TexasCHLforum.com

I know a lot of people who wear a proper holster and colored T-shirts and there is no printing.

I guess if you are wearing an Uncle Mike's holster and a skin tight white T-shirt then there might be a problem.

texanjoker wrote:

nyj wrote:

texanjoker wrote:IMO if a person is walking around with a thin t shirt and the gun is clearly outlined that is not properly concealed and not an accidental exposure. The law change benefits somebody from an accidental exposure. Does that fall under intentionally fails to conceal? That is the $2 question. Best to conceal it with more then a thin t shirt.

That's very subjective. You may interpret my 'hump' on my side under my shirt as a gun, but your average person won't even notice. A gun will never truly print it's outline unless you are wearing tight clothing.

His statement implies you can see the outline of the gun and holster. IMO that is not concealed.

Yes, but would the man be guilty of "intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place."? That is what the law says now. And cases made by overzealous DAs aside, that is how it should be adjudicated, IMO.

StrangeBulge wrote:

jmra wrote:

Jim88 wrote:

For instance, if I am wearing just a T-shirt ...

If you're just wearing a t-shirt, you'll have a different kind of failure to conceal problem.

Failure to conceal is not a problem anymore ... "Just a t-shirt" would be an intentional display

HAHA very funny!!! You know what I meant!!

K.Mooneyham wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

nyj wrote:

texanjoker wrote:IMO if a person is walking around with a thin t shirt and the gun is clearly outlined that is not properly concealed and not an accidental exposure. The law change benefits somebody from an accidental exposure. Does that fall under intentionally fails to conceal? That is the $2 question. Best to conceal it with more then a thin t shirt.

That's very subjective. You may interpret my 'hump' on my side under my shirt as a gun, but your average person won't even notice. A gun will never truly print it's outline unless you are wearing tight clothing.

His statement implies you can see the outline of the gun and holster. IMO that is not concealed.

Yes, but would the man be guilty of "intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place."? That is what the law says now. And cases made by overzealous DAs aside, that is how it should be adjudicated, IMO.

This would be a tough question that could be decided by a jury. Even if it didn't' get that far, people seeing a gun are going to call 911. That happens all the time. CHL is a "concealed" handgun license. IMO it is best to be properly concealed.

The problem with so much of the let the jury and judge sort it out mentality is that people have to spend their own money, emotion, time and effort defending themselves while the government DA's and courts are operating on other people's money and are doing it for a living. Defending one's self in court can bankrupt a person. Isn't it too easy to say, let's arrest them and let the courts sort it out?

I would like to think if someone was "printing" as discussed here, a cop, would let the person know and advise them to do a better job of covering. It just doesn't rise to the level of citing or arresting someone in my mind.

texanjoker wrote:

nyj wrote:

texanjoker wrote:IMO if a person is walking around with a thin t shirt and the gun is clearly outlined that is not properly concealed and not an accidental exposure. The law change benefits somebody from an accidental exposure. Does that fall under intentionally fails to conceal? That is the $2 question. Best to conceal it with more then a thin t shirt.

That's very subjective. You may interpret my 'hump' on my side under my shirt as a gun, but your average person won't even notice. A gun will never truly print it's outline unless you are wearing tight clothing.

His statement implies you can see the outline of the gun and holster. IMO that is not concealed.

It does not matter anymore after September 1, 2013. There is no more "intentionally failure to conceal" in the law.

Beiruty wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

nyj wrote:

texanjoker wrote:IMO if a person is walking around with a thin t shirt and the gun is clearly outlined that is not properly concealed and not an accidental exposure. The law change benefits somebody from an accidental exposure. Does that fall under intentionally fails to conceal? That is the $2 question. Best to conceal it with more then a thin t shirt.

That's very subjective. You may interpret my 'hump' on my side under my shirt as a gun, but your average person won't even notice. A gun will never truly print it's outline unless you are wearing tight clothing.

His statement implies you can see the outline of the gun and holster. IMO that is not concealed.

It does not matter anymore after September 1, 2013. There is no more "intentionally failure to conceal" in the law.

Exacto

WildBill wrote:

texanjoker wrote:IMO if a person is walking around with a thin t shirt and the gun is clearly outlined that is not properly concealed and not an accidental exposure. The law change benefits somebody from an accidental exposure. Does that fall under intentionally fails to conceal? That is the $2 question. Best to conceal it with more then a thin t shirt.

IMO, if a person can easily tell that you have a gun under your thin t-shirt, then it is not concealed.

I agree that it's not properly concealed.
I don't agree that it is a non-accidental exposure. However, texanjoker brings up a good point that certainly could be argued...

cb1000rider wrote:

WildBill wrote:

texanjoker wrote:IMO if a person is walking around with a thin t shirt and the gun is clearly outlined that is not properly concealed and not an accidental exposure. The law change benefits somebody from an accidental exposure. Does that fall under intentionally fails to conceal? That is the $2 question. Best to conceal it with more then a thin t shirt.

IMO, if a person can easily tell that you have a gun under your thin t-shirt, then it is not concealed.

I agree that it's not properly concealed.
I don't agree that it is a non-accidental exposure. However, texanjoker brings up a good point that certainly could be argued...

That my friend is what I am trying to get across. I can see some trying to push the law change into open carry. They might find themselves with a big headache.

If they can arrest someone for disorderly conduct because of a slung rifle, they can arrest someone for disorderly conduct because of a poorly concealed handgun. Same logic to end around the gun laws.

If I worry about anything, it's wardrobe malfunctions, not printing.

ok, thanks everone for the comments. basically I just wanted to make sure that if I was accidentally printing that I was in the clear. Of course I plan on concealing as best as I can and don't want someone to mistake me for something I'm not.

Common sense! If I try on a shirt that really prints I just dont wear it. Or carry in a different method. It's good to know were covered if there a sudden gust of wind or if you slip on a bannana peal on eisle 7 at Walmart!

Tic Tac wrote:If they can arrest someone for disorderly conduct because of a slung rifle, they can arrest someone for disorderly conduct because of a poorly concealed handgun. Same logic to end around the gun laws.

You can get arrested for anything a cop sees suits any situation. A cop can lock you up for jay walking if he wanted to. It doesn't mean it will hold up in court.

Pecos wrote:Common sense! If I try on a shirt that really prints I just dont wear it. Or carry in a different method. It's good to know were covered if there a sudden gust of wind or if you slip on a bannana peal on eisle 7 at Walmart!

My thoughts exactly