TexasCHLforum.com

This came up in the State Affairs Committee hearing, and might be a forthcoming issue. Also could be an unenforceable issue. Comments?

If you're going to open carry then I do think you should use a retention holster of some type. Doesn't need to be a 3 step LE holster but you should at least have a snap.

Do I think it should be mandatory? I'm not really sure on that. Texas Legislature is able to regulate "the wearing of arms" so I suppose they'd be within their bounds by saying you need retention for OC.

If the amendment passes I won't complain. If it doesn't pass I still won't complain but I'll only OC with retention.

Honestly, I hope it does not happen, as I see it being one more hoop. There is no industry standard, and I don't trust the legislature to not be overly specific. It could easily become a "vendor" bill.

I mean, there's no retention requirement for concealed, why make one for open?

Winchster wrote: I mean, there's no retention requirement for concealed, why make one for open?

Concealed is viewed a little differently since it cannot be seen. It is assumed that it cannot be taken away as easily as one that is in plain view. Many people have posted on here that they'd be a little concerned in a line at the local HEB and they'd have to be more alert than when carrying concealed. Humans can't be on guard every second so retention seems like a pretty smart idea and it'll seem even smarter should anyone try to yank your gun from your holster.

Again I don't know how I feel about it being mandatory, but I do think that if you want to carry openly you should take precautions.

CoffeeNut wrote:

Winchster wrote: I mean, there's no retention requirement for concealed, why make one for open?

Concealed is viewed a little differently since it cannot be seen. It is assumed that it cannot be taken away as easily as one that is in plain view. Many people have posted on here that they'd be a little concerned in a line at the local HEB and they'd have to be more alert than when carrying concealed. Humans can't be on guard every second so retention seems like a pretty smart idea and it'll seem even smarter should anyone try to yank your gun from your holster.

Again I don't know how I feel about it being mandatory, but I do think that if you want to carry openly you should take precautions.

I don't disagree, however, I feel like the state dictating it goes a bit far. Not saying I won't use retention, but the one I'm eyeing merely uses a strong forward cant. As to vigilance, personally I feel like if you're going out in the world armed you need to be hyper vigilant anyway lol.

none of the current OC states have a retention holster requirement. It's a nonissue.

jmra wrote:none of the current OC states have a retention holster requirement. It's a nonissue.

We are not as red as the state to the North (OK) who already has OC with no issues. I don't understand why people are so afraid of our constitutional rights and trusting law abiding citizens to do the right thing. Mandating retention is just silly. I have yet to read of any state that has open carry having an issue of firearms being taken from those who open carry with a non retention holster.

Right2Carry wrote:

jmra wrote:none of the current OC states have a retention holster requirement. It's a nonissue.

We are not as red as the state to the North (OK) who already has OC with no issues. I don't understand why people are so afraid of our constitutional rights and trusting law abiding citizens to do the right thing. Mandating retention is just silly. I have yet to read of any state that has open carry having an issue of firearms being taken from those who open carry with a non retention holster.

This.

The retention requirement and type of holster (hip or shoulder) needs to go away.

TVGuy wrote:The retention requirement and type of holster (hip or shoulder) needs to go away.

There is no retention requirement in this bill, there are those proposing amendments for it though. I agree that simply specifying holster would have been better. Even with the warts the bill has/develops I think we need to accept them and then go about removing them from the law rather than trying again later because we don't want something in the first place. As long as we don't loose ground with it, we need to pass the bill.

G.A. Heath wrote:

TVGuy wrote:The retention requirement and type of holster (hip or shoulder) needs to go away.

There is no retention requirement in this bill, there are those proposing amendments for it though. I agree that simply specifying holster would have been better. Even with the warts the bill has/develops I think we need to accept them and then go about removing them from the law rather than trying again later because we don't want something in the first place. As long as we don't loose ground with it, we need to pass the bill.

My apologies, the way I said it was confusing. I meant the amendment to not get in...as there were several OC bills that had retention requirement attached to original bills.

TVGuy wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

TVGuy wrote:The retention requirement and type of holster (hip or shoulder) needs to go away.

There is no retention requirement in this bill, there are those proposing amendments for it though. I agree that simply specifying holster would have been better. Even with the warts the bill has/develops I think we need to accept them and then go about removing them from the law rather than trying again later because we don't want something in the first place. As long as we don't loose ground with it, we need to pass the bill.

My apologies, the way I said it was confusing. I meant the amendment to not get in...as there were several OC bills that had retention requirement attached to original bills.

FYI. Three of the proposed bills in the house (HB 106 - Flynn, HB 415 - Riddle, and HB 291 - Huberty) use the term 'dual points of resistance' as part of the holster definition. I contacted Flynn and Riddle in January asking what that meant but they haven't responded.

I look at the wording very carefully in these bills and amendments from the viewpoint that if they become a statute, and becomes part of a litigation, the wording either needs to be precise, or not included at all.

That hip/shoulder requirement seems silly to me... I can see some outspoken members of the feminine persuasion raising an eyebrow at that one. Like they're supposed to walk around like Annie Oakley or something.

I don't think we need retention added or defined by the Legislature. My hammer strap works just fine and my SAA has never fallen out...

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.