TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Yes that's true. But I really don't know how I would react in a gun fight. I know how I perform in fist fights, but have never been in active combat, so I don't really know about bullets flying. 95% of the 38,000 men on the New York Police force have never fired their guns while on duty, so a gun fight is not very probable. I worry more about some kid breaking into my gun safe at home, or getting prosecuted for a bad law that does not detail what the hell a holster is and lets that up to some local yokel to interpret.

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.

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.

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.

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?....

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.

Yeah, it seems that a western style belt would be okay (until some revenue starved precinct arrests you because the bill does not spell out either "Belt" or "Holster." Once a law is passed, I personally like it detailed and clear. That protects me from being hassled.

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.

Haha, I'm not trying to rewrite the law! I only want to know one thing: Is an IWB holster legal when open carrying> That's not too hard of a question, is it?

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?

hansdedrich wrote:

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.

Haha, I'm not trying to rewrite the law! I only want to know one thing: Is an IWB holster legal when open carrying> That's not too hard of a question, is it?

No it's not. Why is it so hard for you to accept the answer?

Why would you suggest a holster that is permanently attached as being less legal than one temporarily attach?

It's quite obvious you have made your mind up to ignore the answers and continue with ridiculous questions and arguments.

I am now ashamed of myself for taking the troll bait.

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.

I guess I could have used the example of the Flashbang holster.....but I didn't want the guys to feel left out.

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?

I have these nasty visions of bermuda shorts...

hansdedrich wrote:

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.

Haha, I'm not trying to rewrite the law! I only want to know one thing: Is an IWB holster legal when open carrying> That's not too hard of a question, is it?

No, it's not too hard of a question. You're the one making it harder than it needs to be. The short answer is, YES, it would be legal under OC........assuming that the OC law doesn't require level II retention or higher, in which case your IWB holster would have to have a level II or higher retention mechanism. But that would be no different than with an OWB holster, so again, the point is moot. YES, an IWB holster would be otherwise legal for OC carry, including if OC required "belt carry", because (DUH) an IWB holster is worn on the belt.

All open carry legislation submitted so far ALLOW a firearm to be carried openly. They don't require a firearm to be carried openly. Legislation merely provides for an OC or CC option. Now, please stop with the reductio ad absurdum. It approaches trolling.

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

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?

You mean like this?

TAM, is that the mayor of Kermit?