I know I have heard in Florida that printing is not illegal and I believe back in 12/13 there was an accidental exposure law passed to ok it. Although I dont carry anything that really "prints" and rarely, if ever have an accidental exposure I still want to see the bill for both these things if anyone has them (Florida). Thanks!!
Florida printing and accidental exposure.. Anyone have the law/bill links?
- Thread starter taymag
- Start date
- Status
This is what I have found for accidental exposure.. Am I missing something here or does this cover you as far as if you were to reach for something on the top shelf, etc and having a 1 second flash? Over the 5+ years carrying I am fairly certain I have never had my carry "show" but I would like to know I am covered is so
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=44867
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=44867
Should find all the statutes in chapter 790
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790ContentsIndex.html
790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) ... it is unlawful for any person to openly carry ...It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm ... and is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790ContentsIndex.html
790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) ... it is unlawful for any person to openly carry ...It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm ... and is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
Catfish King
Inactive
During Summer, you can wear a t-shirt and regular shirt over it. Keep the regular shirt unbuttoned. At the 4 o'clock position, I've never seen a .40 G22 print against the regular shirt due to how loose it fits.
IMHO, concealed means concealed.
IMHO, concealed means concealed.
There is no such thing as 'printing' in Florida law.
You can wear a shirt emblazoned in fluorescent orange and flashing lights saying "Concealed Weapon" with an arrow and be perfectly legal so long as the firearm cannot be seen.
You can safely wear Lycra or latex so tight and conforming that even the serial number of your firearm can be felt as long as it cannot be seen.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Since you fail to cite legal authority for your claim, your opinion on this point can, and should, be ignored.4thPoint said:
If you, or anyone, is going to say that something is legally okay, he needs to back the statement up with citation to supporting, applicable legal authority. If you, or anyone else, is wrong, someone foolish enough to pay attention to you could get into a lot of trouble.
You did see the citation I posted, didn't you?
The one that said:
The one that gave the statute number of the Florida law?
The one that says "in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight"?
Conceal firearm, not "disguise the shape".
Is there a court case that you are aware of where "printing" is sufficient RAS to suspect of 790.001?
What about a court case where the pistol is concealed but the individual is openly wearing spare magazines or has an "I have a concealed gun" tee-shirt? Certainly reason enough to suspect there's a firearm there, right?
http://www.zazzle.com/saturday_night /gifts?cg=196451974549523008
Last edited:
Let me see if I can frame this without getting afoul the forum's code of conduct.
To the best of my recollection, there are several states where it's illegal for wimmen folk to go paradin' around with their secondary sexual characteristics unconcealed. S'far as I know there's no law against anyone's Jennifer Annistons 'printing' against fabric so you know they're underneath.
Or, if you're inclined that way, there are similar laws against the men folk to go walking around with their meat'n'taters out there for the world to see. But again, Speedo's in public, while in poor taste, aren't a violation of the law.
To the best of my recollection, there are several states where it's illegal for wimmen folk to go paradin' around with their secondary sexual characteristics unconcealed. S'far as I know there's no law against anyone's Jennifer Annistons 'printing' against fabric so you know they're underneath.
Or, if you're inclined that way, there are similar laws against the men folk to go walking around with their meat'n'taters out there for the world to see. But again, Speedo's in public, while in poor taste, aren't a violation of the law.
Common sense dictates that a slight buldge under your shirt is not "printing". That buldge could be ANYTHING. A cell phone, a camera pouch, a colostomy bag...anything
If the buldge is SO defined as to be readily apparent to be a gun, then that could be an issue in some jurisdictions. I dont know FL law at all, but i make a reasonable effort to avoid any sign that im carrying. That said if i twist in a strange direction and i "print" a little, i dont worry about it
If the buldge is SO defined as to be readily apparent to be a gun, then that could be an issue in some jurisdictions. I dont know FL law at all, but i make a reasonable effort to avoid any sign that im carrying. That said if i twist in a strange direction and i "print" a little, i dont worry about it
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Yes, I saw it, but it doesn't necessarily support your claim.4thPoint said:
The statute indeed defines a concealed firearm as one:
Without an applicable Florida court of appeals decision supporting your claim, your opinion is worthless and irresponsible.
Bladerdash! You made two unqualified, categorical statement which you claim to be fact under Florida law:4thPoint said:
-
4thPoint said:
-
4thPoint said:
And all of that is egregious drivel having nothing to do with the subject being discussed in this thread. A question of whether some manner of scanty attire exposes one to prosecution under some form of "indecent exposure" or "offense to public decency" law will be decided based on the exact language of any applicable statutes taken together with any case law on the subject.4thPoint said:
Obviously you really know nothing about law or how it works. It would be a better idea if you took the trouble to educate yourself before spouting off about such things.
And poppycock to you, Sir.
Show me where "printing" has been deemed to be RAS in a Florida court case.
I'll wait.
hīˈpərbəlē/
noun
noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric; More
I'd have thought someone with your obvious higher education would recognize it for what it was. I doubt even the celebrated Mike Murdock of Marvel comics could feel a firearm's serial number beneath the thinnest imaginable Lycra fabric. I guess I misunderestimated you.
Just so I have this straight...
You're saying that someone can have an unconcealed firearm for hours on end so long as they are hunting or fishing (or on their way to hunt or fish) but a covered firearm will cause problems if someone isn't hunting or fishing and the mere outline of it can be seen?
Fine, show me where "printing" is mentioned or defined in Florida Statutes.
Show me where "printing" has been deemed to be RAS in a Florida court case.
I'll wait.
hy·per·bo·le
hīˈpərbəlē/
noun
noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric; More
I'd have thought someone with your obvious higher education would recognize it for what it was. I doubt even the celebrated Mike Murdock of Marvel comics could feel a firearm's serial number beneath the thinnest imaginable Lycra fabric. I guess I misunderestimated you.
Just so I have this straight...
You're saying that someone can have an unconcealed firearm for hours on end so long as they are hunting or fishing (or on their way to hunt or fish) but a covered firearm will cause problems if someone isn't hunting or fishing and the mere outline of it can be seen?
The recent;y passed law about "accidental" exposure was to cover situations such as the wind blowing your cover garment open say, at the C store getting gas or similar. IF you wantonly display it as an act of aggression, that is not allowed.
To avoid printing, wear a cover shirt with a intricate design such as plaid or similar - that breaks up the outline of most guns.
To avoid printing, wear a cover shirt with a intricate design such as plaid or similar - that breaks up the outline of most guns.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Nonsense. You made the claim, so it's your burden of proof.4thPoint said:
I'm saying that you can't know for sure without a court decision on point.4thPoint said:
That is how things work in the real world, and people educated in law understand such things. You are not educated in the law and obviously do not understand such things. Your opinions on such matters are worthless.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I am now going to demonstrate how "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing." In a number of the foregoing posts, member 4thPoint was contending essentially that because the applicable Florida statute, 790.001, defines a concealed firearm as one:there is no such thing as "printing" under Florida law and that a firearm which was lightly covered was "concealed" for the purposes of Florida law even it recognizable as a firearm.
He is wrong, as clearly shown by the applicable the Florida Standard Jury Instruction related to 790.01 (the crime of carrying a concealed weapon) (at pg 227, emphasis added):
In other words, a firearm (or other weapon) is not concealed for the purposes of Florida law if, even though partially or fully covered, it is nonetheless identifiable on ordinary observation, such as from an exposed portion or by its outline, as a firearm or weapon.
To understand what the law is and how it might be applied one must do the necessary research. The application of a statute, for example, to a real situation could be non-intuitive.
He is wrong, as clearly shown by the applicable the Florida Standard Jury Instruction related to 790.01 (the crime of carrying a concealed weapon) (at pg 227, emphasis added):
In other words, a firearm (or other weapon) is not concealed for the purposes of Florida law if, even though partially or fully covered, it is nonetheless identifiable on ordinary observation, such as from an exposed portion or by its outline, as a firearm or weapon.
To understand what the law is and how it might be applied one must do the necessary research. The application of a statute, for example, to a real situation could be non-intuitive.
"...a [firearm] [weapon] is not concealed if, although not fully exposed, its status as a [firearm] [weapon] is detectable by ordinary observation...)
Not fully exposed would mean that at least some portion was visible, see ENSOR v. STATE and DORELUS v. STATE as a poster mentioned in post #16.
So, it appears I am forced to ask again, where is "printing" mentioned in any case law or statute?
Last edited:
"does that law allow situations where you're showing a friend a cool new holster or gun while it's on your hip or whatever, "
Jim, I would take my friend out back (out of sight from bystanders), if I want to show off my weapon. I gently chastised a couple of friends last week for showing off weapons on a school ground, which is county property (school has not been a school for 10 years or so).
"or is it about cases where you're seriously threatened and show that you're armed to (hopefully) de-escalate?"
No Jim, I can't imagine the statute was written to allow "brandishing".
But now that you mention it, I kinda recall Florida now allowing warning shots, and pulling your weapon to discourage further aggression. I need to look that one up.
Jim, I would take my friend out back (out of sight from bystanders), if I want to show off my weapon. I gently chastised a couple of friends last week for showing off weapons on a school ground, which is county property (school has not been a school for 10 years or so).
"or is it about cases where you're seriously threatened and show that you're armed to (hopefully) de-escalate?"
No Jim, I can't imagine the statute was written to allow "brandishing".
But now that you mention it, I kinda recall Florida now allowing warning shots, and pulling your weapon to discourage further aggression. I need to look that one up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Nope, you have to actually read and understand the cases (wouldn't hurt if you learned how to cite cases either). So let's look at the cases.4thPoint said:
I. Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d 349 (Fla., 1981)
The issue for the Florida Supreme Court in Ensor was (at 351):
In addressing the question of whether a weapon is or is not concealed for the purposes of a conviction under 790.01, the Court says (at 355, emphasis added):
Thus Ensor clearly admits the possibility that a gun which is covered, partially or fully, could still not be considered concealed if it's identifiable as a gun by ordinary observation. And whether or not the gun was or was not concealed will be a question of fact for the jury. We've seen in a prior post of mine how the jury will be instructed in the law to be applied to answer that question.
II. Dorelus v. State, 747 So. 2d 368 (Fla., 1999)
As the Court stated, in Dorelus the core of its ruling as (at 371, emphasis in original):
Specifically, the Court ruled that (at 373):
In effect the Court concluded that under the unique and undisputed facts of Dorelus there would be no factual basis upon which a jury could reasonably find that the gun was conceal; and, therefore, it was appropriate to determine that under the particular circumstances the gun was not, as a matter of law, concealed.
But we still have the Court in Dorelus stating that the question of whether or not a gun (or other weapon) is concealed would be a question of fact for the jury. We've seen in a prior post of mine how the jury will be instructed in the law to be applied to answer that question.
It doesn't have to be. It's not a legal term. As explained here it is a term used in ordinary discussion with respect to carrying a concealed firearm to describe a situation in which:4thPoint said:
And a gun which is being carried under a cover garment but which is printing could be found by a Florida jury, under the Florida jury instructions I quoted earlier, not to be concealed.
Last edited:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Nope, there's no such law. This was the bill that was enacted, and it says nothing about warning shots.Dave P said:
The relevant statute is 776.012:
We discussed in this thread the general issue of justifying a threat of force.
Basically displaying a weapon defensively is a matter of of legal justification.
The usual definition of assault, based on the Common Law is:
In the laws of some States this crime might be given another name. For example, in Alabama it's called "menacing." But by whatever name it is called, it is a crime in every State.
So a display of a firearm, when done for the purposes of intimidation, or to secure compliance, or to convince someone to keep his distance, or in response to a perceived threat is, in all States, an assault of some type. You are effectively putting someone in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, i. e., getting shot.
Now in all States it will be a defense against a charge of assault (or any similar crime) if you establish that your assault satisfied the applicable legal standard for justification.
In most States the standard for justifying a threat of lethal force is the same as for justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In a few, it's a somewhat lesser standard. So in all States if you threaten lethal force you will need to be able to at least show prima facie such threat was legally justified, that is if you want to avoid a conviction for assault.
- Status