TexasCHLforum.com

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.

mojo84 wrote:

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.

Don't know why it wouldn't work. It's a belt holster.

louisf1 wrote:

hansdedrich wrote:You may be absolutely correct. The dangers of carrying a gun and having one around the house may not be worth it unless you live on a working ranch.

There really is not much risk to carrying a gun if you are aware of your surroundings and know what your doing.

joe817 wrote:

hansdedrich wrote:You may be absolutely correct. The dangers of carrying a gun and having one around the house may not be worth it unless you live on a working ranch.

Wellllll, if you want to rid yourself of the dangers of carrying a gun and having one around your house, ahhh, what kind are they and how much do you want for them?

srothstein wrote:

gljjt wrote:

ELB wrote:Why was this ever put in there in the first place? (Is this some consequence of the OCT/OCTC antics?)

If you don't have a holster, and a handgun is visible, LE has PC to make a stop. Gangbanger.

I think this was put in for a much better reason than this. We have had a few well publicized incidents of CHLs dropping their weapons. IIRC, one went off in Houston when dropped and hit a bystander. While a holster does not stop this from happening, it makes it much less likely. It would be even less likely if there was a retention holster required, as was first proposed. I am glad to see the retention requirement dropped, and I am willing to put up with the holster requirement for now. But it was concealed carry without holsters that caused those incidents and that is still allowed. I am not suggesting that we require holsters for carry, but I do strongly suggest use of a good holster to carry; pocket, ankle, belt, shoulder, or whatever.

hansdedrich wrote:

jmra 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.

Why would we want to have that restriction placed on us? I would prefer the flexibility of wearing my IWB holster with a cover garment where OC was not allowed and removing the cover garment where OC was allowed. As to wether an IWB holster is considered concealed or OC, it seems to me that if it is visible to the point someone can see that you are carrying a firearm then it is OC. If no one can see it then it is concealed.

I agree with you on the flexibility, that is exactly what I want as well, but why won't they say that !! All they say is a bunch of legal Bllsht that can be interpreted anyway you want. If it is left vague and uncertain, bet you a dollar some ambitious prosecutor will crucify an innocent gun holder. All they have to say is that you must wear an IWB holster with a cover garment where OC is not allowed and you may remove the cover garment where OC is allowed. (Or let your shirt tails flapping so at times it is concealed and at times open - in an open approved area). It is simple. If they do not spell it out, then we are all guessing, including the cops and the MWAG crowd.

jmra 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.

Why would we want to have that restriction placed on us? I would prefer the flexibility of wearing my IWB holster with a cover garment where OC was not allowed and removing the cover garment where OC was allowed. As to wether an IWB holster is considered concealed or OC, it seems to me that if it is visible to the point someone can see that you are carrying a firearm then it is OC. If no one can see it then it is concealed.

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