "bulging" etc. So a slight bulge under your shirt? No problem, IMHO.

However, if your shirt is so tight over your gun that it is obvious to the "ordinary observation of a reasonable person" that you have a gun under there (for instance you can see the outline of a revolver cylinder or can read the word "Colt" engraved into side of the grip through the shirt), then I think you're going to find yourself in hot water. Also, any motion toward that bulge with an accompanying threat like "yeah, what are you gonna do about it?" while tapping on the "bulge" around your beltline will likely land you in hot water.

Penal Code Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

Government Code 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.

Penal Code Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

In my non-legal opinion, PC 9.04 directly contradicts PC 46.035(h).

Penal Code Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

[Ameer]

A bulge is not illegal but neither is a slung AK. Ask yourself what you think would happen if someone thought the bulge was a gun and called 911 to report a MWAG and gave your description and location.

[carlson1]

Welcome to the forum! Don't be concerned about the bulge. As long as your not "printing" you'll be fine.

There is no law against "printing." I still like the ideal of not giving myself away, but there is not a law on "bulging" or " printing."

[sugar land dave]

Welcome to the forum! Don't be concerned about the bulge. As long as your not "printing" you'll be fine.

There is no law against "printing." I still like the ideal of not giving myself away, but there is not a law on "bulging" or " printing."

"Openly" means without concealment or without anything with obscures view.

[The Annoyed Man]

Welcome to the forum! Don't be concerned about the bulge. As long as your not "printing" you'll be fine.

"Printing" is not mentioned in the law. The law makes "intentional failure to conceal" illegal. Everybody prints. It's just a matter of degree. Legally, even if the observer could practically read the rollmarks on the slide through your tight-fitting shirt, you're not breaking any laws because nobody can KNOW for absolute certain that it is a gun making that bulge under your shirt until you lift your shirt up and show it to them. For all they know, it could be any one of a dozen different perfectly legitimate objects: cell phone; PDA; insulin pump; holter monitor; eyeglasses case; flashlight; compact camera case; etc., etc., etc.

Now, is it advisable to print as little as possible? Yes, absolutely it is advisable. But sooner or later, your gun is going to show its shape a little bit, like when you bend over and the butt makes your shirt stand out there a bit for instance. The secret is to strap it on, cover it up, and forget about it. Clothing choices help, and shirts with print patterns—like Hawaiian shirts for instance—help to break up the outlines of the gun.

[speedsix]

...I wear a pocket T all day...could wear a 2X but I buy 3X...more comfortable...more tail to cover my belt...loose enough to not telegraph my sixpack...I mean six-shot...

[texanron]

When I referenced "printing" I wasn't meaning that the word "printing" was specifically stated in the statues. I seem to recall a member here having an issue with a LEO arresting him because someone made him. Charges were dropped but it was a hassle.
In my CHL class the instructor placed a red gun under his jacket and pulled it tight enough to clearly show the outline of a firearm and informed us this was not acceptable. If I see him tomorrow at the range I'll seek clarification.
I now know to never use the term "printing" again. I'll stick with....uh...."as long as you don't knowingly fail to conceal you'll be ok".

[The Annoyed Man]

When I referenced "printing" I wasn't meaning that the word "printing" was specifically stated in the statues. I seem to recall a member here having an issue with a LEO arresting him because someone made him. Charges were dropped but it was a hassle.
In my CHL class the instructor placed a red gun under his jacket and pulled it tight enough to clearly show the outline of a firearm and informed us this was not acceptable. If I see him tomorrow at the range I'll seek clarification.
I now know to never use the term "printing" again. I'll stick with....uh...."as long as you don't knowingly fail to conceal you'll be ok".

Ron, no worries. The individual in question you mentioned actually unintentionally exposed his gun. He was at a tax office, or something like that, and when he stood up, his shirt had ridden up and his gun was momentarily exposed to a woman sitting behind him. It wasn't a matter of "printing."

She called the law, and he was confronted and arrested out in the parking lot, well after the unintentional exposure took place. As far as what your instructor told you... he's right. It's not acceptable. But neither is it illegal because it does not constitute "intentional failure to conceal." For that matter, our forum member who got arrested did not "intentionally fail to conceal" either, and you're right that he got arrested anyway. But at the end of the day, neither did he get convicted—which gives credence to the old adage that "you might beat the time, but you won't beat the ride." Yes, it was expensive, and it should have never happened, but he is a free man today—and there is a valuable lesson in it for all of us.

So with that in mind, it is obviously better to avoid printing to the extent that one is able to do so. But, I've repeatedly said, "strap it on, cover it up, and forget about it." IF you get too obsessive in your efforts, you might actually draw unwanted attention to yourself. Far better to take reasonable measures, and then relax about it. Example.... I've met forum member [InsertNameHere] a couple of times. The first time was when he came over to my house to check out a weekly Bible study we used to host to see if it was for him. He was carrying a .40 cal Glock—I don't remember if it was the compact G23 or the subcompact G27—in an IWB holster, a Crossbreed Supertuck or a Minotaur MTAC IIRC, under a T-shirt and jeans at approximately 4:00 o'clock.

Now, the first thing I noticed after he walked into my house and the introductions were over was that he quite obviously had a gun under his shirt. I could tell because A) there was a distinct and pronounced bulge on his right side under the shirt; and B) the grip of the gun was poking away from his body, in a "grip shape." But if you stop and think about it, I really only knew he had a gun on because A) I spend a lot of time thinking and writing about CHL issues and I have an educated eye; and B) we "met" here on a CHL forum. Naturally he was carrying a gun....why would I even think otherwise? Now, I never mentioned my observation to him. He's a grown man, and if he's comfortable with it, then who am I to tell him different? If he reads this post, he'll know it's him I'm talking about. But beyond that, when you remove my educated eye and informed observation from the equation; and when you remove the fact that we met on an Internet forum devoted to concealed carry so that I would naturally assume he was armed, I actually couldn't tell that it was specifically a gun under his shirt. All I really saw was a pronounced bulge produced by a squarish object......not enough for even an informed opinion to do anything more than suspect a gun. And by the way, he was printing much more than I normally do, which is why I don't worry about printing. It's not that I don't ever print, it's that I don't ever print sufficiently to remove all doubt from a legal perspective that I am carrying a gun.

So, my attitude is this: take reasonable care to conceal your weapon by making smart clothing choices and using a properly designed concealment holster with a proper gun belt, and then get used to the idea that you are armed and don't obsess about it. First of all, the vast majority of people walk around in Condition White, and they won't even notice the color of your eyes and hair—let alone that you have a bulge under your shirt. It simply isn't on their radar. The only people who are likely to even notice a bulge, let alone speculate about what is causing it, are going to be A) other CHLs (who tend not to live in Condition White); B) LEOs; and C) predators.

If the other person is a CHL, I don't care if he/she guesses I'm armed, and no CHL worth his/her salt is going to come out and ask a total stranger in a public place if that stranger is carrying a gun.

If the other person is an LEO, he/she is always free to ask me for ID. If he/she is out of uniform, my answer will be, "who are you?" Once they are identified to me as LEO, I will hand over both my TDL and CHL, and then their question will have been answered.

If the other person is a predator, I've likely already got my eye on them, as I don't live in Condition White......Spidey Sense, and all that....

[speedsix]

...TAM nailed it..."...take reasonable care..."