TexasCHLforum.com

THis is pretty funny but actually I find that I do several of these things. I guess I'll be aware from now on.

Remember, its ok for a trained officer to think you might be carrying. Its not illegal. You have a permit for just that. You just can't "print" to a reasonable person.

Whether or not the Hawaiian shirt looks out of place is irrelevant. Its still legal.

Interesting side question. I have a Minotaur CTAC (I think thats what its called) in the mail . Wondering how confident are of "tucking." The fear I have is that, if one relied on it, you might not see if the tuck becomes untucked or revealing.

frazzled wrote:Remember, its ok for a trained officer to think you might be carrying. Its not illegal. You have a permit for just that. You just can't "print" to a reasonable person.

Whether or not the Hawaiian shirt looks out of place is irrelevant. Its still legal.

Interesting side question. I have a Minotaur CTAC (I think thats what its called) in the mail . Wondering how confident are of "tucking." The fear I have is that, if one relied on it, you might not see if the tuck becomes untucked or revealing.

Just to be clear, there is no law against printing. The factor is its presence cannot be discernible through ordinary observation. 99.9% of ordinary people will not notice a bulge or bump under a garment. IMO, it is going to have to have a distinct outline of a gun for it to be illegal. Even the majority of average citizens won't notice.

Mismatched clothes? I guess a sweatshirt and tie are out. Darn.

Keith B wrote:

frazzled wrote:Remember, its ok for a trained officer to think you might be carrying. Its not illegal. You have a permit for just that. You just can't "print" to a reasonable person.

Whether or not the Hawaiian shirt looks out of place is irrelevant. Its still legal.

Interesting side question. I have a Minotaur CTAC (I think thats what its called) in the mail . Wondering how confident are of "tucking." The fear I have is that, if one relied on it, you might not see if the tuck becomes untucked or revealing.

Just to be clear, there is no law against printing. The factor is its presence cannot be discernible through ordinary observation. 99.9% of ordinary people will not notice a bulge or bump under a garment. IMO, it is going to have to have a distinct outline of a gun for it to be illegal. Even the majority of average citizens won't notice.

You're right Keith B. Its a reasonable person standard-not reasonable police officer standard.

Even then, it's displaying, not "printing."

In regards to your *excellent* choice of holster. I think that it is indeed a great Tuckable holster, and you should be squared away. I have one, and so does half the forum.

well, the half I associate with, at least....

I have a Galco tuckable and it stays tucked fairly well.

Last time I was coming home from the range I was carrying my AR case along with my lever action rifle out in broad day light. I was walking by a couple of women that were too busy doing what ever they were doing and didn't even give me a look. So yeah, people can be pretty oblivious.

Do you y'all think that a fanny pack with a CHL badge pinned to it, partially concealed under a "shoot me first" vest might be too obvious?

The Annoyed Man wrote:Do you y'all think that a fanny pack with a CHL badge pinned to it, partially concealed under a "shoot me first" vest might be too obvious?

Maybe, but no more obvious than OC.

Back when I carried my Ruger P-95 I probably was guilty of most of those things. Wearing a jacket in 100 degree weather is a dead giveaway. Now that I slip my little Kelt-Tec P3AT in the front pocket of my pants or shorts, I'm guilty of none of them.

Ya know...I'm going to make a practice of wearing a vest and Hawaiian shirt on a hot summer day in NYC and an obviously "printing" BlackBerry. See how many times I get tackled by the NYPD. Maybe I can sue them for violating my civil rights. After all I am a middle aged white guy in NYC wearing mismatched clothes. Oh the injustice...!!!