TexasCHLforum.com

joe817 wrote:TAM, is that the mayor of Kermit?

hansdedrich wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

hansdedrich wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I think you are way over analyzing this and making something very simple complicated. Exposed is exposed. Concealed is concealed.

Okay, is an inside the waist band holster considered open or concealed? It would seem to me that the lawmakers could easily clear things up by defining open carry as: " an OUTSIDE the belt waist belt holster or shoulder holster." It's a sticking point I believe because gangbangers wear guns stuck in the front of their pants, not different from me wearing an inside the belt holster in the front of my pants because an IWB holster is not visible. This might sound like nit picking until you are arrested and learn the details in court instead of asking the hard questions now. Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to protect everyone here who is law abiding.

Wow.

Is the gun visible to another party? I don't mean "printing". I mean "visible". Is it visible? If not, then you're good to go. If OC passes, then IT. WON'T. MATTER. Under current law, in the absence of an open carry law, if your gun is in an IWB holster with the grip exposed and visible to an observer, then it really boils down to whether or not you were intentionally concealing. If your shirt was tucked in, then you have no way to make a case for unintentional failure to conceal, and you will suffer the consequences. OTH, if your gun is carried IWB with the grip exposed above your belt, but you are wearing a cover garment which conceals it, then you are good to go. If the wind blows your cover garment aside, momentarily exposing the grips, then that is UNintentional failure to conceal, and you're good to go.

This stuff is not rocket science, and you are way overthinking it. There is a very important legal principle which your hypotheses and conclusions ignore, and that is that EVERYthing is legal until a law is written to make it illegal. In other words, "legal" is the default state. It's a binary state, much like in programming. It's like saying that everything is "O" unless a specific rule is written which switches "O" to "1" under specific circumstances. What you are advocating here is that LOTS of rules should be written.......a society with MORE laws rather than fewer. By definition, laws restrict liberty. Ergo, you are arguing for further restrictions on liberty.

If you want a law that covers every contingency you can possibly think of, it would be so cumbersome and difficult to interpret that it would have the opposite effect that what you desire.

Far better to simply stop obsessing about it. Conceal your gun, and go about your day. If OC passes, then you won't have to worry about it at all. If it doesn't pass, then simply conceal your gun. It is that simple.

Haha, I'm not trying to rewrite the law! I only want to know one thing: Is an IWB holster legal when open carrying> That's not too hard of a question, is it?

The Count wrote:I wonder how a western style gun belt would be viewed under this proposed "belt or shoulder" holster wording? The gun is in a holster attached to a belt that goes around the waist, but it doesn't actually pass through any belt loops on the pants the person is wearing.

hansdedrich wrote:You would have to ask the prosecutors that one. I personally want the law very specific and not worry how some judge or jury will interpret it their way.

hansdedrich wrote:"I simply would like to be completely confident that what I would be using is absolutely correct. The same way that I want to be absolutely confident that I understand any and all firearms laws. And you're only paranoid IF they aren't out to get you (and I believe there are a lot of folks not happy that this is getting passed, so we're going to have a whole new round of even just MWAG calls)."

This my point. I don't want some law enforcement officer interpreting the law so that I have to go to court to defend myself from an ambiguous statute. Look, it's a simple question that nobody wants to address. I have a kydex holster that fits inside my belt. It is invisible, but it is attached to my belt. Only my gun handle shows above the belt line. It looks as if I just have the gun stuck in my belt, but it is in a holster. I then, under current law, wear a long tailed shirt to cover the gun. So, with the new law, and this is a very simple question, can I now take off the long tailed shirt and just expose the gun??

Jason K wrote:

mojo84 wrote:That's when the real quid pro quo can start. People will hold out their support for more money for their pet projects and cronies.

Votes for sale.

And it's also why I think Strauss will let OC and Campus Carry pass....he's got other irons in the fire that he has to spend political capital on.

Salty1 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Paragrouper wrote:

Salty1 wrote:I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

I would agree. periodic refresher training is a good way to ensure the CHL population is made aware of any changes to the laws that may impact on how or where they carry. We are all responsible for our actions; training helps us all to better understand those responsibilities under the law.

Are you saying the training should be required by law or are you saying we should all be responsible and obtain the training we determine we need individually.

I will put it this way, if it did come back I would not rant and rave about it and attend the class. If it came down to a negotiation point to get OC passed then I would not voice opposition although I may not like it. There is always give an take on such an issue even though we might not like certain aspects of it. We all know that most CHL holders do not stay up to date on the current laws, there are instructors still telling students of off limit places that have not been in effect for years. I feel that the members and frequent visitors to this site are the exception rather than the rule.....

Paragrouper wrote:

Salty1 wrote:I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

I would agree. periodic refresher training is a good way to ensure the CHL population is made aware of any changes to the laws that may impact on how or where they carry. We are all responsible for our actions; training helps us all to better understand those responsibilities under the law.

Salty1 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:This firearm instructor wants to bring back the class for renewals. His business must be hurting from when the requirement was removed.

I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.