Telling naïve students to keep their guns utterly hidden is a favorite tact of bad concealed carry instructors. Some good and well-meaning instructors say that “printing” can get you in trouble in some places. To some extent, the latter is true. Sloppy concealment and/or accidental exposure can lead to headaches in a couple states. Worries about the shape of guns being seen through clothing has long been a fear and rumor of new carriers alike. “Concealed means concealed” is a good maxim for several reasons, but a myth about something that isn’t illegal isn’t one.
 
“Printing” refers to what the act of the gun physically imprinting its outline on the clothing is colloquially called (example). For example, a “printing” law would make handgun imprinting illegal. “Printing” is like hiding behind a curtain and anyone being able to tell the shape in the curtain was a person. “Printing” is not the concern that many make it out to be, but proper concealment is important (read more).
 
Nowhere in the United States (not counting territories) does a statute exist that makes it illegal for one's concealed handgun to imprint its shape on the carrier's clothing. Accidental exposure is not criminal either, however, in some locations it can be hazardous depending on the attitude of the police and public. “Printing” of your handgun is not illegal.
 
Many states have laws requiring that the gun be totally covered and that partial exposure is not permitted. Accidental exposure is not the aim of this article, though it is addressed. Unintentional exposure by body movement, etc. when care was taken to conceal the handgun properly is also not strictly illegal, although some laws leave enough leeway to be problematic. Florida is one such example and the only state with legitimate, widespread issues involving partially concealed weapons leading to law enforcement trouble.
 
The exact definition of “concealed” varies from state to state and many states have no definition at all. Words, if not specifically defined, are interpreted according to their plain, ordinary meaning (concealed in this case). Merriam-Webster defines concealed as: “kept out of sight or hidden from view.” Using the curtain example, the person is concealed as they cannot be directly seen, but from other inferences like size and shape, one can safely assume the shape is a person (or a gun).
 
Definitions and laws vary wildly based on the actual statute and case law. Some statutes and case law implies that a handgun must be totally undetectable through clothing, but this is a very broad interpretation that is not backed up by case law or actual examples of constituting a “printing” failure to conceal violation.
 
The definition of “concealed” serves the main purpose of defining for courts what concealed means in the context of carrying a concealed weapon illegally. Some states consider partially concealed guns illegal concealment, while others take the position that if part of the gun can be identified as a gun, it is openly carried. These definitions don’t necessarily impose a duty on legal concealed carriers to keep totally concealed and charge accidental exposure as a crime.
 
“No case law” means that there is no case law specifically applicable to “printing” or defining concealed in a context of imprinting. Some cases may be directly unrelated to “printing”, but are included for reference.
 
This examination does not include every statute that can be broadly interpreted, such as drawing, aiming, or exhibiting a firearm (brandishing) or vague “causing alarm” laws without case law or examples of arrests. The scope is limited to intentional or negligent failure to conceal or specific laws requiring a firearm to be visually undetectable under clothing. Some reference examples of indirectly related statutes are included for reference. ​

Sorry for the broken links; some states like to change their statutes link addresses without warning. Fixing them is on the schedule. In the meantime, please Google.

Whoring t-shirt designs again. Click the image to buy the shirt design you like and help support the blog. ​

We will not give in, we will not comply, we will not submit. If you want to be stylish.

In the dark days of December 2012, following the Sandy Hook school massacre, Wayne LaPierre told the media that the NRA wanted to offer “meaningful contributions” to school safety. The mainstream media salivated like dogs, expecting LaPierre to finally get on board with draconian gun control. Instead, he said that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun. The NRA proposed armed guards in school and Congressional funding for armed school police officers.

The media was overwhelmed and mocked the suggestion. Congress instead pushed forward with a slate of gun control bills, including the Manchin-Toomey bill that the NRA actually helped write behind the scenes. Miraculously, none of the gun control went forward. Americans had already come to the conclusion that gun control was the problem. From then on, campus carry was the hot issue; allowing teachers, parents, and college students to shoot back.

​The NRA had it’s hand in every major gun control defeat in 100 years. In the 1930s, they compromised on the National Firearms Act to save pistols, which they did, but gave up everything else. There was no organization to send an attorney to represent gun owners in the Miller case. From then on, and especially in 1994 with the Assault Weapons Ban, the NRA compromised.

Now the NRA and its defenders would argue this was to save something; staunch opposition with no give would have resulted in worse. Instead, the NRA basically gave up its second-best looking daughter to the marauding band so it could keep the number one daughter unmolested. Today, the NRA was so afraid of machine guns being banned and more bad legislation (AWB, mag restrictions, etc.) in the wake of the October 1 attack that they sold bump fire up the river.

No, the NRA isn’t playing some grand game of strategic, 3D chess. They are doing what they have always done; compromise and lose. Being tone-deaf to the American public and their members, the NRA instead listened to the whining of the Bloomberg-ites, the media, and wishy-washy anti-gun politicians. All of the above hates the NRA; nothing will change that. Throwing bump fire to the wolves was not a delaying tactic to save the family, it was giving the wolves an appetizer.

The NRA opposed the landmark Heller case that affirmed the Second Amendment applies outside the home; not because they disagreed with their ideals, but because they were afraid that a negative Heller decision—the opposite of what we got—would eliminate the right to carry. They were afraid of losing. People might argue about strategy and risk, but you’ll never win the Superbowl if you don’t show up in Minneapolis.

The NRA is like a beaten down dog that keeps licking Master’s hand, hoping that Master will stop beating and kicking it. When you’ve been on the defensive for nearly a century, you don’t know what victory is anymore. All you know is compromise and loss. So like a cuckhold husband who feels “empowered” watching another man sleep with his wife, the NRA is a willing accomplice to the gun control agenda.

When the NRA is weak, it gives spineless politicians political cover. Countless politicians have parroted the NRA’s line about bump fire stocks instead of saying “Shall not be infringed.” Now is precisely the time to get loud, get angry, and absolutely humiliate and shame the Democrats and the Bloomberg Kool-Aid drinkers for lumping millions of gun owners in the same boat with that perverted SOB Paddock. Rather than standing firm and proud with “four million” members and a bunch more behind them, the NRA cowers, begs, and pleads. “Take my daughters, but don’t hurt me! No, my wife doesn’t cheat on me; other men are just a fetish we have.”
If the NRA is full of such cowards at a time when support for gun rights is at its highest in modern times, what will they do when we have a hostile president and Congress? It’s almost as if they are afraid that the Second Amendment will have to be used for its intended purpose. When that day comes, you can bet the bunch from Reston won’t be in the lead.

Imagine the ridiculousness of the following rhetorical headlines:​

“Ex-WSP cruiser used by drug dealer.”
“Woman raped by taxi driver in former Seattle PD car.”
“Capitol Police sell cars to convicted drunk drivers.”
“Former Police Interceptor used in highway suicide attempt.”

​That’s what the Associated Press has implied in its “guns sold by law enforcement” article. The article seems to imply that Washington law enforcement agencies are selling guns directly to disturbed folks. The lurid headlines like “Baby Shot in Car Seat” draw the eye away from the easy to skip over the details that these guns were sold to dealers, traded for new guns, or auctioned off. This might be news to the AP, but not to any gun enthusiast.

It’s common for law enforcement to dispose sell or trade-in their used firearms for new models; the old guns are then sold to the public through licensed dealers. When Glock was new to the American market, it made a business model out of this. Police trade-in guns provide a high-quality handgun at a lower cost than an equivalent new model and often have collector value as well. This allows departments to get new guns very cheaply; a bonus in the days of cash-strapped municipalities.
 
Likewise confiscated firearms are sold to the public as well. It’s a practice actually mandated in several states. These confiscated guns aren’t “crime guns” in that they are murder weapons dripping blood. Instead, they are usually taken from prohibited persons, for concealed weapon violations, or other reasons. Non-weapons are disposed of by police all the time.
 
I argue that the whole point of the article, as Zerohedge either missed or deliberately skewed, is to discredit these practices. To note, I also take exception with Zerohedge's blatant anti-cop bias and trying to rope this in with The Fast and Furious scandal.
 
The “journalist” who prepared this article omitted one important fact: each person who bought the gun from a dealer (again, a dealer, not the police), would have to pass a background check. So either the persons involved:

1. Passed a background check, then went nuts or became criminal;
2. Passed a background check that failed to catch their prohibited status;
3. Had someone else buy the gun illegally (a straw purchase); or,
4. Stole the gun;
5. Bought the gun secondhand in an illegal private transaction.

 
Such facts are inconvenient to the narrative. Imagine the figures and stories if the story was about what criminals, looneys, and bad actors did with factory-direct firearms! Read the details of the incidents carefully. They have been cherry picked to involve—key word “involve”—a gun that somehow came from local police.
 
“BABY SHOT IN CAR SEAT”
Found a gun, not the murder weapon.
 
“TEXT THREATS”
Merely owned a shotgun that happened to be a former police weapon.
 
“JUVENILES IN STOLEN CAR”
Stole a car, didn't threaten anybody with the gun, just had it.
 
“DRUNKEN FELON”
How did the felon get the gun? Did pass a flawed background check? Did some buy the gun for him in a straw purchase? Did someone else buy it, then sell it illegally in violation of the unenforceable universal background check law? Five years passed; did he buy it legally when he was not a felon?
 
“PROHIBITED FROM HAVING GUN”
Felon in possession of a stolen gun.
 
“DRUG HOUSE ASSAULT”
Domestic dispute, no weapon involved. Just happened to find a cheap .22 rifle that was disposed of by police.
 
“THREATS TO KILL”
Also owned 15 other guns, not sold by local police.
 
The hoplopathically-biased liberal media doesn’t want the public to own guns. They would love to get guns out of public hands and paint an innocent police program, one that brings money to the departments, new weapons into officer’s hands, and gives the poor a cheap way to protect themselves, as well as make the police look like monsters. Such misleading and malicious “journalism” ought to fall under libel laws. The mainstream media is dying a little more each day because of their constant penchant for lying and promoting their progressive agenda any way they can. 

Most of the blogging goes on at the Nevada Carry blog. Doesn't mean Frontier Carry isn't updated regularly, just the blogging is done over there.

​After reviewing press coverage for Springfield Armory’s new product, their Saint AR-15 platform, I am thoroughly unimpressed with the product and the reviews. Granted, I prefer the venerable M1 Garand and shoot my own mixmaster AR-15 (I’m currently in the market for an M1A Scout Squad). Still, the rifle is nothing to write home about.
 
It’s basically a upper-shelf AR-15 featuring Bravo Company furniture. It looks clean and I’m sure it functions great. Now, I haven’t shot it so I can’t give you a run-down on the gun, but the hype leading up to its debut was just that; hype. Pretty much every major company has its own AR-15 variant, like the expansion of 1911s years back. This is just Springfield’s “Look, I can make an AR-15 too!” Lest I be misunderstood, I’d jump at the chance to own one.
 
For those of you who saw the Facebook posts, the blog articles, and the website teasing their new platform, you can probably understand why I take issue with the buildup and some reactions are what bothers me. I think that Daniel Terrill from guns.com poked a little fun at the ads:
 
“In commercials the rifles are accented by beautiful shooters, who clearly love working out, with sweat glistening on their bodies, covered by tight Under Armour clothing, and ominous electronic music. Standing in deserts and mountaintops, they aim by leveling the fore-end with a fully extended arm — like a pro — before opening fire at an unknown enemy.”
 
Patrick R. over at The Firearm Blog, a pretty good joint, seemed more impressed with the awesome shooting experience Springfield setup in the Nevada desert than the rifle, posting a three-part article on it. He was clearly enthralled with our lovely city’s amusements, the helicopter ride, the shooting, and the evening zombie-exploding car events. He had every gun owner’s dream Vegas experience and I don’t begrudge him his experience one bit. TTAG’s article was a bit similar and is all on one page.
 
On the other hand (pay attention Springfield), are you selling a rifle or a freakin’ Vegas fun package? Press events for guns, cars, and all kinds of stuff tend to be big deals like this, with all kinds of wining and dining in various forms, for whatever you can imagine. But seriously, what the hell? Looks like Springfield was late to the game with ARs (reasons exist) and tried to wow the gun bloggers with an over-the-top event to cover up the fact their new gun has already been done many, many times before. And the bloggers took the bait with their new guns and vacations.
 
Ruger, probably the closest analogue to Springfield, has its SR-series piston AR platform and even a take-down model. That’s innovation. Slapping BCM parts on an AR-15 doesn’t make an  innovative product. Even the charging handle and the bolt catch are standard; an ambidextrous charging handle and an enhanced bolt catch (with the paddle to lock the bolt back) seem like obvious additions. Coating the trigger part with nickel-boron and reducing the play between the receivers is something, but again, this is just another mid-level quality rifle, not anything super special.
 
Frankly, it seems like all the praising reviews are from guys that got free rifles or were invited on the Vegas trip. The bloggers were so “wowed” with their free shit that they forgot to tell us that this gun is nothing special and a late addition to the already crowded AR-15 market. I guess all the suspense that lead the gun-owning hoi pilloi to think Springfield was introducing a gun-centric Crossfit-style exercise program was mainly just to stoke the interest of the privileged few gun bloggers. Springfield succeeded there.

Thanks to the Missouri Legislature's override of the governor's veto, constitutional permitless concealed carry is coming to the Show-Me state, effective Oct. 16, 2016. Senate Bill 656 was overridden by 24-6 in the Senate and 112-41 in the House. This is full constitutional carry, applicable to residents and non-residents.

​We decided to investigate a surprising public safety hazard that most people have overlooked. But in light of recent media reports highly Nevada's lax gun laws, we thought it was time someone investigate the dangers of tactical assault pants.

Nevada gun laws, along with open carry laws, allow people to carry a firearm almost anywhere they like. That might include the Las Vegas Strip, clubs and bars.

Bigh Lameaux, an attorney for Designers for Fashion Sense in America, said Nevada receives an F when it comes to fashion safety.

“The fact is, if these pants make it easier to carry things, then many more Americans would be wearing them. People must realize these pants of war have no place on our streets.”

“Pants with high capacity storage just aren’t needed by civilians. It’s excessive and dangerous. It’s too easy to hide an assault rifle inside them and bypass security. It is unconscionable that Nevada allows such a thing.”

We contacted Five Period Eleven who sells these military-style pants to the public, but they declined to comment. Several fashion control bills, including one that would ban pants with more than four pockets, were defeated in the Senate this week. As the debate in Congress rages, we must decide if this is the kind of country we wish to be, where almost anyone can wear these pants in public.