TexasCHLforum.com

Anyone who truly cannot accept the fact that a holster that hangs on a belt and an IWB holster that is secured to the belt would fall within the proposed open-carry statute should stick to concealed-carry so you don't have to fret quite so much. This is beyond absurd! It makes me question, once again, why we spent so much political capital pushing for open-carry when so many more important bills are not getting the necessary attention to pass.

I didn't want "holster" mentioned either and I suggested that the language be something like "holster or other device to securely hold the handgun" but it didn't fly. The fact that I didn't get what I wanted hasn't led me to argue that we are going to be overrun by Unicorns as a result. I can't recall another gun-related issue that has prompted such extreme and exaggerated claims by pro-gun people.

I can hear it now. We (NRA and TSRA) get open-carry passed in spite of horrendous damage caused by open-carry zealots, only to be faced with complaints that "I have to put that thing in a holster!!!!"

Chas.

joe817 wrote:Anybody besides me think that this thread has turned into a circular discussion, not to dissimilar to a circular firing squad?

Yep! It's starting to remind me of the nursery at church with all of the whining going on. (BTW, I'm not making a joke.)

Chas.

Jason K wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:

Jason K wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.

So....I could actually use an ankle holster as long as there was a dangle-thingy that attached to my belt, right?....

Why in the world would anyone want to open carry with an ankle holster?

It's the principle of the thing.....illustrating absurdity through the absurd.

The only absurdity are the ridiculous "examples" that are being thrown out.

Chas.

Jason K wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.

So....I could actually use an ankle holster as long as there was a dangle-thingy that attached to my belt, right?....

If that's what you think constitutes a "belt holster," then give it a try and find out.

Chas.

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 are you mixing apples and oranges?

There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.

Chas.

Tex. Gov't Code wrote:Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

hansdedrich wrote:Yes, but the more descriptive, the more protection you have in court. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to simply state in the law that in open carry, either: 1."The gun and holster must be totally exposed at all times. Or, the gun can be partially exposed. Or better yet, whether the gun is exposed, partially exposed, or totally concealed makes no difference.

Unless this is spelled out, this will be a bad law and somebody is gonna have to spend big bucks defending him or herself.

Your concerns are already addressed. In fact, they have been addressed since 1995 when concealed carry passed. (See below.) To my knowledge, there has not been a single case in almost 20 years (million + "man years") where a CHL was charged with intentional failure to conceal where the level of concealment was an issue.

Chas.

Tex. Gov't Code wrote:Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

mojo84 wrote: This doesn't seem that difficult to understand to me.

IWB can be either. Is there a shirt, jacket, vest or other cover garment concealing the part of the gun? If so, it's concealed. If not, it's open carried.

Same goes for a gun in a belt holster or shoulder holster except part of the gun will not be inside one's pants.

I don't know why a paddle holster designed to hang on the belt wouldn't be considered a belt.

What am I missing?

You're not missing anything; it's not hard to understand. These are "red herring" arguments because of a desire not to have belt or shoulder holster limitation.

Chas.

hansdedrich wrote:"It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder."

Are we again having to guess at what the law is? C'mon. If I have my pistol on an IWB holster and my shirt blows up, will I be arrested for brandishing - or an OWB holster with my shirt covering it, will I be arrested for concealment? In other words, if my pistol is in a holster, can I wear or not wear any kind of clothes I choose? These darn laws are legal speak and don't make sense - you have to go to court to find out what you did opr didn't do. Maybe that's the plan, more attorney fees and court action??

There's nothing confusing or ambiguous at all. You can carry concealed in any way you like. If open-carry passes as in SB17/HB910, then you can still carry concealed in any way you like, or you can carry openly with a belt or shoulder holster.

Chas.

Bladed wrote:

Srnewby wrote:Read in the House rules that bills approved by the Senate are to receive first reading and assignment to committee as soon as "practicable". SB 17 was received in the House a week ago tomorrow. If SB 17 has not been assigned to a committee by the end of this week, I'm thinking it is pretty clear that the Speaker is stalling.

SB 17 wasn't received by the House until last Friday (four days ago).

Of the 32 Senate bills thus far received by the House (some of which were received weeks before SB 17), two have been referred to committee.

We don't gain anything by jumping to conclusions.

Correct! Something is working, so rest easy folks. This isn't a guarantee, but there's no reason to suspect a conspiracy at this point.

Chas.

TVGuy wrote:did anyone catch the first 30-45 minutes of the Homeland Security committee meeting. Was any action taken on 910? (or any other pending bills for that matter)

Testimony was taken, but the Bill was not voted. All bills in that committee are "left pending" until the next committee hearing. Then some bills are voted on, some are not. Those that are not are either undergoing changes, or are dead.

Chas.

I'm more than a little tired of hearing professors lie about how tough college life is and the alarmingly high rate of nut jobs on campus. I would love the opportunity to sit on the committee and cross-examine these folks.

Chas.

I didn't get his name, but the current guy talking about how he fired three rounds at a fleeing cell phone thief isn't helping the cause.

Chas.