TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

twomillenium wrote:In a court of law, common sense has little to do with it, since common sense is a variable. Just look at the news.

I said common sense and where belts are designed to be worn.

I know.

Then you should know that common sense and the design of the belt together make it obvious, even in a court of law.

I guess the dictionary would not count then. Mark Twain was credited for saying "Common sense is not so common." I stand by my statements.
As far as open carry goes, I prefer the element of surprise.

mojo84 wrote:

twomillenium wrote:In a court of law, common sense has little to do with it, since common sense is a variable. Just look at the news.

I said common sense and where belts are designed to be worn.

I know.

In a court of law, common sense has little to do with it, since common sense is a variable. Just look at the news.

Just curious where does it define a belt must be around the waist or pants? A belt can go around any part of the body just as a strap can go around the waist. Could it be the reason for "belt" was to make sure the open holster was secured to the body? Or could it be that not much thought was given at all. I think the next legislature will have a lot to clean up.