I think what Musketeer said is pretty accurate. I have read of a few instances in some states where any indication of a gun that causes distress to others, subjects one to disturbing the peace issues.

But to the context of the post, I usually wear a vest and many consider a vest to be a "shoot-me-first" indicator to BGs. But they'll have to do a lot of shooting to get every one that wears a vest. But the vest eliminates printing for the most part. So, "they" would have to assume that because I'm wearing a vest I'm armed, because there would be no other indications.

We don't have a lot of choices. We can either carry and conceal it with over garments or use a "deep cover" holster which is a pain in the ..... to get set up correctly, and probably not as comfortable to carry for long periods of time.