Search found 7 matches
Return to “Blatant Printing: would you say something?”
- Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:43 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
- Replies: 117
- Views: 23736
Re: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
I would say "how do you like that $5 venti half double half mocha espresso decaf latte?"
- Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:50 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
- Replies: 117
- Views: 23736
Re: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
My guess, a 4" revolver. Anyone?
- Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:34 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
- Replies: 117
- Views: 23736
Re: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
May be but unconcealed w/o a badge visible could result in a MWAG call. Common sense says conceal well or display a badge.gigag04 wrote:TX LEOs have no legal requirement to conceal a handgun whether on or off duty. Many have a dept policy that requires concealed carry when off duty.
I will tell you that as long the gun is somewhat covered, it is NBD in the LEO world...
- Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:58 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
- Replies: 117
- Views: 23736
Re: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
C-dub wrote:That is my point. Mine is covered by a shirt with barely a bulge of any sort. The OP said,gljjt wrote:I disagree. The law says the presence of which is not openly discernable, it doesn't say the gun itself. If you are wearing a tight fitting shirt where a gun is clearly indicated, the presence of a gun is discernable. I would expect trouble with law enforcement. I think the term openly would be interpreted to mean clearly, and not necessarily open as in open carry. You may beat the wrap but not the ride. I suspect you may not beat the rap.TresHuevos wrote:Covered by a shirt is not "openly discernible". I believe Keith B. put it best, "Unless the shirt is so tight you can read the word Glock on the bottom of the magazine, it is still concealed".C-dub wrote:It may be illegal.TresHuevos wrote:Meh, who cares? Is it illegal? No. I don't carry a gun to conceal it, I conceal it as a matter of law, tactics and just general convenience because I wouldn't want to put up with people's comments and questions.
Bold emphasis is mine. Just because it is covered doesn't mean it is concealed. I had a friend that carried like this and the first time I witnessed his carry method I pointed it out to him. Prior to that incident, neither of us knew the other had a CHL and had never discussed firearms. Since he was a friend it was easy to say something. If he were a stranger, I probably wouldn't have said anything and just realized how much of a failure he was at concealment.GC §411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) Repealed by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1302, Sec. 14(1), eff. June 14,
2013.
(2) “Chemically dependent person” means a person who frequently or
repeatedly becomes intoxicated by excessive indulgence in alcohol or uses
controlled substances or dangerous drugs so as to acquire a fixed habit and an
involuntary tendency to become intoxicated or use those substances as often
as the opportunity is presented.
(3) “Concealed handgun” means a handgun, the presence of which is not
openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.My former friend had a t-shirt that was either white or a light blue that was also so snug that knew it was the mid-sized Glock, either .40 or 9mm. Anyone could tell it was a gun, but maybe the average person wouldn't know what make or model.I can clearly see the outline of a pistol and a kydex holster.
C-dub, sorry. I was referring to the statement below yours in the text I quoted above. This is what I think is problematic, from TresHuevos:
Covered by a shirt is not "openly discernible". I believe Keith B. put it best, "Unless the shirt is so tight you can read the word Glock on the bottom of the magazine, it is still concealed".
- Sun Nov 02, 2014 9:12 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
- Replies: 117
- Views: 23736
Re: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
I disagree. The law says the presence of which is not openly discernable, it doesn't say the gun itself. If you are wearing a tight fitting shirt where a gun is clearly indicated, the presence of a gun is discernable. I would expect trouble with law enforcement. I think the term openly would be interpreted to mean clearly, and not necessarily open as in open carry. You may beat the wrap but not the ride. I suspect you may not beat the rap.TresHuevos wrote:C-dub wrote:Covered by a shirt is not "openly discernible". I believe Keith B. put it best, "Unless the shirt is so tight you can read the word Glock on the bottom of the magazine, it is still concealed".TresHuevos wrote:Meh, who cares? Is it illegal? No. I don't carry a gun to conceal it, I conceal it as a matter of law, tactics and just general convenience because I wouldn't want to put up with people's comments and questions. .[/(800) 438-4357quote]
It may be illegal.
Bold emphasis is mine. Just because it is covered doesn't mean it is concealed. I had a friend that carried like this and the first time I witnessed his carry method I pointed it out to him. Prior to that incident, neither of us knew the other had a CHL and had never discussed firearms. Since he was a friend it was easy to say something. If he were a stranger, I probably wouldn't have said anything and just realized how much of a failure he was at concealment.GC §411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) Repealed by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1302, Sec. 14(1), eff. June 14,
2013.
(2) “Chemically dependent person” means a person who frequently or
repeatedly becomes intoxicated by excessive indulgence in alcohol or uses
controlled substances or dangerous drugs so as to acquire a fixed habit and an
involuntary tendency to become intoxicated or use those substances as often
as the opportunity is presented.
(3) “Concealed handgun” means a handgun, the presence of which is not
openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.
- Sat Nov 01, 2014 10:15 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
- Replies: 117
- Views: 23736
Re: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
Mojo84, that's what I tried to say, just not as well!WildBill wrote:I think we are in agreement.mojo84 wrote:There's a difference if he accidentally had his gun uncovered and if he obviously wasn't trying very hard to conceal it. If it was obvious his shirt blew up and the gun was uncovered without him being aware, I would probably tell him.
Guess I come down to whether it's making him aware or trying to correct behavior The later, I would mind my own business.
- Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:06 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
- Replies: 117
- Views: 23736
Re: Blatant Printing: would you say something?
I'd yell "he has a gun, he has a gun" as I prone him out. I'm sure the local PD would appreciate my up front work for them.
Seriously though, I think Giga04 said it best.
Now if it were a windy day and someone's Hawaiian shirt looked like it had blown up over the pistol grip, I might (or might not) say "hey it looks like the wind blew your shirt up over your hardware, thought you might want to know".
Seriously though, I think Giga04 said it best.
Anybody carrying in that fashion is likely legal carrying under other (LE) credentials or oblivious and the type that doesn't appreciate 'help'.gigag04 wrote:I'd make no more comment about someone else's concealed pistol in public than I would about their wife's appearance. I'd recommend staying in your lane.
Now if it were a windy day and someone's Hawaiian shirt looked like it had blown up over the pistol grip, I might (or might not) say "hey it looks like the wind blew your shirt up over your hardware, thought you might want to know".