HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now

[mojo84]

The more specific the laws get the more limiting and confusing they become. I believe if it's designed to attach to a belt or shoulder, it meets the requirements.

Do you guys want then to list specifically what brands, materials, cookies and listings on the body where they can be written? Is it a belt holster if it's worth appendix or small of the back. Is it a shoulder shoulder if it attaches to both shoulders. Shouldn't that be called "shoulders" holster? Do you want then to specify that it must be a specifically design leather or nylon weave belt no less than 1 1/2 inches wide?

How specific do you guys want then to be?

[hansdedrich]

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.

[jmra]

The more specific the laws get the more limiting and confusing they become. I believe if it's designed to attach to a belt or shoulder, it meets the requirements.

Do you guys want then to list specifically what brands, materials, cookies and listings on the body where they can be written? Is it a belt holster if it's worth appendix or small of the back. Is it a shoulder shoulder if it attaches to both shoulders. Shouldn't that be called "shoulders" holster? Do you want then to specify that it must be a specifically design leather or nylon weave belt no less than 1 1/2 inches wide?

How specific do you guys want then to be?

with the point you are making. The more descriptive the law gets the more restrictive it becomes.

[mojo84]

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.

I think this is a situation where one should be careful for what he asks.

[hansdedrich]

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.

[mr1337]

with the point you are making. The more descriptive the law gets the more restrictive it becomes.

Then it should just be "holster" without the belt or shoulder modifiers. Having "belt or shoulder" severely limits the types of holsters that can be used. For instance, I have a vehicle mounted holster (Grassburr) that I would not be able to use without concealing it. However, I would be able to open carry in my vehicle in a belt or shoulder holster. I don't understand why one is okay and the other is not.

Honestly though, I think paddle holsters and MIC holsters (like Vanguard2) fit the bill, or at least close enough where you shouldn't have an issue. Paddle holsters do fit over the belt, so you could argue that it's a belt holster. Vanguard2 and the like attach to the belt, and they hold the gun securely, so therefore they should also qualify as a belt holster.

However even though I may ever want to use other types of holsters (such as drop-leg holsters) I don't think they should be prohibited. It's semantics, and I hope if this bill get passed this session, that they fix the wording to at least include all holsters in the near future.

[mr1337]

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.

From what I understand, if something is not explicitly defined in statute, the courts will use a reasonable definition that most benefits the defendant.

[mojo84]

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

I can't fathom anyone thinking a gun in a Crossbreed Supertuck wouldn't be acceptable just because part of the gun is inside the waistband.


Edited to better clarify my point. I too was making it too complicated.

[hansdedrich]

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.

[jmra]

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.

[hansdedrich]

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, but why won't they say that?? 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.

[hansdedrich]

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.

[K5GU]

I've been reading the posts and agree with some and disagree with others and I have some thoughts addressing some of the concern. I agree with the concerns related to wanting to be informed about the laws/bills, etc. I think some of the more passive feelings about the proposed "holstering" issue (and other LOC issues) are expressions from folks who don't intend to carry openly after it passes, so the probabilities are lower that they will encounter a legal problem.

And I agree that too many explicit requirements in a law could open the entrapment gate for the defendant.
There will always be vague and ambiguous wording in any law or set of instructions. That's why if you do find yourself in that kind of defensive situation, make sure you have some witnesses, a good lawyer and a bucket of money.

On my wishlist for the laws and bills is more use of the "..it is an exception to.." rules and fewer "..is a defense to prosecution.." rules. The more applications of the "exceptions to" a section of law, the less chances you have of an arrest resulting in a charge being put on you, and the more cost avoidance you will have. Even though the "..is a defense to.." wording may make you feel warm and fuzzy when reading a law, by the time you get to that point probably means you've been charged and indicted, and are paying someone a lot of money to sit in front of a jury.

[G.A. Heath]

I would prefer the language to simply say holster, but I will take what we can get passed this session and get ready to come back in two years for more. This prohibition has been in place since 1871 so we not only have to fight the political capital of the gun banners, the actions of "allies" like Kory Watkins and CJ Grisham, but we have to fight the ingrained sense of "This is the way it's been since before I was born, and it works, so why do we want to change it?"

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.