Florida printing and accidental exposure.. Anyone have the law/bill links?

[4thPoint]

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1981752403So2d349_1733.xml/ENSOR v. STATE

Peering through the front windshield, one officer spotted a portion of a white object protruding from under the left side of the passenger floormat. From squatting and looking into the already-opened passenger door, the officer determined the object to be a derringer pistol. At that point, the officer entered the vehicle and retrieved the weapon.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19991115747So2d368_11115.xml/DORELUS v. STATE

In Ensor, the arresting officer was able to readily observe only a "portion of a white object protruding from the left side of the passenger floormat" and was able to conclude that the object was a derringer pistol only by squatting and looking "through the open vehicle door and under the vehicle seat."

Again, in both cases that are mentioned in the Jury Instructions, portions of the firearms were unconcealed sufficiently to identify the objects as firearms.

And again, again, show me where 'printing' or anything else besides being visibly identifiable as a firearm is RAS. The two cases you've mentioned so far fail to do so.

re 'printing'

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:

: ..the gun is properly covered by clothing, yet its outline can clearly be seen to even the most casual, untrained observer....

or something along those lines.

I hesitate to use the term 'useless drivel' but I will note that a) it is opinion, not a citation and 2) it fails to support it's conclusion with any sort of citation.

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.

And yet, no one seems to be able to find a case where that is so. I await proof of your opinion, sir.

 

[taymag]

I am surprised no one has gotten in writing from a credible government source a simple definition of "conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight". I have been seeing these posts for 5 years ("printing") and see people post letters back for SBR weapon questions from the ATF quite a bit so cant imagine it would be that hard.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Again, in both cases that are mentioned in the Jury Instructions, portions of the firearms were unconcealed sufficiently to identify the objects as firearms...

Yes, but so what? That was in those cases.

...And again, again, show me where 'printing' or anything else besides being visibly identifiable as a firearm is RAS....

First, a reasonably articulable suspicion has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. And yes, the issue is whether the gun is visibly identifiable as a gun; but nowhere in the jury instruction or any case does it say that a gun is automatically not identifiable as a gun if it's covered. Again, it would be a jury question, and consistent with the jury instruction and the ruling in Ensor a jury could find that a gun is not conceal if it is readily identifiable as a gun even if covered.

re 'printing'

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:

: ..the gun is properly covered by clothing, yet its outline can clearly be seen to even the most casual, untrained observer....

or something along those lines.

I hesitate to use the term 'useless drivel' but I will note that a) it is opinion, not a citation and 2) it fails to support it's conclusion with any sort of citation.

What nonsense.

A citation isn't required because, as noted, "printing" is not a legal term. It is a common term describing a gun being poorly covered by a garment so as to be inadequately concealed. The legal consequences are addressed by the law I have cited.

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.

And yet, no one seems to be able to find a case where that is so....

And perhaps it's never happened. We lawyers must frequently assess the possible consequences of actions even in absence of a case directly on point. And such a result, with the proper facts, would be entirely consistent with the Florida jury instructions and with Ensor. And both Ensor and those jury instructions make the categorical statements you made in post 6 wrong.

You have badly misled the OP and dragged this thread far off course while I've been correcting your errors. It's now time to return to the issue raised by the OP:

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!!

Here is the applicable law, assuming we're discussing someone having CHL recognized in Florida (790.053):

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—

(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who 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.

(2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:

(a) A self-defense chemical spray.

(b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
​

(3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

So the guiding principles for someone lawfully carrying a concealed firearm in Florida should be considered the following:

1. The gun should be carried in such a way that it not readily identifiable as a gun to the ordinary observer. Therefore, it should be covered in such a manner and/or by some material which obscures its outline sufficiently to prevent it from being readily identified as a gun. And it should be sufficiently well covered so that no part of it identifying it to the ordinary observer as a gun is consistently visible.
   
   
2. However, a brief, non-threatening display of the gun is not a violation. That exception should protect the carrier against a criminal charge if the gun becomes briefly, accidentally visible, such as if a gust of wind displaces a cover garment. But given uncertainties about how the courts might apply this statute, intentionally uncovering the gun, even momentarily, should be avoided.
   
   
3. To avoid the possibility of criminal liability for an intentional display of the gun reasonably perceived as threatening, the CHL holder will need to be able to justify his actions as being reasonably necessary for his self defense (see 776.012).

I am surprised no one has gotten in writing from a credible government source a simple definition of "conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight"....

No one can get such a thing because there is no credible government source who could or would write such a letter. In general, the world just doesn't work that way.

Perhaps the simplest definition is found in Ensor (403 So.2d 349, at 355):

.....The critical question turns on whether an individual, standing near a person with a firearm or beside a vehicle in which a person with a firearm is seated, may by ordinary observation know the questioned object to be a firearm. The ultimate decision must rest upon the trier of fact under the circumstances of each case....

But as the Court noted, the application of that definition depends on the exact facts of the particular case, and it would generally be a question of fact to be decided by a jury (if things go that far).

 

[Aguila Blanca]

And again, again, show me where 'printing' or anything else besides being visibly identifiable as a firearm is RAS. The two cases you've mentioned so far fail to do so.

With all due respect, why don't you just pack it in? Frank Ettin is an experienced attorney. You just throw words around. You don't even know that "RAS" isn't a proper acronym. It stands for "Reasonably Articulable Suspicion" -- and that's an incorrect understanding and expression of the concept. It stems from Terry v. Ohio, in which the court discussed the appropriate grounds for a police officer to stop and temporarily detain a person of interest (not yet a "suspect"). The language of the decision was "... a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts. ..." Your version calls for the suspicion to be articulable. The actual court language calls for the facts leading to the suspicion to be articulable.

There is a difference. "RAS" doesn't mean anything.

 

[4thPoint]

I'm quite sure he's a very experienced attorney.

The fact remains that in the jury instructions he linked to the two cases used to illustrate both had firearms that were visible (as in not concealed). I'm asking merely for a case where a completely concealed firearm that "printed" (aka caused a bulge on someone's waistline or under their arm, or on their ankle) resulted in a conviction under 790.01.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The fact remains that in the jury instructions he linked to the two cases used to illustrate both had firearms that were visible (as in not concealed)....

Again, you obviously didn't read and/or understand the cases. I indeed quoted the legal principles upon which the decisions in those cases rested, which principles are relevant to our discussions here., viz.:

1. From Ensor (403 So.2d 349, at 355):

   .....The critical question turns on whether an individual, standing near a person with a firearm or beside a vehicle in which a person with a firearm is seated, may by ordinary observation know the questioned object to be a firearm. The ultimate decision must rest upon the trier of fact under the circumstances of each case....

   
   
2. From Dorelus (747 So. 2d 368, at 371):

   ...To the extent that Ensor can be read to stand for the proposition that the issue of whether a weapon is concealed within the meaning of the statute is always for the trier of fact to resolve, we clarify that the issue of concealment is ordinarily an issue for the trier of fact....

With regard to the citation of those cases in the jury instruction I quoted in post 16, those cases were cited as authority for the statement in the jury instructions of the elements of the crime of unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon. That has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 4thPoint:

I'm asking merely for a case where a completely concealed firearm that "printed"...

What do you mean by that?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I'm asking merely for a case where a completely concealed firearm that "printed" (aka caused a bulge on someone's waistline or under their arm, or on their ankle) resulted in a conviction under 790.01. ...

First, it was your claim that a firearm that printed or was identifiable as a firearm even though covered by something was concealed under Florida law, it's your burden to cite authority supporting that conjecture.

Second, you statement is circular. If the firearm merely printed by causing a bulge not recognizable as a gun, it would be concealed under Florida law. However, the applicable standard, is set out in Ensor (403 So.2d 349, at 355):

.....The critical question turns on whether an individual, standing near a person with a firearm or beside a vehicle in which a person with a firearm is seated, may by ordinary observation know the questioned object to be a firearm. The ultimate decision must rest upon the trier of fact under the circumstances of each case....

A gun carried under cover could nonetheless print in a way allowing it to be identifiable as a gun by ordinary observation. Whether or not that has happened in a particular case will generally be a question for the jury based on the particular circumstances. If the jury finds that the object under cover is identifiable by ordinary observation as a gun, the gun is not concealed for the purposes of Florida law.

So the bottom line is that, contrary to your original contention, the mere fact that a gun is somehow covered can not, as a matter of Florida law, foreclose the possibility that a jury will find that gun not to be concealed.

 

[4thPoint]

Well, the question has been asked for the last Fifteen years or so. You'd kinda think that in a decade and a half there might be some kinda ... I dunno, resolution?

In all that time has a case ever come before the Florida court where a mere bulge, even a form-fitting one has resulted in a conviction under 790.01?

If a mere bulge provides suspicion that a person has a concealed firearm, then why not someone wearing a fluorescent lime green shirt with "Carrying a Concealed Weapon"?

So the bottom line is that, contrary to your original contention, the mere fact that a gun is somehow covered can not, as a matter of Florida law, foreclose the possibility that a jury will find that gun not to be concealed.

No, my contention is that any firearm which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person is concealed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So the bottom line is that, contrary to your original contention, the mere fact that a gun is somehow covered can not, as a matter of Florida law, foreclose the possibility that a jury will find that gun not to be concealed.

No, my contention is that any firearm which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person is concealed.

That's not what you said in post 6. What you in fact wrote was:

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.

and in post 9:

...Conceal firearm, not "disguise the shape"...

and post 13:

...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?

So you have clearly been talking about a gun that might be covered but with an outline identifying it on ordinary observation as a gun.

...If a mere bulge provides suspicion that a person has a concealed firearm, then why not someone wearing a fluorescent lime green shirt with "Carrying a Concealed Weapon"?

Phooey!

In any case, the relevant cases have been cited, the statutes relevant to the OP's questions have been cited and quoted, and a considered, informed answer based on a professional assessment of the material has been provided.

So I'm closing this thread.

If you think you have something to contribute that is both constructive and germane to the OP's questions, let me know by PM. If I agree, I'll re-open this thread.