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

[taymag]

I know I have heard in Florida that printing is not illegal and I believe back in 12/13 there was an accidental exposure law passed to ok it. Although I dont carry anything that really "prints" and rarely, if ever have an accidental exposure I still want to see the bill for both these things if anyone has them (Florida). Thanks!!

[taymag]

This is what I have found for accidental exposure.. Am I missing something here or does this cover you as far as if you were to reach for something on the top shelf, etc and having a 1 second flash? Over the 5+ years carrying I am fairly certain I have never had my carry "show" but I would like to know I am covered is so
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...x?BillId=44867

[Dave P]

Should find all the statutes in chapter 790

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...entsIndex.html

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) ... it is unlawful for any person to openly carry ...It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm ... and is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

[taymag]

Ok sounds good. One more question. Is there any info on "printing" or is it really just a gray area of the definition "concealed"? I dont really have a problem with a P380 but sometimes there's a little printing

[Catfish King]

During Summer, you can wear a t-shirt and regular shirt over it. Keep the regular shirt unbuttoned. At the 4 o'clock position, I've never seen a .40 G22 print against the regular shirt due to how loose it fits.

IMHO, concealed means concealed.

[4thPoint]

790.001 Definitions.—As used in this chapter, except where the context otherwise requires:
...
(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.

There is no such thing as 'printing' in Florida law.

You can wear a shirt emblazoned in fluorescent orange and flashing lights saying "Concealed Weapon" with an arrow and be perfectly legal so long as the firearm cannot be seen.
You can safely wear Lycra or latex so tight and conforming that even the serial number of your firearm can be felt as long as it cannot be seen.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

...You can wear a shirt emblazoned in fluorescent orange and flashing lights saying "Concealed Weapon" with an arrow and be perfectly legal so long as the firearm cannot be seen.
You can safely wear Lycra or latex so tight and conforming that even the serial number of your firearm can be felt as long as it cannot be seen.

Since you fail to cite legal authority for your claim, your opinion on this point can, and should, be ignored.

If you, or anyone, is going to say that something is legally okay, he needs to back the statement up with citation to supporting, applicable legal authority. If you, or anyone else, is wrong, someone foolish enough to pay attention to you could get into a lot of trouble.

[Jim March]

Dave P: does that law allow situations where you're showing a friend a cool new holster or gun while it's on your hip or whatever, or is it about cases where you're seriously threatened and show that you're armed to (hopefully) de-escalate?

Or both?

[4thPoint]

Since you fail to cite legal authority for your claim, your opinion on this point can, and should, be ignored.

If you, or anyone, is going to say that something is legally okay, he needs to back the statement up with citation to supporting, applicable legal authority. If you, or anyone else, is wrong, someone foolish enough to pay attention to you could get into a lot of trouble.

You did see the citation I posted, didn't you?
The one that said:

790.001 Definitions.—As used in this chapter, except where the context otherwise requires:
...
(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.

The one that gave the statute number of the Florida law?
The one that says "in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight"?

Conceal firearm, not "disguise the shape".


Is there a court case that you are aware of where "printing" is sufficient RAS to suspect of 790.001?
What about a court case where the pistol is concealed but the individual is openly wearing spare magazines or has an "I have a concealed gun" tee-shirt? Certainly reason enough to suspect there's a firearm there, right?
http://www.zazzle.com/saturday_night...51974549523008

[4thPoint]

Let me see if I can frame this without getting afoul the forum's code of conduct.

To the best of my recollection, there are several states where it's illegal for wimmen folk to go paradin' around with their secondary sexual characteristics unconcealed. S'far as I know there's no law against anyone's Jennifer Annistons 'printing' against fabric so you know they're underneath.

Or, if you're inclined that way, there are similar laws against the men folk to go walking around with their meat'n'taters out there for the world to see. But again, Speedo's in public, while in poor taste, aren't a violation of the law.

[Sharkbite]

Common sense dictates that a slight buldge under your shirt is not "printing". That buldge could be ANYTHING. A cell phone, a camera pouch, a colostomy bag...anything

If the buldge is SO defined as to be readily apparent to be a gun, then that could be an issue in some jurisdictions. I dont know FL law at all, but i make a reasonable effort to avoid any sign that im carrying. That said if i twist in a strange direction and i "print" a little, i dont worry about it

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

...You did see the citation I posted, didn't you?...

Yes, I saw it, but it doesn't necessarily support your claim.

The statute indeed defines a concealed firearm as one:

...carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person. ...

That doesn't tell us anything about how Florida courts of appeal have applied that definition, nor whether any of those courts have or have not ruled that a firearm identifiable as such from its outline on fabric draped over it is or is not concealed "from the ordinary sight of another person."

Without an applicable Florida court of appeals decision supporting your claim, your opinion is worthless and irresponsible.

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

....Is there a court case that you are aware of where "printing" is sufficient RAS to suspect of 790.001?...

Bladerdash! You made two unqualified, categorical statement which you claim to be fact under Florida law:

1. Originally Posted by 4thPoint

   There is no such thing as 'printing' in Florida law.

2. Originally Posted by 4thPoint

   You can safely wear Lycra or latex so tight and conforming that even the serial number of your firearm can be felt as long as it cannot be seen.

It is therefore your burden to cite case law supporting those claims. Absent case law supporting your claims, they would needed to be qualified as at best describing a possibility.

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

...To the best of my recollection, there are several states where it's illegal for wimmen folk to go paradin' around with their secondary sexual characteristics unconcealed...

And all of that is egregious drivel having nothing to do with the subject being discussed in this thread. A question of whether some manner of scanty attire exposes one to prosecution under some form of "indecent exposure" or "offense to public decency" law will be decided based on the exact language of any applicable statutes taken together with any case law on the subject.

Obviously you really know nothing about law or how it works. It would be a better idea if you took the trouble to educate yourself before spouting off about such things.

[4thPoint]

And poppycock to you, Sir.

There is no such thing as 'printing' in Florida law.

Fine, show me where "printing" is mentioned or defined in Florida Statutes.
Show me where "printing" has been deemed to be RAS in a Florida court case.
I'll wait.

You can safely wear Lycra or latex so tight and conforming that even the serial number of your firearm can be felt as long as it cannot be seen.

hy·per·bo·le
hīˈpərbəlē/
noun
noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric; More

I'd have thought someone with your obvious higher education would recognize it for what it was. I doubt even the celebrated Mike Murdock of Marvel comics could feel a firearm's serial number beneath the thinnest imaginable Lycra fabric. I guess I misunderestimated you.


Just so I have this straight...
You're saying that someone can have an unconcealed firearm for hours on end so long as they are hunting or fishing (or on their way to hunt or fish) but a covered firearm will cause problems if someone isn't hunting or fishing and the mere outline of it can be seen?

[FITASC]

The recent;y passed law about "accidental" exposure was to cover situations such as the wind blowing your cover garment open say, at the C store getting gas or similar. IF you wantonly display it as an act of aggression, that is not allowed.

To avoid printing, wear a cover shirt with a intricate design such as plaid or similar - that breaks up the outline of most guns.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

...Fine, show me where "printing" is mentioned or defined in Florida Statutes.
Show me where "printing" has been deemed to be RAS in a Florida court case....

Nonsense. You made the claim, so it's your burden of proof.

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

...You're saying that someone can have an unconcealed firearm for hours on end so long as they are hunting or fishing (or on their way to hunt or fish) but a covered firearm will cause problems if someone isn't hunting or fishing and the mere outline of it can be seen?

I'm saying that you can't know for sure without a court decision on point.

That is how things work in the real world, and people educated in law understand such things. You are not educated in the law and obviously do not understand such things. Your opinions on such matters are worthless.

[Frank Ettin]

I am now going to demonstrate how "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing." In a number of the foregoing posts, member 4thPoint was contending essentially that because the applicable Florida statute, 790.001, defines a concealed firearm as one:

...carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person. ...

there is no such thing as "printing" under Florida law and that a firearm which was lightly covered was "concealed" for the purposes of Florida law even it recognizable as a firearm.

He is wrong, as clearly shown by the applicable the Florida Standard Jury Instruction related to 790.01 (the crime of carrying a concealed weapon) (at pg 227, emphasis added):

10.1 CARRYING A CONCEALED [WEAPON] [FIREARM]

§ 790.01, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Carrying a Concealed [Weapon] [Firearm], the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) knowingly carried on or about [his] [her] person [a firearm] [a weapon] [an electric weapon or device].

2. The [firearm] [weapon] [electric weapon or device] was concealed from the ordinary sight of another person.

Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1981); Dorelus v. State, 747 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1999).

The term “on or about [his] [her] person” means physically on the person or readily accessible to [him] [her].

The term “ordinary sight of another person” means the casual and ordinary observation of another in the normal associations of life. A [firearm] [weapon] need not be completely hidden for you to find that it was concealed. However, a [firearm] [weapon] is not concealed if, although not fully exposed, its status as a [firearm] [weapon] is detectable by ordinary observation.

Definition. Give as applicable. § 790.001, Fla. Stat.

In other words, a firearm (or other weapon) is not concealed for the purposes of Florida law if, even though partially or fully covered, it is nonetheless identifiable on ordinary observation, such as from an exposed portion or by its outline, as a firearm or weapon.

To understand what the law is and how it might be applied one must do the necessary research. The application of a statute, for example, to a real situation could be non-intuitive.

[4thPoint]

The term “ordinary sight of another person” means the casual and ordinary observation of another in the normal associations of life. A [firearm] [weapon] need not be completely hidden for you to find that it was concealed. However, a [firearm] [weapon] is not concealed if, although not fully exposed, its status as a [firearm] [weapon] is detectable by ordinary observation.

"...a [firearm] [weapon] is not concealed if, although not fully exposed, its status as a [firearm] [weapon] is detectable by ordinary observation...)
Not fully exposed would mean that at least some portion was visible, see ENSOR v. STATE and DORELUS v. STATE as a poster mentioned in post #16.

So, it appears I am forced to ask again, where is "printing" mentioned in any case law or statute?

[Dave P]

"does that law allow situations where you're showing a friend a cool new holster or gun while it's on your hip or whatever, "

Jim, I would take my friend out back (out of sight from bystanders), if I want to show off my weapon. I gently chastised a couple of friends last week for showing off weapons on a school ground, which is county property (school has not been a school for 10 years or so).

"or is it about cases where you're seriously threatened and show that you're armed to (hopefully) de-escalate?"

No Jim, I can't imagine the statute was written to allow "brandishing".

But now that you mention it, I kinda recall Florida now allowing warning shots, and pulling your weapon to discourage further aggression. I need to look that one up.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

"...a [firearm] [weapon] is not concealed if, although not fully exposed, its status as a [firearm] [weapon] is detectable by ordinary observation...)
Not fully exposed would mean that at least some portion was visible, see ENSOR v. STATE and DORELUS v. STATE

Nope, you have to actually read and understand the cases (wouldn't hurt if you learned how to cite cases either). So let's look at the cases.

I. Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d 349 (Fla., 1981)

The issue for the Florida Supreme Court in Ensor was (at 351):

...whether an object observed from a "pre-intrusive open view" and believed by a trained police officer to be a weapon can also simultaneously be a "concealed weapon" prohibited under section 790.01, Florida Statutes (1977). We answer the question in the affirmative, holding that what an officer observes in carrying out his duties and what the average person may see from "ordinary observation" are not necessarily the same....

In addressing the question of whether a weapon is or is not concealed for the purposes of a conviction under 790.01, the Court says (at 355, emphasis added):

......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....

Thus Ensor clearly admits the possibility that a gun which is covered, partially or fully, could still not be considered concealed if it's identifiable as a gun by ordinary observation. And whether or not the gun was or was not concealed will be a question of fact for the jury. We've seen in a prior post of mine how the jury will be instructed in the law to be applied to answer that question.

II. Dorelus v. State, 747 So. 2d 368 (Fla., 1999)

As the Court stated, in Dorelus the core of its ruling as (at 371, emphasis in original):

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

Specifically, the Court ruled that (at 373):

...Thus, the undisputed facts are that the gun was located in an open console underneath the radio and the officer observed the shiny silver butt of a gun sticking out of the console. There is no indication that the firearm was covered in any manner, no indication of any attempt on the defendant's part to hide the presence of the firearm, and no indication that the police officer had any difficulty recognizing the object as a firearm. We can discern no legal distinction between a firearm being located in an open console of a dashboard or on the front passenger seat of a vehicle. Thus, we agree with the trial court that the firearm was not concealed as a matter of law and conclude that trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss....

In effect the Court concluded that under the unique and undisputed facts of Dorelus there would be no factual basis upon which a jury could reasonably find that the gun was conceal; and, therefore, it was appropriate to determine that under the particular circumstances the gun was not, as a matter of law, concealed.

But we still have the Court in Dorelus stating that the question of whether or not a gun (or other weapon) is concealed would be a question of fact for the jury. We've seen in a prior post of mine how the jury will be instructed in the law to be applied to answer that question.

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

...So, it appears I am forced to ask again, where is "printing" mentioned in any case law or statute?

It doesn't have to be. It's not a legal term. As explained here it is a term used in ordinary discussion with respect to carrying a concealed firearm to describe a situation in which:

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

or something along those lines.

And a gun which is being carried under a cover garment but which is printing could be found by a Florida jury, under the Florida jury instructions I quoted earlier, not to be concealed.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Dave P

...But now that you mention it, I kinda recall Florida now allowing warning shots, and pulling your weapon to discourage further aggression. I need to look that one up.

Nope, there's no such law. This was the bill that was enacted, and it says nothing about warning shots.

The relevant statute is 776.012:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

We discussed in this thread the general issue of justifying a threat of force.

Basically displaying a weapon defensively is a matter of of legal justification.

The usual definition of assault, based on the Common Law is:

an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

In the laws of some States this crime might be given another name. For example, in Alabama it's called "menacing." But by whatever name it is called, it is a crime in every State.

So a display of a firearm, when done for the purposes of intimidation, or to secure compliance, or to convince someone to keep his distance, or in response to a perceived threat is, in all States, an assault of some type. You are effectively putting someone in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, i. e., getting shot.

Now in all States it will be a defense against a charge of assault (or any similar crime) if you establish that your assault satisfied the applicable legal standard for justification.

In most States the standard for justifying a threat of lethal force is the same as for justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In a few, it's a somewhat lesser standard. So in all States if you threaten lethal force you will need to be able to at least show prima facie such threat was legally justified, that is if you want to avoid a conviction for assault.

[4thPoint]

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19817...R%20v.%20STATE

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

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19991...S%20v.%20STATE

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

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

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

re 'printing'

It doesn't have to be. It's not a legal term. As explained here it is a term used in ordinary discussion with respect to carrying a concealed firearm to describe a situation in which:

or something along those lines.

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

And a gun which is being carried under a cover garment but which is printing could be found by a Florida jury, under the Florida jury instructions I quoted earlier, not to be concealed.

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

[taymag]

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

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

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

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

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

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

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

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

re 'printing'

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

What nonsense.

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

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

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

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

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

Originally Posted by taymag

I know I have heard in Florida that printing is not illegal and I believe back in 12/13 there was an accidental exposure law passed to ok it. Although I dont carry anything that really "prints" and rarely, if ever have an accidental exposure I still want to see the bill for both these things if anyone has them (Florida). Thanks!!

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

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—

(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

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

(a) A self-defense chemical spray.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by taymag

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

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

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

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

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

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 4thPoint

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

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

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

[4thPoint]

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

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