TexasCHLforum.com

sorry guys, but what I see is a lot of self rationalization of false hopes or trying to justify by saying something is ambiguous when its not. by reading the standard recognized definition of belt holster and even looking at pictures of belt holsters the normally used definition is that the holster MUST attach directly to the belt worn about the waist and have integral belt loops without other attachments and no other way to attach said holster such as paddle or clips. Shoulder isn't really being discussed but my belief is that it must be the usual and customary type of shoulder holster.
feel free to armchair this to death, oh yea you've all already done this and rationalized everything you want to do no matter what the customary and usual definition.....isn't there another thread in the OC area that someone is doing the same thing? tomato or tomaahhhto, its all the same red fruit. so of course do as you choose and make that horse get up and pull the wagon, but its still dead

JP171 wrote:sorry guys, but what I see is a lot of self rationalization of false hopes or trying to justify by saying something is ambiguous when its not. by reading the standard recognized definition of belt holster and even looking at pictures of belt holsters the normally used definition is that the holster MUST attach directly to the belt worn about the waist and have integral belt loops without other attachments and no other way to attach said holster such as paddle or clips. Shoulder isn't really being discussed but my belief is that it must be the usual and customary type of shoulder holster.
feel free to armchair this to death, oh yea you've all already done this and rationalized everything you want to do no matter what the customary and usual definition.....isn't there another thread in the OC area that someone is doing the same thing? tomato or tomaahhhto, its all the same red fruit. so of course do as you choose and make that horse get up and pull the wagon, but its still dead

Just to be contrarian, your definition is no better than anyone else's until it has been decided in a court of law for precedence. Which dictionary, legal or regular Webster type, said that paddles weren't allowed?

goose wrote:

JP171 wrote:sorry guys, but what I see is a lot of self rationalization of false hopes or trying to justify by saying something is ambiguous when its not. by reading the standard recognized definition of belt holster and even looking at pictures of belt holsters the normally used definition is that the holster MUST attach directly to the belt worn about the waist and have integral belt loops without other attachments and no other way to attach said holster such as paddle or clips. Shoulder isn't really being discussed but my belief is that it must be the usual and customary type of shoulder holster.
feel free to armchair this to death, oh yea you've all already done this and rationalized everything you want to do no matter what the customary and usual definition.....isn't there another thread in the OC area that someone is doing the same thing? tomato or tomaahhhto, its all the same red fruit. so of course do as you choose and make that horse get up and pull the wagon, but its still dead

Just to be contrarian, your definition is no better than anyone else's until it has been decided in a court of law for precedence. Which dictionary, legal or regular Webster type, said that paddles weren't allowed?

really? just really? I'm so sorry for you

I...I can't believe this!
All of you...ALL of you are WRONG!

THIS is a "belt holster" ....



It's a belt....holster.

JP171 wrote: really? just really? I'm so sorry for you

Did I miss sarcasm or are you really, really the authority? My family feels sorry for me all the time.

Countryside wrote:I...I can't believe this!
All of you...ALL of you are WRONG!

THIS is a "belt holster" ....



It's a belt....holster.

Nice Kimber! Ultra CDP ii?

Glockster wrote: Nice Kimber! Ultra CDP ii?

Good eye. My EDC.

Skiprr wrote:

Glockster wrote: Nice Kimber! Ultra CDP ii?

Good eye. My EDC.

Thanks, and it looks just like mine!

Well....actually that's not mine...I just used the photo for demo purposes.

Countryside wrote:I...I can't believe this!
All of you...ALL of you are WRONG!

THIS is a "belt holster" ....

It's a belt....holster.

That is kind of awkwardly amazing. It seems like it is missing something, but all of the parts of a slide holster are there. I think this wins.

JP171 wrote:sorry guys, but what I see is a lot of self rationalization of false hopes or trying to justify by saying something is ambiguous when its not.

JP, you have been around this board for awhile. Not sure if you recall, but there is a thread where two esteemed moderators of this board, one an attorney and one a former LEO (<-I think) gave differing opinions in the same thread (I believe unintentionally) of what a belt holster was. So I am definitely of the mind set that different LEO's will define the statue differently.

Here is what I suspect will happen in 2016:

Austin- unless your belt holder has two loops for connecting the holster and looks like one found in a dictionary picture, it ain't a belt holster.

Llano- if you have any type of holster that is in the general vicinity of where a belt will go, you'll be fine.

probably so steve probably so. I guess I think a little more literal, but as Charles continues to say the law is literal more so than spirit, so I guess its kinda a good thing

goose wrote:

Countryside wrote:I...I can't believe this!
All of you...ALL of you are WRONG!

THIS is a "belt holster" ....

It's a belt....holster.

That is kind of awkwardly amazing. It seems like it is missing something, but all of the parts of a slide holster are there. I think this wins.

You're right! It IS missing something....security. This is (in my worthless opinion) a retention accident looking for a place to happen.

Countryside wrote:

goose wrote:

Countryside wrote:I...I can't believe this!
All of you...ALL of you are WRONG!

THIS is a "belt holster" ....

It's a belt....holster.

That is kind of awkwardly amazing. It seems like it is missing something, but all of the parts of a slide holster are there. I think this wins.

You're right! It IS missing something....security. This is (in my worthless opinion) a retention accident looking for a place to happen.

I doubt I would buy one for myself, for the exact reason you give. But compared to many of the slide holsters, it looks as functional as most. It might be more convincing if it had some tooling on it to grip the trigger guard a bit.

This a a Yaqui Slide holster. It is a "minimalist" belt holster. I believe it would meet the law, but I would not wear it.