Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
So what you're saying is ignorance of the law doesn't excuse ignorant posts?The Annoyed Man wrote:The law says "intentional failure to conceal," not "printing while bending over in a rest room.can2boy wrote:i would have called security. ignorance of the law excuses no one.
longhorn_92 wrote:We should call security every time someone shows us their plumber's crack....now that is a crime!
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.i would have called security. ignorance of the law excuses no one.
Depends on your definition of "printing," and your interpretation of the definition of "concealed Handgun" in CG 411.171Baba 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.
As I read it, this is true. He might be better infomed than a LEO, though...?rdcrags wrote: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.i would have called security. ignorance of the law excuses no one.
TX CHL 1997
CO CHP 2005
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 now i know my handbook is a little outdated.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...G26ster wrote:Depends on your definition of "printing," and your interpretation of the definition of "concealed Handgun" in CG 411.171Baba 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.
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?
....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 thinkcan2boy wrote: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...G26ster wrote:Depends on your definition of "printing," and your interpretation of the definition of "concealed Handgun" in CG 411.171Baba 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.
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?
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
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?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.
Is he wearing a Hawaiian Shirt?....Purplehood wrote: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?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.
Do they have a wife and kids nearby lending to a "legitimate" appearance? It is all very subjective I admit.
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?can2boy wrote:i would have called security. ignorance of the law excuses no one.
