Open Carry Belt Holster...

[recrisp]

At TxDPS, they have this...
"Unconcealed handguns, loaded or unloaded, must be carried in a shoulder or belt holster."
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/le ... lation.htm

Is an inside the waistband holster considered a "belt holster" in this particular case?

I don't plan on open carrying, but I saw this and wondered, I thought that the law may make it sound as though if it was inside of the belt, it wouldn't be called a belt holster.
To me, carrying inside the waistband is not open carry, it's partially open, and partially concealed.
I don't know why I think this, it just sounded odd, that's all...

What is the real deal?

Thank you!
Randy

[AJSully421]

Some will tell you that it is, some will argue that it isn't. I had one guy tell me that if a prosecutor could go online and look up your particular OC holster and be able to show a jury that the holster that you are OCing with does not say "BELT HOLSTER" in the name, that holster is not going to pass muster.

Others have said if it attaches or connects to a belt in any fashion, then it is a belt holster. So, according to their logic, you could OC with an ankle holster with a piece of string running up to your belt and that would be legal... after all, it is nothing more than a very long drop leg.

Then there are those of us in between who honestly have no idea, and neither does anyone else.. because what is a belt or shoulder holster is not enumerated in the law. The purpose of the language came from Oklahoma where they were afraid that people would be carrying a gun in their hands and saying it was Open Carry, so they passed the law about having it in a holster.

We need to push to get the wording fixed to say "Must be carried in a holster", and then define a holster as "Any item that is designed to or may be used to carry a handgun on or about one's person." That covers any possible thing to carry a gun... even something as insane as a running a string through the trigger guard and hanging it around your neck.. at least there is a definition and all of us know what the rules are at that point. None of this ambiguous junk like what we have now.

Truthfully, it is possible that some cop acting under unlawful orders of their liberal chief could arrest you for having some holster that they did not like.
In that same vein, any cop could arrest you for OCing under PC 42.01(a)(8) at any time in public and then let it all come out in the wash. Unlikely in most places, but not out of the realm of possibility in the 5 big blue counties.

[recrisp]

Well, now I guess my next step is to get me some string... :)

Really though, I appreciate that answer, and it really sounds like I thought it might be, it might be right, or then again... I know about how the cops 'could' react, I've met the good and the bad, that is always a possibility on any subject, they are people too. :)
Your answer does make sense though, I won't have to worry about it since I don't plan on carrying not unless I'm one of the only ones that doesn't, nobody likes to be odd man out. heheh

Thank you!

Randy

[Beiruty]

IWB or OWB holster should be both by definition called belt holster, as the hoster would not be functional when the loop/paddle are not secured in place by said belt. Otherwise, when the actor draws his pistol it might come out of its concealment still in the holster.

[Charles L. Cotton]

There in no need to define "belt holsters" and that's why it was not defined. It is very simple. If a holster attaches to or is secured on the belt, it is a belt holster. The Harris County DA and the Houston Police Chief both answered a question during a town hall meeting dealing with drop-leg holsters. One of the citizens attending held up such a holster and asked if it was a belt holster. Both the DA and the Chief said that it is a belt holster

Both were also asked if a person could be charged with a violation of TPC §42.01(a)(8) solely because someone was openly carrying a handgun in a holster. Both said no.

Chas

[Beiruty]

There in no need to define "belt holsters" and that's why it was not defined. It is very simple. If a holster attaches to or is secured on the belt, it is a belt holster. The Harris County DA and the Houston Police Chief both answered a question during a town hall meeting dealing with drop-leg holsters. One of the citizens attending held up such a holster and asked if it was a belt holster. Both the DA and the Chief said that it is a belt holster

Both were also asked if a person could be charged with a violation of TPC §42.01(a)(8) solely because someone was openly carrying a handgun in a holster. Both said no.

Chas

I like

[recrisp]

IWB or OWB holster should be both by definition called belt holster, as the hoster would not be functional when the loop/paddle are not secured in place by said belt. Otherwise, when the actor draws his pistol it might come out of its concealment still in the holster.

There in no need to define "belt holsters" and that's why it was not defined. It is very simple. If a holster attaches to or is secured on the belt, it is a belt holster. The Harris County DA and the Houston Police Chief both answered a question during a town hall meeting dealing with drop-leg holsters. One of the citizens attending held up such a holster and asked if it was a belt holster. Both the DA and the Chief said that it is a belt holster

Both were also asked if a person could be charged with a violation of TPC §42.01(a)(8) solely because someone was openly carrying a handgun in a holster. Both said no.

Chas

Thanks to the both of you for your answers, they were very helpful.
I really LOVED the video, that was really something that most need to see, that answered most questions, but not others, and even though the very first one seemed to be almost contradictory, there is a small difference, I believe.
The one I mean is, who's legal and who's not. The first person at the microphone asks how the police determine who is legal to carry, and do you have to show your ID, there is not a constitutional carry law which states that the police DON'T have every right to ask for your ID. In other words, the DA in this video is saying that they have every right to ask for ID when now, as I understand it, they don't have the right under the concealed law.
So to me, the difference is, if you have a concealed carry NOW as of this date, they cannot ask, but after the 1st of January you WILL have submit ID if you are asked to show ID.
Hopefully that makes sense.

Is this how y'all are seeing this?

Thank you!

Randy

[bcooper]

I was told by my CHL instructor that you could justify a drop leg holster because it's "technically" attached to the belt by straps, but didn't think that's a good idea. He was very adamant about not drawing attention to yourself from LE by trying to challenge the letter of the law with "well technically" type stuff. I actually agreed with him.

I'm happy we got the open carry law passed, but will most likely never participate. Don't like showing my cards if I don't have to, if you know what I mean.

[glazer1972]

Good question as I often carry in an IWB belt holster and would like to be able to take off the covering garment when it gets hot.

[twomillenium]

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.

[mojo84]

I think drop leg holsters, while meeting the legal requirement, look to tacticool to be openly worn by non-cops as their regular mode of carry. I don't even like the idea of cops wearing them as their daily duty holster.

I may be in the minority but that's just my thought in it.

[mojo84]

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.

I think it's defined by common sense and where belts are designed to be worn. Do really need to have everything spelled out for us?

[twomillenium]

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

[mojo84]

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.

[twomillenium]

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.