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. State by StateAlabama No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. Alaska No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. Arizona No printing laws, no case law found. Constitutional carry state. ARS 13-3102 b. “A concealed deadly weapon is not carried in: (a) A manner where any portion of the firearm or holster in which the firearm is carried is visible. (b) A holster that is wholly or partially visible.” Arkansas No printing laws, no case law found. AR Code § 5-73-301(2) “‘Concealed’ means to cover from observation so as to prevent public view.” California No printing laws. People v. Hodges (1999) defines “concealed.” “Statutory terms are to be understood in their ordinary and usual meanings unless the context indicates otherwise. To conceal is [...] ‘1: to prevent disclosure or recognition of: avoid revelation of: refrain from revealing: withhold knowledge of: draw attention from: treat so as to be unnoticed... 2: to place out of sight: withdraw from being observed: shield from vision or notice...’[Webster's]” People v. Fuentes (1976) and People v. Wharton (1992) requires “substantial concealment,” both of which found that a partially exposed dirk or dagger (analogous to a tucked pistol) was concealed and not openly carried. “The mere fact that some portion of the handle may have been visible makes it no less a concealed weapon,” (Fuentes).” The statewide standard application states, but is not backed by a specific statute that: a permittee “unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.” This is like a reference to brandishing, 417 PC. 26200 PC allows the issuing sheriff or police chief to place “reasonable restrictions” on many conditions, including the “manner” of carry. I have been unable to find any cases where imprinting has led to trouble in California (at least for permittees). Colorado No printing laws. In people People v. Vincent (1981), it was found that the jury had to determine what was considered concealed. A reserve police officer saw the defendant with a derringer handle protruding from his pants. Later, it was found that: “‘Concealed' means placed out of sight so as not to be discernible or apparent by ordinary observation,” (People ex rel. O.R, 2008). This was a juvenile case where the defendant had a handgun partially protruding from a pocket, the appeals court found the firearm was not concealed. “Applying the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language here, we conclude that 'concealed' for purposes of section 18-12-105(1)(b) means placed out of sight so as not to be discernible or apparent by ordinary observation. To hold that a firearm that is discernible or apparent by ordinary observation is 'concealed' would lead to absurd results. For example, defining ‘concealed’ so broadly as to subsume a partially concealed but readily observable and identifiable weapon would render it unlawful to carry a holstered handgun—no matter how brazenly displayed—if any part of the gun was concealed by the holster.” Connecticut No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. Sec. 29-32 allows revocation of firearm permit for “cause.” Cause is not defined and all references state or infer that, aside from certain mandatory convictions, it is subjective. However, references are clear that open carry is legal. Delaware No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. 11.5.602(b) “A person is guilty of aggravated menacing when by displaying what appears to be a deadly weapon that person intentionally places another person in fear of imminent physical injury.” District of Columbia No printing laws, no case law found. 2344.1 “A licensee shall carry any pistol in a manner that it is entirely hidden from view of the public when carried on or about a person, or when in a vehicle in such a way as it is entirely hidden from view of the public.” Theoretically, failure to properly conceal (intentionally) could be grounds for a carrying firearm charge. Florida There are no printing laws in Florida, but unintentional exposure (lifting up arms, exposing gun) is a potential risk, though not actually illegal. There is an issue with overzealous law enforcement and prosecution using ambiguities in law to charge unintentional exposure of a handgun as an open carry violation. Florida Carry discusses this problem. Though the problem is unusual and exceptional, it has occurred and Florida police have known issues with overreacting to lawful open carry (see 790.053). To resolve the accidental exposure problem, HB 39 was proposed in 2018, but failed to be come law, to expressly specify accidental exposure was not an open carry violation. 790.001(2) “‘Concealed firearm’ means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.” 790.053 Open carrying of weapons is illegal in Florida (except for hunting, fishing, and camping). “(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 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.” [emphasis added] It is only illegally to intentionally openly carry or to brandish the firearm. Brief and unintentional exposure of a concealed firearm is not illegal. Regalado v. State found that imprinting was not illegal open carry and even though the officer recognized the bulge as a gun. “The officer observed a bulge in Regalado's waistband, which in his experience looked like a gun. [...] The gun in question was tucked in Regalado's waistband and covered by his shirt. Openly carrying a weapon is the opposite of carrying a concealed weapon, which is defined as to be ‘in such a manner as to conceal the weapon from the ordinary sight of another person.’” Ensor v. State requires that an ordinary person, not just a police officer who has training and experience to look for a firearm, can recognize the gun as such. “For a firearm to be concealed, it must be [...] hidden from the ordinary sight of another person. [...] The term 'ordinary sight of another person' means the casual and ordinary observation of another in the normal associations of life.” Not just a trained and experienced police officer. “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.” Georgia No printing laws. A partially exposed handgun (tucked) is concealed. Gainer v. State specifically found that a bulge in the shape of a pistol is concealed, as it was not “fully exposed” to view, even if the officer could tell the bulge was a pistol. However, one cannot be detained solely to determine if one has a permit. “Fully exposed” means that part of the pistol is not concealed. “This law's purpose is to compel persons carrying such weapons to display them so that others, knowing they were armed and dangerous, could avoid them,” (Parrish v. State). Early landmark open carry case Nunn v. State held that a pistol tucked in the waistband where the butt (and more, in Nunn's case) were visible, did not constitute a concealed weapon. This was reversed by a racist decision supporting pistol licenses, Strickland v. State (1911). Despite licensing requirements, a partially visible or “tucked” handgun was considered not concealed until Anderson v. State. Anderson definitively concluded a pistol carried on the person, but partially concealed, was illegally concealed weapon; a precedent that upheld most recently in Summerlin v. State (2009). Summerlin held that a weapon “shall only be carried in an open and fully exposed manner” to avoid a concealed weapon charge. Hawaii No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. Idaho No printing laws, no case law found. 18-3302(2)(a) “‘Concealed weapon’ means any deadly weapon carried on or about the person in a manner not discernible by ordinary observation.” Illinois No printing laws, no case law found. The statutes are ambiguous, but it appears that partial, unintentional exposure of a handgun or holster would not be illegal, according to various informed state resources speculating on legislative intent. As far as a deliberate tucked firearm or partially visible holster, the Illinois State Police issued guidance in 2013 that stated: "'Concealed' means partially or mostly concealed from view of the public on or about a person within a vehicle. While the FCCA does not permit open carry, use of the terms 'mostly' and 'partially concealed' suggest that something less than fully concealed or out of plain view is required." 430 ILCS 66/10(c)(1) “[license required to] carry a loaded or unloaded concealed firearm, fully concealed or partially concealed, on or about his or her person; and…” Open carry is illegal in Illinois. Possession of a handgun is illegal, without a concealed firearm permit, and carrying according to terms of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, which defines the weapon as “completely or mostly concealed from view,” (430 ILCS 66/1). Indiana No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. Iowa No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. Kansas No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. However, from the official Attorney General concealed carry instructor guidelines, it is advised that printing is a bad practice (according to them), but not illegal. “X. GENERAL RULES. A. When carrying concealed, do not "advertise" that you are doing so. Carrying a concealed firearm is not a game - it is a means of self-defense that carries grave responsibility. There are many people who detest or fear handguns. Keep your firearm out of sight, attempt at all costs to avoid “printing,’ and respectfully decline requests to show it to others in any public setting. The wisdom of this rule is highlighted by the law in states like Florida and Texas (not Kansas) and some foreign countries to the effect that displaying a lawfully concealed handgun is a criminal offense.” (p. 64) Kentucky No printing laws. Prince v. Com. A “weapon is generally held to be concealed when so placed that it cannot be readily seen under ordinary observation.” Louisiana No printing laws. State v. Fluker “In order to be 'concealed' within the meaning of the law, an object must be fully hidden from view.” […] “The appropriate test to be applied in prosecutions for illegal carrying of weapons is whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed by the evidence, the manner in which defendant carried the weapon evinced an intent to conceal its identity.” […] “The problem is whether there has been an intentional concealment. If a part of the weapon is openly displayed, such open display is hardly consistent with an intent to conceal. If a part is subject to view, not through an intention for it to be openly displayed but merely by virtue of sloppy concealment, then it seems there may be intentional concealment even though there is not full concealment.” Maine No printing laws, no case law found. MRS 25-252-2001-A B. Definition of concealed from threatening display of the same: "Wear under the person's clothes or conceal about the person's person a firearm." Maryland No printing laws, no case law found. Open and concealed carry are illegal without a permit. Maryland Code, Criminal Law § 4-206 (a)(1) “A law enforcement officer may make an inquiry and conduct a limited search of a person under paragraph (2) of this subsection if the officer, in light of the officer's observations, information, and experience, reasonably believes that: (i) the person may be wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in violation of § 4-203 of this subtitle […].” Massachusetts No printing laws. “May issue” state and permit issuance and revocation is subject to issuing authority’s discretion. “The licensing authority may deny the application or renewal of a license to carry, or suspend or revoke a license issued under this section if, in a reasonable exercise of discretion, the licensing authority determines that the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to continue to hold a license to carry. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety.” (Title XX-140-131) Firearms Records Bureau v. Simkin: “We suspect that the average Massachusetts resident may become 'alarmed' on learning that someone other than a law enforcement officer is carrying concealed weapons in his or her presence. However, Simkin is not responsible for alarm caused to others by his mere carrying of concealed weapons pursuant to a license permitting him to do exactly that.” An attorney was detained, though ultimately not arrested, when his jacket blew open exposing his pistol, which was seen by a police officer (source). Michigan No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. Minnesota No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. Mississippi No printing laws, no case law found. MS Code 97-37-1 “(1) Except as otherwise provided in Section 45-9-101, any person who carries, concealed on or about one's person, [...] (4) For the purposes of this section, ‘concealed’ means hidden or obscured from common observation and shall not include any weapon listed in subsection (1) of this section, including, but not limited to, a loaded or unloaded pistol carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster that is wholly or partially visible, or carried upon the person in a scabbard or case for carrying the weapon that is wholly or partially visible.” MS Code 45-9-101(24) “A license under this section is not required for a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver to be carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster or in a purse, handbag, satchel, other similar bag or briefcase or fully enclosed case if the person is not engaged in criminal activity other than a misdemeanor traffic offense, is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a pistol or revolver under state or federal law, and is not in a location prohibited under subsection (13) of this section.” Missouri No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. Open carry is legal in Missouri, but some municipalities may ban open carry. House Bill 1647 (2012) removed the penalties for inadvertent exposure of a concealed firearm by a concealed carry. This was a compromise on open carry and intended to address concerns that inadvertent exposure in municipalities with open carry bans could result in arrest for innocently exposing a gun. Mike Stollenwerk of OpenCarry.org explains his take: "No, the new statutory provision allowing brief open carry is essentially a **preemption statute** - there is no state law against open carry or printing in Missouri - so what it means is that (1) Defendants accused of violating local open carry bans can claim a safe harbor (temporary OC) and probably (2) the statute probably means that any prosecutor must now prove as an element of the local open carry offense that the open carry was not a temporary open carry; and probably that a prosecutorial failure to claim that the open carry was NOT temporary would provide the Defendant the ability to succeed on a Motion to Dismiss the Case without even MOUNTING a Defense." The relevant statute: 571.037. “Open display of firearm permitted, when. — Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may 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.” Montana No printing laws, no case law found. 45-8-315 “‘Concealed weapon’ means any weapon [...] that is wholly or partially covered by the clothing or wearing apparel of the person carrying or bearing the weapon [...].” Nebraska No printing laws, no case law found. 69-2429(1) “Concealed handgun means the handgun is totally hidden from view. If any part of the handgun is capable of being seen, it is not a concealed handgun.” Nevada NRS 202.3653 “‘Concealed firearm’ is a loaded or unloaded handgun which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.” New Hampshire No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. New Jersey No definition of “concealed,” but open carry is essentially illegal. No specific statute or regulation on printing found, but due to the state’s treatment of the Second Amendment, subjective criteria could be theoretically used to revoke a permit for someone who was observed printing. New Mexico 29-19-2D “‘Concealed handgun’ means a loaded handgun that is not visible to the ordinary observations of a reasonable person.” New York New York is a default “no carry” state, where only concealed carry by permit is allowed (NY Penal Law 400(2). Specifically, the law states one may “have and carry concealed.” Open carry is illegal, however, there is no definition of “concealed.” No relevant case law was found nor any laws or other regulations governing printing and among the local gun forums, it appears printing outside of New York City is not an concern. Permits are discretionary and may be revoked if one is especially careless. Though no examples were found, under the right circumstances, potentially “menacing” or brandishing could apply, though this is not likely through innocently imprinting through clothes. Menacing Penal Law 120.14 "A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when: 1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm.” [emphasis added] North Carolina No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. North Dakota No printing laws, no case law found. 62.1-04-01. Definition of concealed. “A firearm or dangerous weapon is concealed if it is carried in such a manner as to not be discernible by the ordinary observation of a passerby. There is no requirement that there be absolute invisibility of the firearm or dangerous weapon, merely that it not be ordinarily discernible. A firearm or dangerous weapon is considered concealed if it is not secured, and is worn under clothing or carried in a bundle that is held or carried by the individual, or transported in a vehicle under the individual's control or direction and available to the individual, including beneath the seat or in a glove compartment.” Emphasis added. See definition of “secured.” Ohio No printing laws, no case law found. Concealed is the opposite of “plain sight.” The Ohio Attorney General’s CCW Manual has this to say about “plain sight”: “So far, the Ohio Supreme Court has not defined the term ‘plain sight’ precisely in the context of carrying a concealed handgun. However, in other contexts, courts have generally said that the term ‘plain sight’ is a common-sense term that means clearly visible or unobstructed.” Thus, a concealed handgun would not be clearly visible and obstructed. Oklahoma No printing laws, no case law found. 21 O.S 1290.2 A
Prior to changes in 2013, it was illegal to “intentionally display the pistol” not otherwise authorized by law (ex. self-defense), and for non-Oklahomans carrying on an out-of-state permit, it was required that “the firearm must be carried fully concealed from detection and view.” These sections no longer apply as written as open carry is now legal. Reckless conduct with a firearm, as per the jury instructions, requires that one created a situation of unreasonable risk and probability of death or great bodily harm to another; none of which a poorly concealed handgun does. Oregon No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. Pennsylvania No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law relevant to printing. Case law in Pennsylvania is murky, with the current legal ground being that partial concealment (a tucked gun, butt visible) meets the definition of concealed. Previous cases have decided it on a case-by-case basis. One lawyer’s take is that this approach avoid any ambiguity over if an imprinting firearm is concealed or not. Rhode Island No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law relevant to printing. 11-47-11 gives authority to carry a concealed handgun by license, but there is no provision for accidental exposure/poor concealment. 11-47-13 allows revocation of a license with just cause, which is not defined. Additionally, for information, 11-47-47 Display of weapons refers to handguns on display in a shop window. South Carolina Open carry is illegal. 16-23-20 “It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, except as follows, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law.” Subsection (12) requires that to be exempt from an unlawful carrying of handgun charge, one must carry according to the terms of the permit. The permit terms require concealment. 23-31-210(5) “‘Concealable weapon’ means a firearm having a length of less than twelve inches measured along its greatest dimension that must be carried in a manner that is hidden from public view in normal wear of clothing except when needed for self-defense, defense of others, and the protection of real or personal property.” However, “a manner that is hidden from public view in normal wear of clothing” is not defined. No case law could be found and anecdotal information indicates that only concealed carry, not imprinting or accidental exposure, is illegal. Unlawful carry of a handgun is a misdemeanor (16-23-50). South Dakota 22-1-2(6) “‘Concealed,’ any firearm that is totally hidden from view. If any part of the firearm is capable of being seen, it is not concealed.” Tennessee No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. An Attorney General opinion states that: “If the legislature had intended to require a permit holder to carry his or her handgun concealed, it would have done so by prohibiting the open carrying of a handgun and expressly requiring the concealed carry of a handgun.” Texas Penal Code section 46.035 prohibits “a partially or wholly visible handgun” on college campuses; this mandates concealed carry only on campus. Printing is not Illegal. Licensed open carry is now permitted in Texas. Imprinting has never been illegal in Texas, but “intentional failure to conceal” was formerly prohibited, leading to the mistaken impression that imprinting and accidental exposure in Texas (and elsewhere) was illegal. The imprint showing through was never illegal. The misunderstanding about this law seems to have driven most of the “printing” rumors. Penal Code section 46.035(a) formerly stated that licensees committed a crime when they “intentionally fails to conceal the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.” In my research, no lawful concealed carrier was ever successfully prosecuted for unintentionally allowing a gun to become visible. In 2013, SB 299 was passed to clarify that this prohibition was to cover intentional acts of exposure. SB 299 changed the language to “intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.” Read more details in this excerpt from my open carry book draft. Utah No printing laws, no case law found. “‘Concealed firearm’ means a firearm that is: covered, hidden, or secreted in a manner that the public would not be aware of its presence,” 76-10-501(3)(i). Vermont No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. Vermont never regulated the carrying of firearms, openly or concealed, for self-defense. Virginia No printing laws, no case law found. Defines “concealed” as “hidden from common observation,” (18.2-308). This does not prohibit openly carried firearms, resulting in the so-called ‘Virginia tuck’ method where concealed carriers tuck their outer garments in a way so as to expose the butt of their firearm, making it openly carried. It was formerly illegal to carry a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club which was licensed to serve alcohol (superseded 18.2-308 J3). In 2010, the "restaurant ban repeal" (Senate Bill 334/House Bill 505) was passed and signed by Gov. McDonnell. Prior to this, armed patrons were required to openly carry, thus resulting in the tucking of shirts to expose the pistol's grip, creating the expression "Virginia tuck" for this method of carry. Today, it is illegal to consume alcohol while carrying concealed or to become intoxicated while armed (18.2-308.012). Washington No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. West Virginia Constitutional carry state. No printing laws, no case law found. 61-7-2 (10) “‘Concealed’ means hidden from ordinary observation so as to prevent disclosure or recognition. A deadly weapon is concealed when it is carried on or about the person in such a manner that another person in the ordinary course of events would not be placed on notice that the deadly weapon was being carried.” 61-7-11 “It shall be unlawful for any person armed with a firearm or other deadly weapon, whether licensed to carry the same or not, to carry, brandish or use such weapon in a way or manner to cause, or threaten, a breach of the peace.” Wisconsin No printing laws. Mularkey v. State: “If the weapon is hidden from ordinary observation, it is concealed. Absolute invisibility to other persons is not indispensable to concealment.” This Attorney General opinion on open carry has some tangentially related information that is relative to imprinting. From a DOJ FAQ: "Unless the facts and circumstances indicate a malicious or criminal intent, a person may not be charged with an ordinance or criminal offense of disorderly conduct for going armed with a concealed or openly carried firearm." Wyoming No definition of “concealed,” no printing laws, no case law found. States fall into a couple of clear classifiers when defining concealed. Note the exact construction, implying strictness of the requirement, can vary. For example, Louisiana requires a concealed weapon be fully hidden from view to be an illegally concealed weapon, but the Bayou State is an open carry state, while DC has banned open carry and requires that concealed carry licensees carry their weapon fully hidden from view. Again, these are mostly definitions, not necessarily duties. Not in plain sight/not seen by ordinary observation: Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin Portion of gun or holster is exposed, is not concealed (partially visible): Arizona, Colorado, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma Portion of gun or holster is exposed, but the majority is hidden by clothing, is concealed (partially concealed): California, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas Totally/fully hidden from view: DC, Louisiana, South Carolina, South Dakota No state legitimately punishes accidental exposure. What is prohibited is intentional exposure of a firearm, or rephrased, concealment is required. Of course, there are one-offs like in Florida. Affirmative states (must be totally hidden from view, except accidental exposure): DC, South Carolina, Florida Implied total concealment states (anti-gun): California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York This article took 18 1/2 hours to research and write. It seems that no one else has taken the time to do the same work anywhere in the country. Help a guy out; buy a shirt!
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. Frontier Carry Teespring StorefrontWe will not give in, we will not comply, we will not submit. If you want to be stylish. Including the ever-popular "Deplorables' Snowflake Removal Service" series. This is the first take on my thesis for my forthcoming book on the general history and topic of open carry. past to present. This law denounces not as harm With the so-called victory for open carry and the Second Amendment in Young v. Hawaii, many are no doubt curious why open carry is called the constitutionally approved method of carrying a gun, while concealed carry often requires a permit. Though society seems more comfortable with concealed carry, courts at least claim that their preference under the law is open carry. The huge discrepancy has to do with the history of violence in the South and in the Old West. Though commonplace and the preferred method of carrying a handgun, concealed carry suffered from a negative reputation as a “pernicious practice” and “evil habit.” This demonization was due to concealed weapons’ associations with passionate violence and sudden homicides. A culture that tolerated and often encouraged easy violence blamed not the hearts of men for crime, but the effects of an inanimate object in the pocket for influencing men to kill. This violence and supposed deception justified many legal decisions against concealed carry, but supporting open carry. Concealed carry has generally always been common, as much as, if not more than, open carry. Open carry was often not as widespread as imagined because of negative attitudes towards carrying guns. In many places until the shall-issue wave of concealed carry laws in the 1980s and 1990s, carrying a gun was seen as a suspicious, if not outright criminal, practice. Concealed carry’s historical tarnished reputation so demonized carrying a gun, it discouraged many from carrying openly, even though it was legal. Read more at the Nevada Carry blog. ![]() 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:
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. |