The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Transparent and sheerCrossfire wrote:So, umm, what else is there besides solid colors and patterns?ex_dsmr wrote:Solid colors help as do patterns.
(though I suspect he meant dark colors).There are regular and irregular patterns. Geometric shapes such as triangles and poka-dots probably aren't as good for concealing as camo or Hawaiian shirt patterns.MasterOfNone wrote:Transparent and sheerCrossfire wrote:So, umm, what else is there besides solid colors and patterns?ex_dsmr wrote:Solid colors help as do patterns.
That means that any reasonable person looking at it would know for sure it's a gun. That's a deliberately high threshold, and much different than someone who sees a lump under someone's clothing and guesses it's a gun when others presented with the same sight might guess it could be anything from a cell phone to a tool pouch to a chemotherapy pump.MasterOfNone wrote:This is an over-simplification. To quote GC 411.171(3):C-dub wrote:there is no law against printingNothing in this definition says that the gun must be seen. If a "reasonable person" using "ordinary observation" can "openly discern" "the presence of" the gun, it is not concealed."Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.
My concern has always been the blanket statement that "printing is not illegal." It gives the impression that any gun that is covered by fabric is concealed. In reality, a severe degree of printing can be a failure to conceal.Excaliber wrote:That means that any reasonable person looking at it would know for sure it's a gun. That's a deliberately high threshold, and much different than someone who sees a lump under someone's clothing and guesses it's a gun when others presented with the same sight might guess it could be anything from a cell phone to a tool pouch to a chemotherapy pump.MasterOfNone wrote:This is an over-simplification. To quote GC 411.171(3):C-dub wrote:there is no law against printingNothing in this definition says that the gun must be seen. If a "reasonable person" using "ordinary observation" can "openly discern" "the presence of" the gun, it is not concealed."Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.
While that's theoretically correct, it's not a practical problem.MasterOfNone wrote:My concern has always been the blanket statement that "printing is not illegal." It gives the impression that any gun that is covered by fabric is concealed. In reality, a severe degree of printing can be a failure to conceal.Excaliber wrote:toMasterOfNone wrote:This is an over-simplification. To quote GC 411.171(3):C-dub wrote:there is no law against printingNothing in this definition says that the gun must be seen. If a "reasonable person" using "ordinary observation" can "openly discern" "the presence of" the gun, it is not concealed."Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.
That means that any reasonable person looking at it would know for sure it's a gun. That's a deliberately high threshold, and much different than someone who sees a lump under someone's clothing and guesses it's a gun when others presented with the same sight might guess it could be anything from a cell phone to a tool pouch to a chemotherapy pump.
Fortunately, mere failure to conceal is not illegal. INTENTIONAL failure to conceal is the crime. Arguing over the color of fabric begs the question. As long as it is covered AT ALL it seems difficult to prove intent. The crime is not reckless or negligent failure to conceal.MasterOfNone wrote: My concern has always been the blanket statement that "printing is not illegal." It gives the impression that any gun that is covered by fabric is concealed. In reality, a severe degree of printing can be a failure to conceal.
Not really "printing", but I recently pirchased a crossbreed supertuck and wonder about exposed belt clips. I notice them sometimes on others, but I don't think the 'average' person would know what they are for.MasterOfNone wrote:This is an over-simplification. To quote GC 411.171(3):C-dub wrote:there is no law against printingNothing in this definition says that the gun must be seen. If a "reasonable person" using "ordinary observation" can "openly discern" "the presence of" the gun, it is not concealed."Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.
Don't be concerned. Belt clips are belt clips. They could be for anything.smilner01 wrote:Not really "printing", but I recently pirchased a crossbreed supertuck and wonder about exposed belt clips. I notice them sometimes on others, but I don't think the 'average' person would know what they are for.MasterOfNone wrote:This is an over-simplification. To quote GC 411.171(3):C-dub wrote:there is no law against printingNothing in this definition says that the gun must be seen. If a "reasonable person" using "ordinary observation" can "openly discern" "the presence of" the gun, it is not concealed."Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.