Another thread got me thinking about this ... suppose a LEO discovers that you are armed (he sees you wearing an NRA cap, a TFL shirt, a gun belt buckle, etc.; and asks you if you are armed and you truthfully tell him that you are) and then he charges / accuses you of printing? Being caught printing / flashing in public is enough reason in most states to have your CWL revoked. What legal options are available to you and what is the best way to handle a situation like this before, during & after? FUD.
Falsely accused of printing ... what are you legal options?
- Thread starter FUD
- Start date
We should make every effort to make sure that our firearms are concealed properly! 
Joe
------------------
NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
[This message has been edited by nralife (edited September 27, 2000).]
Joe
------------------
NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
[This message has been edited by nralife (edited September 27, 2000).]
David Scott
New member
1. Get a gun-friendly lawyer.
2. Stand mute.
3. Gather witnesses.
4. Take lawyer's advice. If he advises you to plead guilty, get another lawyer.
On a side note, I think it inadvisable to wear "gunny clothes" in public. The NRA cap or Glock T-shirt might signal others besides LEOs that you have a gun that might be stolen from you with sufficient force and surprise. Besides, you risk someone getting in your face with an anti rant.
2. Stand mute.
3. Gather witnesses.
4. Take lawyer's advice. If he advises you to plead guilty, get another lawyer.
On a side note, I think it inadvisable to wear "gunny clothes" in public. The NRA cap or Glock T-shirt might signal others besides LEOs that you have a gun that might be stolen from you with sufficient force and surprise. Besides, you risk someone getting in your face with an anti rant.
Dead,
FUD that is why we NEED open carry!
I can't argue too much against this.
Concealed carry isnt all that effective!
But, this statement is just not correct. Just ask John Lott.
Joe
------------------
NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
FUD that is why we NEED open carry!
I can't argue too much against this.
Concealed carry isnt all that effective!
But, this statement is just not correct. Just ask John Lott.
Joe
------------------
NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
Mike Irwin
Staff
Well, you point out one reason why I don't wear obvious gun-related clothing...
I did get tagged on printing several months ago. I knelt down to get a pack of smokes, and the cop behind me saw the outline of my gun in my left-front pocket.
He let me get out of the store, then approached me in the parking lot.
I showed him my paperwork, and he and I chatted for a few seconds about firearms, and that was that. He didn't even want to see, or take, the gun. He just wanted to see the license.
------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
I did get tagged on printing several months ago. I knelt down to get a pack of smokes, and the cop behind me saw the outline of my gun in my left-front pocket.
He let me get out of the store, then approached me in the parking lot.
I showed him my paperwork, and he and I chatted for a few seconds about firearms, and that was that. He didn't even want to see, or take, the gun. He just wanted to see the license.
------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
Zach Vonler
New member
nralife: That's exactly opposite what I was taught in my Texas CHL class. I was taught that to avoid having to distinguish when someone was trying to be threatening or not, anytime a "reasonable" person could tell you were carrying a gun you were risking your permit.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FUD:
David, just to clarify, I normally don't wear gun-related cloths.[/quote]
Hmmmm, maybe we should all be wearing gun-related clothing as often as possible. Election year and all that.
If the cops see enough of us wearing 'gunny' clothes, maybe they'll stop harrassing FUD.
Seriously, why not try to change public opinion a little?
pax
------------------
"Is there anything wrong with a woman preferring the dignity of an armed citizen? I don't like to be coddled and I don't like to be treated like a minor child. So I waive immunity and claim my right -- I go armed." -- Longcourt Phyllis in Beyond This Horizon by Robert Heinlein
David, just to clarify, I normally don't wear gun-related cloths.[/quote]
Hmmmm, maybe we should all be wearing gun-related clothing as often as possible. Election year and all that.
If the cops see enough of us wearing 'gunny' clothes, maybe they'll stop harrassing FUD.
Seriously, why not try to change public opinion a little?
pax
------------------
"Is there anything wrong with a woman preferring the dignity of an armed citizen? I don't like to be coddled and I don't like to be treated like a minor child. So I waive immunity and claim my right -- I go armed." -- Longcourt Phyllis in Beyond This Horizon by Robert Heinlein
Tasteful wearing of gunny clothing is a political plus, especially if the wearer is polite and considerate.
Hiding our heritage can only stand to hasten it's demise. I wear my NRA polo shirt to work, and my IDPA, H&K, NRA, etc. T-shirts out and about. Some good conversations get started that way, and I always remain proud but polite.
Hiding our heritage can only stand to hasten it's demise. I wear my NRA polo shirt to work, and my IDPA, H&K, NRA, etc. T-shirts out and about. Some good conversations get started that way, and I always remain proud but polite.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nralife:
Dead,
FUD that is why we NEED open carry!
I can't argue too much against this.
Concealed carry isnt all that effective!
But, this statement is just not correct. Just ask John Lott.
Joe
[/quote]
Ok I miss typed what I wanted to say up there....
Dont you think that if a person could carry openly or consealed that would indeed would be more effective in detering crime??
Not to say that concealed carry isnt effect, as it is very effective as it keeps crimials guessing who is armed or not. But having an option of BOTH is what we need, not just Consealed carry!
If the sight of guns being carried around in "public places" is enough to cause a riot then why does the sight of a cop not cause a riot each and every single time???
They make it seem that the mere sight of a gun will cause mass panic in the street with this "You can not print" BS!
------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
Dead,
FUD that is why we NEED open carry!
I can't argue too much against this.
Concealed carry isnt all that effective!
But, this statement is just not correct. Just ask John Lott.
Joe
[/quote]
Ok I miss typed what I wanted to say up there....
Dont you think that if a person could carry openly or consealed that would indeed would be more effective in detering crime??
Not to say that concealed carry isnt effect, as it is very effective as it keeps crimials guessing who is armed or not. But having an option of BOTH is what we need, not just Consealed carry!
If the sight of guns being carried around in "public places" is enough to cause a riot then why does the sight of a cop not cause a riot each and every single time???
They make it seem that the mere sight of a gun will cause mass panic in the street with this "You can not print" BS!
------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
Gopher .45
New member
Sorry this is a side-thread for nralife, but Texas concealed handgun law isn't written to say that a person's firearm has to be shown in a manner "calculated" to cause alarm to be illegal. The firearm has to remain concealed to be legally carried (unless someone is defending themself, of course).
I am referencing the 1999-2000 (Oct 1999) Texas Concealed Handgun Laws and Selected Statutes book. Page 2, definitions, number 3, "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observations of a reasonable person." If the gun prints, it may be discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person. If the whole outline prints, then it is definitely discernible...regardless if it was calculated to cause alarm. Texas law is clear that the gun must remain concealed.
Page 31, section 46.02 "A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowlingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club." Carrying in a manner where the gun is printing may be considered to be carrying in a reckless manner, or so I was taught.
I offer this as helpful information and not as a flame.
[This message has been edited by Gopher .45 (edited September 27, 2000).]
I am referencing the 1999-2000 (Oct 1999) Texas Concealed Handgun Laws and Selected Statutes book. Page 2, definitions, number 3, "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observations of a reasonable person." If the gun prints, it may be discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person. If the whole outline prints, then it is definitely discernible...regardless if it was calculated to cause alarm. Texas law is clear that the gun must remain concealed.
Page 31, section 46.02 "A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowlingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club." Carrying in a manner where the gun is printing may be considered to be carrying in a reckless manner, or so I was taught.
I offer this as helpful information and not as a flame.
[This message has been edited by Gopher .45 (edited September 27, 2000).]
"What happens if you get caught printing in a state like Arizona where open carry is legal
and concealed carry is legal w/ a permit."
There is no such thing as "printing" in Arizona. As well, I would question the point that "printing" is illegal in any state absent clear statute citations to the contrary. This is getting to the point of urban legend. You folks would do us a a big favor if before you poised the question, you actually went to your state statutes and looked it up.
"I think it inadvisable to wear "gunny clothes" in public."
Horse crap. This is just what the antis want you to do. I refuse to go underground.
"I can't argue too much against this."
You can and you do. If this is your view you can stay out of Arizona. More gun owners thinking that way and we will soon find Arizona's open carry law repealed by a bunch of concealed carry bigots.
"But, this statement is just not correct. Just ask John Lott."
John Lott has little to say about open carry.
Rick
and concealed carry is legal w/ a permit."
There is no such thing as "printing" in Arizona. As well, I would question the point that "printing" is illegal in any state absent clear statute citations to the contrary. This is getting to the point of urban legend. You folks would do us a a big favor if before you poised the question, you actually went to your state statutes and looked it up.
"I think it inadvisable to wear "gunny clothes" in public."
Horse crap. This is just what the antis want you to do. I refuse to go underground.
"I can't argue too much against this."
You can and you do. If this is your view you can stay out of Arizona. More gun owners thinking that way and we will soon find Arizona's open carry law repealed by a bunch of concealed carry bigots.
"But, this statement is just not correct. Just ask John Lott."
John Lott has little to say about open carry.
Rick
Al Mondroca
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RickD:
"What happens if you get caught printing in a state like Arizona where open carry is legal
and concealed carry is legal w/ a permit."
There is no such thing as "printing" in Arizona. As well, I would question the point that "printing" is illegal in any state absent clear statute citations to the contrary. This is getting to the point of urban legend.
Rick[/quote]
If I recall correctly, when I took a recent CCW class in Oregon, I was told that while letting your gun become visible _was_ potentially grounds for revocation, the issue of "printing" was irrelevant. The gun was concealed from view, which is all that is required, legally (though they advised that if you're gonna carry concealed, carry _concealed_).
"What happens if you get caught printing in a state like Arizona where open carry is legal
and concealed carry is legal w/ a permit."
There is no such thing as "printing" in Arizona. As well, I would question the point that "printing" is illegal in any state absent clear statute citations to the contrary. This is getting to the point of urban legend.
Rick[/quote]
If I recall correctly, when I took a recent CCW class in Oregon, I was told that while letting your gun become visible _was_ potentially grounds for revocation, the issue of "printing" was irrelevant. The gun was concealed from view, which is all that is required, legally (though they advised that if you're gonna carry concealed, carry _concealed_).
ellsworthtoohey
New member
Why all the concern about 'printing?' If the gun is carried in such a state as to allow an officer to arrest you for carrying a concealed weapon if you didn't have a permit, then it is simple logic that the gun is in fact concealed, and legal when you do have a permit.
If the cops and courts in your jurisdiction don't quite balance the scales of justice, perhaps its time to pack up and move to friendlier climates. Or, better yet, maybe its time to initiate an Initiative Petition prohibiting cops who are off duty from carrying weapons unless they also have a permit. If the state doesn't allow, CCW, too bad. Cops can live by the same rules as citizens. I mean they ARE citizens and the gun IS for the performance of their duties, right?
I realize that in most states the statutes reflect that cops are cops 24 & 7. I am suspiscious though. I think that that was probably a ploy, in most places, to allow cops to carry guns off duty while denying that same right to citizens. I mean cops don't get PAID for working 24 & 7 do they? If they do it surely violates minimum wage laws in most cases. If they don't, then it is incredibly unfair, in fact it resembles slavery, to require them to be cops when they are not being paid.
I bet, if the truth were known, Workman's Compensation does not even allow a claim to be filed if they are injured while enforcing the law off duty.
When you can require the cops, the courts, the bureucrats, and the politicians to live by the same rules that they require we subjects to, whoops!!, I mean we citizens to live by, then you will have a metamorphosis in attitude.
If the cops and courts in your jurisdiction don't quite balance the scales of justice, perhaps its time to pack up and move to friendlier climates. Or, better yet, maybe its time to initiate an Initiative Petition prohibiting cops who are off duty from carrying weapons unless they also have a permit. If the state doesn't allow, CCW, too bad. Cops can live by the same rules as citizens. I mean they ARE citizens and the gun IS for the performance of their duties, right?
I realize that in most states the statutes reflect that cops are cops 24 & 7. I am suspiscious though. I think that that was probably a ploy, in most places, to allow cops to carry guns off duty while denying that same right to citizens. I mean cops don't get PAID for working 24 & 7 do they? If they do it surely violates minimum wage laws in most cases. If they don't, then it is incredibly unfair, in fact it resembles slavery, to require them to be cops when they are not being paid.
I bet, if the truth were known, Workman's Compensation does not even allow a claim to be filed if they are injured while enforcing the law off duty.
When you can require the cops, the courts, the bureucrats, and the politicians to live by the same rules that they require we subjects to, whoops!!, I mean we citizens to live by, then you will have a metamorphosis in attitude.
Zach Vonler,
Gopher .45,
You guys make a good point... I was thinking about the carrying of long guns and such. There is a different standard for them than for carrying concealed handguns with a CHL. I had the issues confused for a second. Damn, I guess that I am not always right!
Thanks,
Joe
------------------
NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
Gopher .45,
You guys make a good point... I was thinking about the carrying of long guns and such. There is a different standard for them than for carrying concealed handguns with a CHL. I had the issues confused for a second. Damn, I guess that I am not always right!
Thanks,
Joe
------------------
NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
"I bet, if the truth were known, Workman's Compensation does not even allow a claim to
be filed if they are injured while enforcing the law off duty."
Here in Phoenix there were quite a few cops who were killed in traffic accidents while traveling to get to work. They initially were denied Police Death Benefits but got them instated by political action of those in charge of such things (ie, it was not a court order). If the guy was killed in a traffic accident when driving to the Kwikee Mart "on his own time" he would not get the death benefit.
Rick
be filed if they are injured while enforcing the law off duty."
Here in Phoenix there were quite a few cops who were killed in traffic accidents while traveling to get to work. They initially were denied Police Death Benefits but got them instated by political action of those in charge of such things (ie, it was not a court order). If the guy was killed in a traffic accident when driving to the Kwikee Mart "on his own time" he would not get the death benefit.
Rick