TexasCHLforum.com

[quote="gabe"]With all due respect to the guy who got cuffed and stuffed, if the cops knew he was carrying without a magnetometer or a pat down, it wasn't even close to deep concealment.

I was using a Bianchi 100 Professional Holster "Engineered for today’s extraordinary deep concealment requirements"

My gun was concealed when I was in my truck. It was between myself and the back of the seat.

Basically the LEOs were saying if you try to conceal your hand gun when you step out we will shoot you and if you don’t pull your shirt down and conceal we will take you to jail.
Sound fair to you?

I know I know... get over it.

handog wrote:I was using a Bianchi 100 Professional Holster "Engineered for today’s extraordinary deep concealment requirements"

Maybe you should ask for a refund. If the cops knew you were carrying without searching you then it wasn't even close to deep concealment. No matter what the marketing department says.

You also keep repeating the story about flashing your gun when getting out of your truck. That might be relevant if it was a normal traffic stop. However, from earlier accounts, the cops knew you had a handgun before you got out of your truck. It's the reason they stopped you.

bayouhazard wrote:

handog wrote:I was using a Bianchi 100 Professional Holster "Engineered for today’s extraordinary deep concealment requirements"

Maybe you should ask for a refund. If the cops knew you were carrying without searching you then it wasn't even close to deep concealment. No matter what the marketing department says.

You also keep repeating the story about flashing your gun when getting out of your truck. That might be relevant if it was a normal traffic stop. However, from earlier accounts, the cops knew you had a handgun before you got out of your truck. It's the reason they stopped you.

You just don't get it. PC 46.035 A license holder commits an offence if the license holder intentionally fails to conceal the hand gun. The gun was tucked inside my waistband the entire time. Yes, a vigilante was able to detect my gun but printing is NOT a misdemeanor. The flashing is relevant to the story because I believe that is when the LEO made the dicision to place me under arrest.

So if the wind blows your shirt up you would consider that intentionally failing to conceal? I give up.

I think he missed the part where you were identified with a gun in the building and that is why the police were called. Not that the police pulled you over and found the gun.

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing folks.

I'm pretty sure I'm with ya handog. What worries me is that I carry OWB. What do you think was visible? I wouldn't think the IWB setup you have would really be detectable even if you were looking for it. Any other way somebody could have known with being able to see it?

driver8 wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm with ya handog. What worries me is that I carry OWB. What do you think was visible? I wouldn't think the IWB setup you have would really be detectable even if you were looking for it. Any other way somebody could have known with being able to see it?

If I recall correct he sat in an "open back" chair and there was two way glass which was assumed to have a security officer on the other side. I'm going to go back to the original thread and see if I can find the post.

I'm just glad it happened in Round Rock. That's the part of the state I would expect something like that. It's a beautiful part of the world but so is San Frrancisco

Here's where handog addresses how it may have been seen. First post he made on that page.
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... &start=165

At this point I think it is best we don't speculate on anything further until Handog can get a copy of the police report through his open records request and see if it sheds any further light on the officers supposed grounds for the arrest. The report should specify what was seen/reported and why they felt they had probable cause to make the arrest.

driver8 wrote:I'm just glad it happened in Round Rock. That's the part of the state I would expect something like that. It's a beautiful part of the world but so is San Frrancisco

That is the truth of the matter.

That's what so disturbing. I left Central CA. partly because of their liberal gun laws.

handog wrote:Yes, a vigilante was able to detect my gun but printing is NOT a misdemeanor. The flashing is relevant to the story because I believe that is when the LEO made the dicision to place me under arrest.

So if the wind blows your shirt up you would consider that intentionally failing to conceal? I give up.

Unless you're Marilyn Monroe, being exposed by the wind is not intentional, but it is a failure to conceal.

If someone saw your gun when you sat in an open back chair, think about how you can conceal better. If you flash your gun and have to adjust your clothes when you get out of your truck, think about how you can conceal better. If you print so bad a casual observer can guess you carry a gun, think about how you can conceal better. It's not required by the law, but it's smart to avoid recklessly or knowingly failing to conceal.

bizarrenormality wrote:

handog wrote:Yes, a vigilante was able to detect my gun but printing is NOT a misdemeanor. The flashing is relevant to the story because I believe that is when the LEO made the dicision to place me under arrest.

So if the wind blows your shirt up you would consider that intentionally failing to conceal? I give up.

Unless you're Marilyn Monroe, being exposed by the wind is not intentional, but it is a failure to conceal.

If someone saw your gun when you sat in an open back chair, think about how you can conceal better. If you flash your gun and have to adjust your clothes when you get out of your truck, think about how you can conceal better. If you print so bad a casual observer can guess you carry a gun, think about how you can conceal better. It's not required by the law, but it's smart to avoid recklessly or knowingly failing to conceal.

"It's not required by the law,"

Actually, it IS required by law but your point is well taken. If you read my earlier post I had asked for advice on a different rig. Perhaps a smaller gun / different holster.

handog wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:

handog wrote:Yes, a vigilante was able to detect my gun but printing is NOT a misdemeanor. The flashing is relevant to the story because I believe that is when the LEO made the dicision to place me under arrest.

So if the wind blows your shirt up you would consider that intentionally failing to conceal? I give up.

Unless you're Marilyn Monroe, being exposed by the wind is not intentional, but it is a failure to conceal.

If someone saw your gun when you sat in an open back chair, think about how you can conceal better. If you flash your gun and have to adjust your clothes when you get out of your truck, think about how you can conceal better. If you print so bad a casual observer can guess you carry a gun, think about how you can conceal better. It's not required by the law, but it's smart to avoid recklessly or knowingly failing to conceal.

"It's not required by the law,"

Actually, it IS required by law but your point is well taken. If you read my earlier post I had asked for advice on a different rig. Perhaps a smaller gun / different holster.

PM9 in a mini super tuck will take care of that issue for you.

handog wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:It's not required by the law, but it's smart to avoid recklessly or knowingly failing to conceal.

"It's not required by the law,"

Actually, it IS required by law

Actually: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... 6.htm#6.03" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;