The definition of shoulder or belt holster...

[thetexan]

Does anyone know if there is now or will be in the new open carry laws a definition of either a shoulder or belt holster?

Here is the reason...will a paddle holster, which is not technically supported on the belt, meet the definition of a belt holster?

tex

[The Wall]

Good question. Anxious to see the replies. I know I've seen definitions listed on these laws before. I'm betting they will be there.

Should be similar to the definition for a bra.
Brassiere (ˈbræsɪə; ˈbræz-) - An over the shoulder boulder holder.

[Glockster]

No, it doesn't. It simply says "or carried in a shoulder or belt holster."

And it doesn't require a retention holster (had an interesting discussion with an instructor on that point just yesterday).

[The Wall]

So like a lot of laws it's open to interpretation. Just makes for more confusion. Although I think we make it that way just to be obstinate. Because we all know what a belt and shoulder holster is and how to wear them.

[casp625]

But does the law state that the belt or shoulder holster must be affixed to said belt or shoulders? Otherwise, I could have it in belt holster being strapped to my forearm, chest, leg, etc.

[WildBill]

Does anyone know is there is now or will be in the new open carry laws a definition of either a shoulder or belt holster?

Here is the reason...will a paddle holster, which is not technically supported on the belt, meet the definition of a belt holster?

tex

First my disclaimer, IANAL, LEO and didn't write the law.

My paddle holster is worn on my belt and has a retaining loop to keep it attached to my belt.

I don't believe there is any requirement for it to be "supported" by a belt.

I suppose I could, but I would not wear my paddle holster without a belt.

I consider it to be a "belt holster". This is what I will wear if and when I open carry.

[jmra]

Don't make it more complicated than it is. A holster attached at the waistline will meet the requirement. A shoulder holster is pretty self-explanatory. The last thing you want is detailed definitions because that can only make it more restrictive.

[WildBill]

Don't make it more complicated than it is. A holster attached at the waistline will meet the requirement. A shoulder holster is pretty self-explanatory. The last thing you want is detailed definitions because that can only make it more restrictive.

[Glockster]

Don't make it more complicated than it is. A holster attached at the waistline will meet the requirement. A shoulder holster is pretty self-explanatory. The last thing you want is detailed definitions because that can only make it more restrictive.

[Glockster]

But does the law state that the belt or shoulder holster must be affixed to said belt or shoulders? Otherwise, I could have it in belt holster being strapped to my forearm, chest, leg, etc.

I'd bet you'd be in for a very long day. I truly hope that folks don't go out and "test" that as me thinks that will only tick some LEO off who may then decide to pay more attention than had been given up to that point.

[Glockster]

Does anyone know is there is now or will be in the new open carry laws a definition of either a shoulder or belt holster?

Here is the reason...will a paddle holster, which is not technically supported on the belt, meet the definition of a belt holster?

tex

First my disclaimer, IANAL, LEO and didn't write the law.

My paddle holster is worn on my belt and has a retaining loop to keep it attached to my belt.

I don't believe there is any requirement for it to be "supported" by a belt.

I suppose I could, but I would not wear my paddle holster without a belt.

I consider it to be a "belt holster". This is what I will wear if and when I open carry.

And that's the same for me, and if and when I open carry.

[gljjt]

But does the law state that the belt or shoulder holster must be affixed to said belt or shoulders? Otherwise, I could have it in belt holster being strapped to my forearm, chest, leg, etc.

So "carried" in my hand in a "belt or shoulder holster" is OK? I really don't think so. I think there is a good chance you could be arrested. I may get flamed for this, but I also think some pay too much attention to the exactness of a 30.06 sign. If the letters are 7/8" or two separate sign for English/Spanish, yes, they don't meet "the requirement". However, in the same vein as the holster example above, technically correct doesn't preclude arrest or even conviction. I think we will do ourselves a disservice if we look at all current 30.06 signs as unenforceable come January 1st and push the issue with property owners and the public. Technically correct may not be good PR.

[Glockster]

But does the law state that the belt or shoulder holster must be affixed to said belt or shoulders? Otherwise, I could have it in belt holster being strapped to my forearm, chest, leg, etc.

So "carried" in my hand in a "belt or shoulder holster" is OK? I really don't think so. I think there is a good chance you could be arrested. I may get flamed for this, but I also think some pay too much attention to the exactness of a 30.06 sign. If the letters are 7/8" or two separate sign for English/Spanish, yes, they don't meet "the requirement". However, in the same vein as the holster example above, technically correct doesn't preclude arrest or even conviction. I think we will do ourselves a disservice if we look at all current 30.06 signs as unenforceable come January 1st and push the issue with property owners and the public. Technically correct may not be good PR.

I will accept an "almost" 30.06 sign as a firm indication that said merchant doesn't want me to spend my money there and will go elsewhere.

[ScottDLS]

But does the law state that the belt or shoulder holster must be affixed to said belt or shoulders? Otherwise, I could have it in belt holster being strapped to my forearm, chest, leg, etc.

So "carried" in my hand in a "belt or shoulder holster" is OK? I really don't think so. I think there is a good chance you could be arrested. I may get flamed for this, but I also think some pay too much attention to the exactness of a 30.06 sign. If the letters are 7/8" or two separate sign for English/Spanish, yes, they don't meet "the requirement". However, in the same vein as the holster example above, technically correct doesn't preclude arrest or even conviction. I think we will do ourselves a disservice if we look at all current 30.06 signs as unenforceable come January 1st and push the issue with property owners and the public. Technically correct may not be good PR.

Since it's going to be a class C misdemeanor to pass a PROPERLY POSTED 30.06 or 30.07 sign after 1/1/2016, I think I'll take any technically incorrect sign as a signal that posting party doesn't care. If I'm wrong and get a ticket, I'm out $200.

[Jumping Frog]

But does the law state that the belt or shoulder holster must be affixed to said belt or shoulders? Otherwise, I could have it in belt holster being strapped to my forearm, chest, leg, etc.

Yeah, but let's stay grounded in reality. In the real world, who attaches a belt holster to their forearm anyway?