TexasCHLforum.com

mr1337 wrote:What I hated about the committee meeting is when the liberal cops talked about having level 3 retention and such as if everyone who open carries needs it either, or else they will be killed.

Later on in the meeting, someone had the sense to point out that open carriers are not wrestling people and handcuffing them like cops are.

I probably would carry with some sort of retention in a crowded or urban environment, but I'd also like to choose to carry in a holster without active retention if I'm out alone by myself or hiking/camping where it's unlikely for someone to sneak up on me without my knowledge.

No other state has a retention requirement. We don't need one either. Let the person choose what's best for their situation.

SRH78 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:What I hated about the committee meeting is when the liberal cops talked about having level 3 retention and such as if everyone who open carries needs it either, or else they will be killed.

Later on in the meeting, someone had the sense to point out that open carriers are not wrestling people and handcuffing them like cops are.

I probably would carry with some sort of retention in a crowded or urban environment, but I'd also like to choose to carry in a holster without active retention if I'm out alone by myself or hiking/camping where it's unlikely for someone to sneak up on me without my knowledge.

No other state has a retention requirement. We don't need one either. Let the person choose what's best for their situation.

Good points. My LEO friends some of which are retired officers after decades of service, tell me their biggest fear regarding holster retention was not a gun grab but losing it while climbing, crawling, running, etc. Most of them say they would have the gun in their hand during any of those situations, because even a retention strap might not be sufficient.
Most of the good officers are either trained, or train themselves to be vigilant enough to lessen the gun grab scenario.

I have lurked here for a couple of years now. I wanted to pipe in here on the issue of retention, and the excellent article on the web site today. "https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/ ... open-carry" I am also encouraged by Gov. Abbots statements recently http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/ ... -into-law/

The fact that this discussion is even possible is a positive sign. It was mentioned OC states do not require retention devices. I also would note, that in most of those states, OC often results in some random video on youtube. I am confident Texans will embrace it, and rush to get CHL's will be on. Constitutional Carry will never pass thanks to the efforts of the obvious groups.

In reality, the nature of conceal carry secures a weapon quite well in most cases. I do not know of anyone who conceal carries without a holster, though I do not recall it is a requirement. It just makes sense at a minimum to require a holster for Open Carry. This is an accepted standard of any professional. This will hopefully prevent the inevitable gun dropping on the ground, situations which hopefully do not result in an accidental discharge. I can't conceive of the discomfort of OC or CC without a holster. Remember, that little "pocket" case is not much, but it is still a holster.

Personally, I would not object to a requirement of 1 retention device. Where it becomes hairy, is as previously pointed out, carrying a revolver. Therefore, I would not object to a requirement for "1 device or feature, of any nature designed to retain a handgun in the holster." Again, it is highly likely if you are open carrying, that you become target number one, and you are more likely to end up in a tussle with a bad guy in my opinion. So a little common sense is prudent to that end. I do want Open Carry, and this seems like a happy "compromise". I would be happy with no requirement, or the requirement of 1 device or feature. Again, most likely, I would not open carry without at least the retention rawhide that came with my revolver holster, or the single snap retainer that comes with a standard LEO OC holster.

I should note that most holsters out there have no retention device, single devices are more common, and when you add a triple device, you pretty much limit yourself to a few options, none of which would allow "passive" Open Carry because of the bulk. So for legislative discussions with folks who are a bit concerned, I would ask them, would you prefer someone carry a bulky rig like a police officer, that cannot be worn discretely, or something that has a little or single retention device or feature that does not stick out like a sore thumb. I triple retention device holster will get so little use, that you may as well not pass OC.

With licensed open carry, there is at least a successful track record of responsible individuals who will not make legislature sorry after working so hard for it. Remember, you can't fix, or legislate away stupid. Has Concealed Carry reduced or prevented crime, protected Texans? What makes someone believe, because you cannot see the gun, but you know it is there makes any difference. Texans are armed, every LEO in Texas automatically assumes everyone is armed anyway.

The only other unrelated comment I would like to throw out there for what it is worth, is the fact that I think Texas should do away with Unilateral agreements on CHL. If there is no reciprocity what is in it for Texans? I suspect the reasons why, but there is no incentive for reciprocity if they already have the privilege here.

Would I sport around town with my Six gun strapped on, no, probably not. Open carry in Texas would be a blessing, it's hot and uncomfortable to conceal carry most of the time. While not "blatantly" open carrying most times, it would be nice to be able to wear an outside the waistband holster with a light shirt, and not worry about printing. In this day and age, with the headlines from the Middle East we see every day, it will be a great sign for Texans to say, no, not in our state, and provide a strong deterrent. After all, isn't that what Carry is all about?

Welcome to the Forum and this is a great first post. I agree that it is refreshing to be able to discuss this/these issue(s) without having to wear a fire suit.

Chas.

tlt wrote:I have lurked here for a couple of years now. I wanted to pipe in here on the issue of retention, and the excellent article on the web site today. "https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/ ... open-carry" I am also encouraged by Gov. Abbots statements recently http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/ ... -into-law/

The fact that this discussion is even possible is a positive sign. It was mentioned OC states do not require retention devices. I also would note, that in most of those states, OC often results in some random video on youtube. I am confident Texans will embrace it, and rush to get CHL's will be on. Constitutional Carry will never pass thanks to the efforts of the obvious groups.

In reality, the nature of conceal carry secures a weapon quite well in most cases. I do not know of anyone who conceal carries without a holster, though I do not recall it is a requirement. It just makes sense at a minimum to require a holster for Open Carry. This is an accepted standard of any professional. This will hopefully prevent the inevitable gun dropping on the ground, situations which hopefully do not result in an accidental discharge. I can't conceive of the discomfort of OC or CC without a holster. Remember, that little "pocket" case is not much, but it is still a holster.

Personally, I would not object to a requirement of 1 retention device. Where it becomes hairy, is as previously pointed out, carrying a revolver. Therefore, I would not object to a requirement for "1 device or feature, of any nature designed to retain a handgun in the holster." Again, it is highly likely if you are open carrying, that you become target number one, and you are more likely to end up in a tussle with a bad guy in my opinion. So a little common sense is prudent to that end. I do want Open Carry, and this seems like a happy "compromise". I would be happy with no requirement, or the requirement of 1 device or feature. Again, most likely, I would not open carry without at least the retention rawhide that came with my revolver holster, or the single snap retainer that comes with a standard LEO OC holster.

I should note that most holsters out there have no retention device, single devices are more common, and when you add a triple device, you pretty much limit yourself to a few options, none of which would allow "passive" Open Carry because of the bulk. So for legislative discussions with folks who are a bit concerned, I would ask them, would you prefer someone carry a bulky rig like a police officer, that cannot be worn discretely, or something that has a little or single retention device or feature that does not stick out like a sore thumb. I triple retention device holster will get so little use, that you may as well not pass OC.

With licensed open carry, there is at least a successful track record of responsible individuals who will not make legislature sorry after working so hard for it. Remember, you can't fix, or legislate away stupid. Has Concealed Carry reduced or prevented crime, protected Texans? What makes someone believe, because you cannot see the gun, but you know it is there makes any difference. Texans are armed, every LEO in Texas automatically assumes everyone is armed anyway.

The only other unrelated comment I would like to throw out there for what it is worth, is the fact that I think Texas should do away with Unilateral agreements on CHL. If there is no reciprocity what is in it for Texans? I suspect the reasons why, but there is no incentive for reciprocity if they already have the privilege here.

Would I sport around town with my Six gun strapped on, no, probably not. Open carry in Texas would be a blessing, it's hot and uncomfortable to conceal carry most of the time. While not "blatantly" open carrying most times, it would be nice to be able to wear an outside the waistband holster with a light shirt, and not worry about printing. In this day and age, with the headlines from the Middle East we see every day, it will be a great sign for Texans to say, no, not in our state, and provide a strong deterrent. After all, isn't that what Carry is all about?

Even with the holster requirement, though - which I agree needs to be more expansive than just a "belt or shoulder holster" we're forgetting about AR pistols.

Putting aside your opinions about the open carry of rifle-like pistols, it seems weird that you would be able to openly carry a rifle strapped to you, openly carry a 1911 pistol, but not openly carry an AR-15 pistol in a sling without first crafting some sort of custom holster for it.

I keep reading that people who open carry are making themselves targets, are going to die first, etc. Is there some statistic on this somewhere?

mr1337 wrote:Even with the holster requirement, though - which I agree needs to be more expansive than just a "belt or shoulder holster" we're forgetting about AR pistols.

Putting aside your opinions about the open carry of rifle-like pistols, it seems weird that you would be able to openly carry a rifle strapped to you, openly carry a 1911 pistol, but not openly carry an AR-15 pistol in a sling without first crafting some sort of custom holster for it.

There are guns that are technically handguns that we aren't going to be able to address, if we hope to pass open-carry. AR-15 pistols, Uzi pistols and Mare's Legs come to mind. While all three are legally handguns, in practical application they are far from it.

I pray no one walks around with an AR-15 pistol or a Mare's Leg if open-carry passes!

Chas.

AR Pistols, I would suggest pushing that will derail the legislation. Are you currently carrying the AR Pistol Concealed? If not, why Not?

I would be curious, for what reason one would need to carry an AR Pistol besides "because you can".

If you are guarding some high value individual or something, then there is other licensing required. Many folks have their "trunk" guns, this might be a good place for that one.

It seems like, it might be more prudent to focus on what can be done realistically now. additional progress can be make incrementally, as has been done with the CHL program.

Many folks are diligent when carrying, concealed or otherwise. It will take some very serious conditioning for myself, or others, not to be concerned if I see someone with an AR anything these days. There is just no need to yell fire at this stage of the game. Don't get me wrong, I own AR's and believe people should, I personally see no usefulness of an AR Pistol, particularly in high stress situations where innocent people could be everywhere.

One can already legally Open Carry an SBR, right? If so I think there's more important things to focus on than legalizing Open Carry of AR pistols.

mr1337 wrote:Even with the holster requirement, though - which I agree needs to be more expansive than just a "belt or shoulder holster" we're forgetting about AR pistols.

Putting aside your opinions about the open carry of rifle-like pistols, it seems weird that you would be able to openly carry a rifle strapped to you, openly carry a 1911 pistol, but not openly carry an AR-15 pistol in a sling without first crafting some sort of custom holster for it.

Already a product on the market to holster an AR. Not prudent IMO, just carry an SBR with no permit and no 30.06 or 30.07

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I pray no one walks around with an AR-15 pistol or a Mare's Leg if open-carry passes!

Chas.

I've had my eye on a Henry Mares Leg for a very long time but have yet to find any utility for it. It wants to be a long gun and it wants to be a handgun but maybe can't do either one very well. If Winchester made one to match my 1892 I might easily convince myself this TV gun had great utility and pick one up. Neat looking firearm.

v7a wrote:One can already legally Open Carry an SBR, right? If so I think there's more important things to focus on than legalizing Open Carry of AR pistols.

My point is it it would be legal to openly carry a pistol, openly carry a rifle, openly carry a SBR, but not legal to openly carry a AR pistol just because it lacks a buttstock and a $200 tax stamp?

Irrespective of your opinion on whether openly carrying an AR is a good idea, why should it not be legal to openly carry an AR pistol, while all other forms of an AR are perfectly okay to OC?

I understand this is a fringe application, and the bigger battle is more important. I'm just playing Devil's advocate and bringing this up for thought.

This probably just highlights the inherent problems with the NFA more than anything else.

Obviously if the legislation is passed as-is, more is gained than lost. In fact, in this context, nothing is lost because it's already unlawful to carry an AR pistol openly.

What constitutes 'retention' though...if you are going to mandate 'two forms of retention' then 'retention' needs to be defined, otherwise it just adds smoke and mirrors...

rbwhatever1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I pray no one walks around with an AR-15 pistol or a Mare's Leg if open-carry passes!

Chas.

I've had my eye on a Henry Mares Leg for a very long time but have yet to find any utility for it. It wants to be a long gun and it wants to be a handgun but maybe can't do either one very well. If Winchester made one to match my 1892 I might easily convince myself this TV gun had great utility and pick one up. Neat looking firearm.

It would be fun to play Josh Randall. I wonder how many people know who that is? Probably not many and fewer every day.

Chas.

Come on Charles,We aren't that old and anyway I catch re-runs of Josh with his Mare's Leg on Satudays on, I think it is, ME-TV in Central Texas. They also run Lone Ranger, Rifleman, Jim Bowie, and many other 1950s-60s westerns.