TexasCHLforum.com

AJSully421 wrote:

casp625 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

casp625 wrote:Do I spy with my little eye... a paddle holster showing under "Example of Holsters -> Belt Holster" ?!
http://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/CHL/docume ... lsters.pdf

Looks like that holster (safariland?) is a paddle holster with additional loops for a belt (and it looks like the belt is holding it up).
However, the Serpa on page 11 (Automatic Restraint) definitely looks like the paddle only is being used (belt is not supporting the holster).
Good find!

Good call!

That is a Safariland 7390, it has regular belt loops, no type of paddle whatsoever. The mount looks exactly like the one shown (a little better) on the last slide.

BTW, a 2.25" mount on a 1.75" belt cannot be discouraged enough (Look at the last slide). It will screw up our draw. Get the 2".

Glockster wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Just make sure it's not in your hand or stuck in your waistband without a holster.

That does bring up one thing that I've been wondering about as Texas doesn't have a brandishing law per se, and disorderly conduct covers display in a manner calculated to alarm, so wonder what will happen the first time someone is seen resting their hand on their holstered gun and someone either calls it in as a MWAG because they "touched it" or a LEO sees that and decides that it was. I bring that up because I lived in a state where OC was so "normal" that frankly both LEO and OC'ers often could be seen resting their hand on their gun, to the point that it was covered in my CHP class and the instructor made a point that doing that in front of the wrong person could become a problem for you.

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

thetexan wrote:I originally wanted to know if we had reached a consensus and we haven't.

The bottom line is this...

1. Lot's of guessing
2. Lot's of assuming
3. Lot's of making determinations based on guessing and assuming
4. Lot's of willingness to bet one's possible conviction on the defense of "common sense" in a world where prosecutors take pride in their convictions.

Of course, I asked for it. Since a consensus of the forum doesn't determine the actual legal definition. I just thought someone might have gotten some insight on the subject.

The reason this might be an important point is this. It is almost certain that a not a few persons might have to explain their openly carried firearm to a LEO who is responding to a MWAG report. The close scrutiny of the LEO in the course of doing his investigation will most probably bring close scrutiny to all aspects of the situation including whether the holster meets requirements.

No, under normal circumstances no will will notice the difference between a belt and paddle holster, of course. It's when a LEO starts taking careful interest in you, your gun, and your holster, that it might be an issue. I would think that at that very moment you would want to be in compliance especially if there is an accepted difference between the two.......as the holster industry seems to think there is!!!!!

And yes, if I don't feel comfortable with the ambiguity I will use a belt holster. I would prefer the paddle holster, and thus the question.

tex

Countryside wrote:

goose wrote:

Countryside wrote:I...I can't believe this!
All of you...ALL of you are WRONG!

THIS is a "belt holster" ....

It's a belt....holster.

That is kind of awkwardly amazing. It seems like it is missing something, but all of the parts of a slide holster are there. I think this wins.

You're right! It IS missing something....security. This is (in my worthless opinion) a retention accident looking for a place to happen.

JALLEN wrote:This is confusing.

What if you wear slacks that do not require/use a belt?

Is this another one of those deals where the Lege is under great pressure to do something they would really rather not, so they fashion the something to be completely ridiculous?

thetexan wrote:One of the concerns is that the holster industry itself distinguishes between a belt holster and a paddle holster. These are clearly two different animals.

Let's reverse the thought. What if the legislature had specified that the holsters for open carry had to be a shoulder or paddle holster? What kind of conversation would we be having then? It is we who are trying to make a paddle holster fit into the definition of a belt holster. If it were the other way around would we even trying to convince ourselves that a belt holster is really a paddle holster?

What we are doing is making an assumption that when the legislature said belt holster they really didn't mean that as a distinctive type as does the holster industry, but rather meant any ole holster that is carried somewhere over, on, or in the vicinity of the belt.

I wouldn't be so sure that distinction doesn't matter.

tex

HKsig wrote:I've read something somewhere about the open carry holster required to be looped in a belt and not clipped. I can't remember the source so I can't cite it but that question did come up and answered.