 Generally oppose AB 153 (Joint) BDR 15-119 Firearm safe storage This bill amends Nevada's current firearm storage law to add language that prohibits "negligent storage" when the person knows that there is a substantial risk a child could access the firearm in violation of the statute. Presumably, this is intended to address the increase of guns bring brought to Clark County schools. "Negligence" is undefined, but the bill does not impose additional, unreasonable obligations on Nevadan gun owners and leaves the determination to the jury (or judge). It adds essentially a duty to reasonably ensure firearms are not accessible to children. This kind of law is much preferable to California's law which runs afoul of Heller and requires guns be stored essentially useless. We would like to see actual firearm safety training in schools (stop, don't touch), because poor parents who allow their kids to bring guns to school won't follow the law or teach their children. Clark County schools have a parenting problem, not a gun problem. Education can help stop that problem and also educate kids about real gun safety and perhaps save lives in the process.  Approve AB 167 (Joint) BDR 15-97 School parking lot exemption This bill would allow firearms in parking lots of schools, colleges, and universities in vehicles operated by concealed firearm permittees. This is essentially the same bill we've seen in past sessions to decriminalize guns in school parking lots. No one deserves to become a criminal because they drop their kids off at school with a gun in their car. Also, parents shouldn't be forced to disarm on their journey simply because one stop includes a school. This is a good bill and is certainly not a campus carry bill.  On Feb. 15, 2019, just five days after being publicly introduced, Gov. Sisolak signed into law SB 143, which bans private gun sales effective Jan. 2, 2020. SB 143 was rushed through the Legislature, waiving all normal rules and procedures, to make a political point around the anniversary of the Parkland school shooting, which had nothing whatsoever to do with Nevada or private gun sales. The bill was intended to be introduced secretly Monday night just before the 8 AM Tuesday hearing supposedly to take pro-gun activists by surprise. The intent was to pass the bill through a joint session of the judiciary committees to limit public comment and debate. That is exactly what was done, except we learned of it beforehand and were able to make a good showing at the joint hearing. Attendees reported that hundreds of pro-gun activists showed up to just dozens of anti-gun ones bussed in. The way the bill was introduced and passed was entirely dishonesty, undemocratic, unconstitutionally, and possibly illegal. It is clearly the work of a tyrannical one-party government that does not care what 49.55% of voters thought. 2016's Question 1 passed by .45%, or 9,899 votes and lost in every county but Clark County. This initiative was not a mandate of the people and SB 143 was not enacting this mandate. Attorney General Laxalt did the right thing in checking with the FBI. There has been a consistent implication that he and Gov. Sandoval delayed implementation; that's not true. Laxalt followed the law while the writers of Question 1 failed to check with the FBI and wrote a bad law. SB 143 was nothing but a "fix" for the poor work of the Bloomberg groups pushing the law. SB 143 is unconstitutional. Article 19, Sec. 2, 3. of the Nevada Constitution prohibits the legislature from amending, annulling, repealing, setting aside, or suspending a ballot question for 3 years from when the ballot question takes effect (in this case, Jan 1, 2017). Common understanding would mean that they must wait until Jan. 2, 2020 to “fix” the law, but they are acting under the interpretation that they can pass it now and it will be effective after the deadline. Sadly, our corrupt Supreme Court which clearly does not care too much for gun rights will likely side with their cronies next door. Other appeals or tricks could be used to make background checks effective sooner.  Some have criticized recent blog posts as too unprofessional, the language too salty, or the frank expression of frustration with our tone-deaf legislature that is hell-bent on restricting our rights for political purposes. I’m pissed off and you should be too. Profanity adds emphasis and emotion. It gets attention and convinces the reader that the author is serious in a way that polite discourse cannot. Studies have shown that deliberate use of profanity in speeches increase the perception of intensity and believability is tied directly to the passion that cussing conveys. As far as the ad hominem attacks and insults; what respect do liars, fraud, and tyrants deserve? If they go so far as to outright trample the constitutions and the will of darn near 50% of the state merely to virtue signal, why should I worry about being nice to them? We have tried being polite and arguing with reason and logic. That has failed. They do not care about truth or facts, only their political agenda. By calling them the sons-of-bitches they are will not turn them off us. They already hate you and me. In five years, there has been no other grassroots alternative to represent the voice of the activist Nevada gun owner. No one from the community has become a public voice to articulate how we all feel as a whole. My message is not degraded by strategic profanity. Those who want to listen and be persuaded will be. I am perfectly capable of writing well-documented and reasoned essays, but we’ve been there and now here we are. Once when working for the sheriff’s department, I was set upon by a large, angry man who seemed determined to beat me to a pulp. My calm, cool, stoic demeanor failed to convince him that violence was a bad course of action. But when I yelled in my command voice “Get the fuck back in your car or I’ll split your skull with my ticket book,” (all steel, not the basket-weave ones) he stopped in his tracks. Being nice can work against you if that’s all you can be.   We know that private background check laws are ineffective. We know that this bill will not deter criminals. The studies and statistics are plain; criminal do not get the majority of their guns from online classifieds or gun shows. No background check can detect the evil in the human heart. Democrats and gun banners do not care about facts. They want to ban guns, period, or at least make it as difficult as possible for you to own, shoot, and acquire them. Even if you don’t believe in the Devil, evil is at the heart of all gun control. Evil is a conspiracy all its own, working off of the naive good thoughts of manipulated teenages, the mental and physical scars of shooting victims, and the power-hungry nature of politicians. Leftists claim to know what’s best for you, and if you disagree with them, ultimately they will persecute you, jail you, and kill you for not going along. Banning private gun sales is entirely about cutting off a source of firearms the government cannot trace. Deep behind the push for “universal background checks” is the later moves in this chess game where all the dealer transactions must be reported and recorded in a registry. Then, they will want the dealers to scan in their Form 4473s to track past gun purchases. You might even be required to register what you have at home. They’ll cross check those 4473s to see what you have and if you reported it. We need guns the government does not know about so that they cannot take them from us. Off-the-books guns in the hands of ordinary, law-abiding citizens is a bulwark against tyranny. Our founding fathers knew this and included the Second Amendment for this explicit reason. Coming just off a bloody war of revolution fought largely by militiamen with their own weapons. American civilian ownership of firearms is to kill those who would tyrannize you. Nevermind convenience or low prices. That’s all nice, but it’s not why I’m opposed. Not all of us are going to go out tyrant hunting and killing politicians and bureaucrats. Not everyone will stand-up to the armed arrest/confiscation teams by going down in a blaze of glory upon a pile of hot brass. Those options are last resorts that encourage us to engage in legal, democratic solutions to avoid them. Sure, there will be a hot portion to the coming civil war, but not all of it is the stuff of action-fiction. Some of us will bide our time, just trying to survive, and protect our families from the rabid hordes of Leftist thugs that might be mobilized against us at any time. Mob violence is a hallmark of tyrannical and socialist regimes. We’ve seen Antifa on the streets; in a socialist dystopia, this will be one of the main means of keeping people in line. So let’s not pretend the hoplopaths in Carson City and Washington care about your rights or even your safety. Our opinions do not matter; we do not write the donation checks and have no influence. They want to virtue signal and look like they’ve done something (and keep their party donors happy). Remember that the Second Amendment and unknown guns owned by the anonymous is specifically for to kill those that would kill you or otherwise subject you to tyranny. The time for niceties, reason, and politeness have died.   Universal background checks is about as disingenuous as a gun control law as they go. Supporters say it’s about getting the guns out of criminals hands, but studies have shown that most guns don’t come from the non-existent gun show or online “loopholes.” The laws wouldn’t even affect the felons, etc. who buy the guns, just the hapless seller. More studies have shown that background check laws don’t affect gun violence in any meaningful way. Banning private sales is a scam to help enact gun registration. Every manner of lie and half-truth is being used to sell them. Their ministers of propaganda trucked in gullible high school students and Asm. Jauregui whined about the unrelated Route 91 massacre (Paddock passed background checks). Sure, they found a few cherry picked cases of private sales gone bad, but a lot of the conversation has been generic gun crimes and mass killings. Note: virtually all mass killers had background checks done as they bought their guns from dealers. The lying was disgusting. Pretty much every politician that got up there lied. What's worse is that their decision was made a long time ago. This was no debate; it was a symbolic circle jerk of tyrants going through the motions. Gov. Sleestak grandstanded while looking like a washed up old man, lecturing as chief virtue signaler. I actually feel bad for the poor, deluded and brainwashed teenagers that have become the useful idiots for the Leftists. The way SB 143 was introduced was a shame. To throw vigilant gun-rights activists off-guard, they hoped to keep the meeting and bill a secret until the night before the hearing. This way, all the support would be for them while it looks like gun owners didn’t care. They could ram it through committee and floor votes while our heads were still spinning. But we caught them. Also, the state constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending or altering ballot initiatives (recall Question 1) for three years from the date the initiative takes effect; in this case, Jan. 1, 2017, so they cannot act until Jan. 2, 2020. Jan. 2, 2020 is the effective date of SB 143. A plain reading of the constitution indicates that the Legislature must leave the law totally alone until the three year mark; not take action now and make it effective at the three year mark. They don’t care. Passing laws using disingenuous means and by contorting the law into what they want it to say is not how American democracy is supposed to function. Essentially, the 80th Session of the Nevada Legislature is behaving much like the British Parliament did in the 1770s. Rule of law, respect for those they represent; bah! When you’re corrupt, you don’t care. So if the legislature wants to cut corners and cheat, where do they get off expecting that the public follow the rule of law that punishes innocent behavior? If they disrespect the law and circumvent it, then what obligation do we have to studiously obey it if our “masters” and examples openly disregard it? “Because if you don’t, you’ll get fine and go to jail/prison,” is what they say. “Obey or die; do as we say, not as we do.” The mantra of tyrants. Rumors abound that controversial gun bills will be introduced in this manner during this session. If so, even more cause will exist to simply ignore these unconstitutional laws for being passed in an arbitrary manner totally out of harmony with the law and legislative tradition. The more crap they ram through without following the traditional process and totally casting aside the opinions of half of the state, the more reason gun owners will have to simply ignore these bad laws. My message to these politicians is that if you want to pass laws in such a way, then be prepared when citizens don’t care about your laws and cops won’t enforce them. Washington sheriffs are a current example of such a revolt. Legislators can make all the laws they want, but it does no good, and in fact harms the democratic and legal process, if the honored process of the rule of law is abused. If you don’t care about the law, then why the hell should we? But thanks to all you patriots who testified in opposition and turned out to show support for gun rights. Nice work; keep it up. Remember that not a single person who opposed the bill was paid to be there nor were gun owners bussed in, unlike the bunches of anti-gun lemmings that were there to make the Democrats feel a little less like scum-sucking sons of bitches ramming this garbage down our throats.   Click for larger image SB 143 is the attempt to fix the fatal flaws to 2016’s Question 1 Universal Background Check ballot question that would have banned private sales. This was the bill that they attempted to introduce in secret and passed to the surprise of gun owners. Question 1 was deemed unenforceable by Attorney General Adam Laxalt because the FBI refused to conduct the checks for Nevada, as there was no funding for them. Nevada has its own Point of Contact center in Carson City that runs firearm background checks for sales/transfers by dealers. The proponents of Question 1 knew that the voters would not pass the law if they were going to be charged for background checks, so the proponents wrote that everything would go through the FBI. They did not check and see if the FBI would do this for free. This was confirmed by a district court opinion. SB 143 will make it illegal for private persons to sell, lend, or transfer firearms among each other. All sales, gifts, and temporary transfers will have to go through a licensed dealer, who will charge for their time to transfer the firearm. An ATF Form 4473 will be required, which can later be tracked as a form of gun registration. The next logical step is gun registration maintained every time a gun is sold or transferred, as in California. Article 19, Sec. 2, 3. of the Nevada Constitution prohibits the legislature from amending, annulling, repealing, setting aside, or suspending a ballot question for 3 years from when the ballot question takes effect (in this case, Jan 1, 2017). Common understanding would mean that they must wait until Jan. 2, 2020 to “fix” the law, but they are acting under the interpretation that they can pass it now and it will be effective after the deadline. SB 143 is unconstitutional. Sadly, our corrupt Supreme Court which clearly does not care too much for gun rights will likely side with their cronies next door. Interesting find in the Nevada Revised Statutes: “This section was proposed by an initiative petition and approved by the voters at the 2016 General Election and therefore is not subject to legislative amendment or repeal until after November 22, 2019.” NRS 202.254, 202.2541, 202.2543 Numerous studies have shown that background checks don’t actually keep criminals from getting guns and gun show or Internet classified ads don’t account for the majority of where criminals’ guns come from. This will make it illegal for a boyfriend to give his girlfriend a gun or for hunting buddies to lend each other their rifles. It will make it easier for the future tyrannical government that is obviously one or two elections away to identify who owns what guns and take them. The Nevada Legislature, aside from a true handful of them and Gov. Sleestak are corrupt, amoral self-serving politicians desperate to virtue signal and cover up the Bloomberg group’s mistake. They have egg on their face, a desperate Democratic party to please, and will do anything to make it look they have an interest in stopping crime. Make no mistake; a law like this will be exploited to harm you, jail you, or kill you in the future. Predictions: SB 143 will pass out of committee despite opposition on a party-line vote. Further on background checks as they stand today. Tell the legislators how you feel! Be sure to select SB 143. "Oppose!"   Source: Battle Born Progress "Safety reasons"? No, you don't want a counter-protest. Multiple sources have informed Nevada Carry that the Democrats intend to ram gun control bills through on Tuesday, February 12th at 8 AM. They can’t win fairly, so they want to cheat. Some of you may have received Senator James Settlemeyer’s email about background checks. The NRA-ILA is also saying they're trying to fix their background check screw-up they blamed Attorney General Laxalt and the FBI for. They intend to do this by convening a joint session of both the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees so that they can avoid multiple public hearings and plenty of opportunity for public input. The meeting and agendas aren’t even on the calendar yet because they didn’t want us to know. Since most of the gun control bills are just drafts, or not filed at all, they are likely planning on introducing bills late at night on Monday, so no one has a chance to read them. “You have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” They carefully tried to keep this from going public until the last minute to create the illusion of overwhelming support for gun control with their lackeys in the anti-gun movement invited to a special “rally.” If they succeed, they can pass the bills out of committee and the floor votes can be held as a mere formality to send them to the governor. Imagine the worst gun control bills, without any public input or chance for improvement, signed into law before we have a chance to react. Stop their surprise attack. We don’t know if they are going are just background checks—banning private gun sales—or more right now. If you can show up to the Legislature in Carson City or the remote hearing rooms in Las Vegas’ Grant Sawyer building, do it. We need all the people we can get. What you can do: Email AND call the committee members Senate Judiciary Committee Assembly Judiciary Committee Email AND call your senator and assembly person Who's My Legislator tool Show up: 401 S. Carson St. Carson City, NV 89701 (room 1214) 555 E. Washington Ave. Las Vegas, NV 89101 (Room 4412) Maps Committee members direct email Senate Nicole.Cannizzaro@sen.state.nv.us, Dallas.Harris@sen.state.nv.us, James.Ohrenschall@sen.state.nv.us, Marilyn.DonderoLoop@sen.state.nv.us, Melanie.Scheible@sen.state.nv.us, Scott.Hammond@sen.state.nv.us, Ira.Hansen@sen.state.nv.us, Keith.Pickard@sen.state.nv.us Assembly Steve.Yeager@asm.state.nv.us, Lesley.Cohen@asm.state.nv.us, Shea.Backus@asm.state.nv.us, Skip.Daly@asm.state.nv.us, Ozzie.Fumo@asm.state.nv.us, Brittney.Miller@asm.state.nv.us, rochelle.nguyen@asm.state.nv.us, Sarah.Peters@asm.state.nv.us, Selena.Torres@asm.state.nv.us, Howard.Watts@asm.state.nv.us, Chris.Edwards@asm.state.nv.us, Alexis.Hansen@asm.state.nv.us, Lisa.Krasner@asm.state.nv.us, Tom.Roberts@asm.state.nv.us, Jill.Tolles@asm.state.nv.us  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!   In 2020, Nevada will have a large, angry, and motivated population of gun owners. The Nevada Firearms Coalition will have the largest group of members ever. More people will be awake and aware of the gun rights. By if we’re not careful, this will only because we’ve lost many valuable things. Since 1989, Nevada has made huge strides to becoming an A rated state for gun rights. Do we want to lose that in 2019? Individually, we all have to get involved. We have to write, email, call, and even visit our state legislators. Gun control must be fought every step of the way. A wise man once said “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.” Clicking the Like button on Facebook and posting memes won’t defend our rights. The Nevada Firearms Coalition Political Action Committee (PAC) has a great away to stay informed and involved. Join the Engage program by signing up for email alerts on pending legislation and when it’s time to email and phone blast your legislator. Follow the link and scroll down to the sign-up box. Personal connections with the legislators is important too. That’s why the PAC has a lobbyist to testify and talk with the senators and assemblymen. But a lobbyist has to get paid; since we have to work and live our lives, we can come together as a group and have someone do the legwork that we can’t. Media and outreach costs are important too. By making a donation or joining the Caliber Club, you can help pay the bills and continue the fight. The fight for gun rights is never ending. Preserving the Second Amendment isn’t filling up safes and waiting for a last stand, it’s being a part of your citizen government. Together we can keep the great accomplishments we’ve made and build a stronger base for the future. Sign up and donate today.  |
Archives
February 2019
Categories |
RSS Feed