Removing "Shoulder or Belt" holster from SB17

[mojo84]

Do you guys really believe there is a debate whether either of these guns are concealed or exposed? Do you really want to argue whether it meets the proposed law?

[ Image ]

[ Image ]

Mojo,

The thread isn't intended to be about concealed vs. exposed. It is about the unclear definitions in SB17 about what a "belt or shoulder" holster really means.

We have seen localities abuse laws that apply to CHLer even when the law is CRYSTAL clear.

-even seen a 30.06 posted on public property? The law is very clear about this, and yet some localities still ignore it.

-there is a thread going about someone who carried passed a "No Guns" sign and was arrested. Again the law is 100% clear about this, and yet somehow he still didn't avoid the ride.

Someone else brought up a point that I had not even thought of. If I am OC'ing in my car what applies?

See the second question in my post. I think it's clear a paddle holster and inside waistband holster meets the proposed requirements of belt or shoulder holster. You are just beating the same horse with a different stick.

There will always be abuse by some. Those that abuse the law are called "bad" cops. There is no way to legislate away cops or DA's abusing their positions of authority.

Maybe reading how a paddle holster is designed to work will help the ones that seem to have such a hard time understanding that a paddle holster is a belt holster.


http://www.comp-tac.com/paddle-holster-10212" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The paddle allows you to slide the holster on while your belt is already threaded through the loops. The paddle backing curves over the belt and pants so the paddle portion sits inside your waistband. There are two forward curving tabs that “grab” on to the bottom of your belt to help stabilize the holster, keeping the holster in position during the draw. The paddle may be worn with any pants regardless of where your pant loops are. Quick to put on or take off, the paddle will fit belts up to 2” in width.

[TexasCajun]

Maybe we should push for a law that forces local officials to adhere to the laws passed by the current and previous legislatures....

[Keith B]

I have stayed out of this for awhile, but I think we really need to look at the intent of the language. I believe the whole purpose of the wording is to keep those who think they look tacti'cool' from wearing drop leg tactical holsters and other such types of rigs.



I don't believe for one minute if a person carrying openly with a paddle holster on their belt area is stopped that a police officer is going to get so technical that they try to say it's not a 'belt' holster. If they do, and that's the only reason they stop them, then I believe you would have a very good case for harassment charges against the officer and/or the department.

[steveincowtown]

I believe the whole purpose of the wording is to keep those who think they look tacti'cool' from wearing drop leg tactical holsters and other such types of rigs.

[ Image ]

Keith, that is what I thought as well. According to Charles drop leg holsters would be OK because they attach to the belt.

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.

I posting his quote not to cause a problem, but to prove my point is not a "unicorn." If a former LEO and someone intimately involved with the bill don't even see the language the same how can we EVER expect that LEO across the state and trouble makers from Arlington (KW) are going to interpret it the same.

There is a real opportunity to clarify the language here, and there are valid arguments as to why it needs to be clarified. If the bottom line is that we can't do it this session, then lets move on, but the concern is real.

[LSUTiger]

I have stayed out of this for awhile, but I think we really need to look at the intent of the language. I believe the whole purpose of the wording is to keep those who think they look tacti'cool' from wearing drop leg tactical holsters and other such types of rigs.

[ Image ]

I don't believe for one minute if a person carrying openly with a paddle holster on their belt area is stopped that a police officer is going to get so technical that they try to say it's not a 'belt' holster. If they do, and that's the only reason they stop them, then I believe you would have a very good case for harassment charges against the officer and/or the department.

I wouldn't carry with a drop leg holster personally as my EDC but I certainly don't want any restrictions on OC holstering devices, much less if they are based soley on looks. If you want to look tacticool that's up to you. Worse I think is a the "Miami Vice" jackass rig or AKA horizontal shoulder carry rig. The muzzle sweeps everyone behind you. Yet I can see such foolishness as a drop leg holster being a no no and horizontal shoulder rig meeting the letter of the law.

[The Wall]

Maybe the Fashion Police should be consulted. Maybe if the holster makers state that holster should be worn with a belt that would do the trick. If you need to wear a belt to retain the holster doesn't that make it a belt holster. Stamp it right on the holster. "Belt Required"

[G.A. Heath]

I suspect the holster specification is more to prevent certain parties from attaching a holster to a MOLLE vest with the barrel horizontal, two thigh holsters, and a holster on each forearm, while carrying one in their hand...

Who would be so retarded? Think about fat man and slim jim in the OCTC Chipolte incident.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I suspect the holster specification is more to prevent certain parties from attaching a holster to a MOLLE vest with the barrel horizontal, two thigh holsters, and a holster on each forearm, while carrying one in their hand...

Who would be so retarded? Think about fat man and slim jim in the OCTC Chipolte incident.

You're right. The holster requirement is based upon a concern by some that the more radical open-carry supporters would walk around with gun in their hand or stuck insecurely in their waistband. Far more are truly concerned about handguns being "snatched" from CHLs or falling out of cheap holsters that do not provide even modest retention against gravity. Remember, the committees heard testimony calling for level 2 or 3 retention holsters, but those recommendations were not adopted. (See, Holster Requirements for Open-Carry.)

I pushed to add language after belt or shoulder holster that would allow "[or] another device designed to securely hold the handgun." This would have opened up other possibilities, but this language is intentionally broad and nonspecific, generating concerns by those who fear irresponsible or provocative people. We are not promoting open-carry in a vacuum folks. We have to deal with the reality that open-carry zealots have damaged the issue making it susceptible to greater limitations than would otherwise have been the case.

Chas.

[Jason K]

I suspect the holster specification is more to prevent certain parties from attaching a holster to a MOLLE vest with the barrel horizontal, two thigh holsters, and a holster on each forearm, while carrying one in their hand...

Who would be so retarded? Think about fat man and slim jim in the OCTC Chipolte incident.

You're right. The holster requirement is based upon a concern by some that the more radical open-carry supporters would walk around with gun in their hand or stuck insecurely in their waistband. Far more are truly concerned about handguns being "snatched" from CHLs or falling out of cheap holsters that do not provide even modest retention against gravity. Remember, the committees heard testimony calling for level 2 or 3 retention holsters, but those recommendations were not adopted. (See, Holster Requirements for Open-Carry.)

I pushed to add language after belt or shoulder holster that would allow "[or] another device designed to securely hold the handgun." This would have opened up other possibilities, but this language is intentionally broad and nonspecific, generating concerns by those who fear irresponsible or provocative people. We are not promoting open-carry in a vacuum folks. We have to deal with the reality that open-carry zealots have damaged the issue making it susceptible to greater limitations than would otherwise have been the case.

Chas.

It would be great to get that language added to the bill. And I agree with the concerns about the security of the holsters (Nylon belongs on the range....not on the street). But I hope we see some reasonableness in the definition. Just because something isn't prudent doesn't mean that it should be an arrestable or prosecutable offense. For example....

http://www.simplyrugged.com/ecommerce/C ... parent=672" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...should this be worth arresting a licensed OC carrier for?

[The Wall]

That looks like a shoulder holster to me. Thanks Charles for your comments and link. It all makes sense now.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I suspect the holster specification is more to prevent certain parties from attaching a holster to a MOLLE vest with the barrel horizontal, two thigh holsters, and a holster on each forearm, while carrying one in their hand...

Who would be so retarded? Think about fat man and slim jim in the OCTC Chipolte incident.

You're right. The holster requirement is based upon a concern by some that the more radical open-carry supporters would walk around with gun in their hand or stuck insecurely in their waistband. Far more are truly concerned about handguns being "snatched" from CHLs or falling out of cheap holsters that do not provide even modest retention against gravity. Remember, the committees heard testimony calling for level 2 or 3 retention holsters, but those recommendations were not adopted. (See, Holster Requirements for Open-Carry.)

I pushed to add language after belt or shoulder holster that would allow "[or] another device designed to securely hold the handgun." This would have opened up other possibilities, but this language is intentionally broad and nonspecific, generating concerns by those who fear irresponsible or provocative people. We are not promoting open-carry in a vacuum folks. We have to deal with the reality that open-carry zealots have damaged the issue making it susceptible to greater limitations than would otherwise have been the case.

Chas.

It would be great to get that language added to the bill. And I agree with the concerns about the security of the holsters (Nylon belongs on the range....not on the street). But I hope we see some reasonableness in the definition. Just because something isn't prudent doesn't mean that it should be an arrestable or prosecutable offense. For example....

http://www.simplyrugged.com/ecommerce/C ... parent=672" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...should this be worth arresting a licensed OC carrier for?

I can assure you that you do not want "holster" defined in statute and here's why. Only a very small percentage of folks who carry handguns are contending that the lack of a definition of "belt holster" is a problem. Most of us and most in the Legislature realize that the real-world interpretation of "belt holster" means just that -- a holster that hangs from or is secured to a belt. (So yes, an IWB holster is a "belt holster.") If "belt holster" is defined, it likely will address retention features; it's too good of an opportunity for people who are truly concerned about "gun snatching" as well as anti-open-carry people to address the issue.

I looked at the Simply Rugged Holsters shown on the webpage you linked and they are a type of holster often used when handgun hunting. It is supported by a shoulder strap, so it would be a "shoulder holster." I view anyone who would wear that holster as their regular method of carrying a self-defense handgun in the same light I view people carrying AR's in a tactical sling when they go into Wal-Mart. I/we don't need self-proclaimed, pro-gun exhibitionists aiding anti-gun legislators.

Chas.

[mojo84]

People that feel the need to push the limits on everything and look for the extremes to see what they can get away with sure gets tiresome. I can see the mall ninjas just can't wait to get their tactical gear on and head out to Starbucks for their afternoon frapaccino so they can show everyone how tuff they are.

It's going to be great when the mall ninjas in their tactical gear start approaching the cop on the street and letting him know they have his 6. It's starting to sound like grown adults want to play army and cop.

[mr1337]

I understand the reasoning for the "belt or shoulder" holster requirement, and I know it's not going to be changed before the bill passes the House. However, I do hope they fix it in future legislative sessions.

I specifically would like it changed so that I could open carry in my car-mounted holster during long trips. Since it's not a belt or shoulder holster, I wouldn't be able to carry in the car holster without it being concealed, which adds to the time I need to get to it.

And while I don't particularly care for "tacti-cool" ways of carrying, I don't think they pose any additional danger compared to belt or shoulder holsters. In fact, I find shoulder holsters to be inconsiderate at the very least, and possibly dangerous because of the draw stroke sweeping half the room.

However, with all this said, I'm okay with the current legislation because it's a great step in the right direction as far as OC is concerned. Instead of getting those fixed this session, I agree that HB308 (removing off-limits locations) should be much higher priority now that Campus Carry and Open Carry are all but guaranteed.

[locke_n_load]

I understand the reasoning for the "belt or shoulder" holster requirement, and I know it's not going to be changed before the bill passes the House. However, I do hope they fix it in future legislative sessions.

I specifically would like it changed so that I could open carry in my car-mounted holster during long trips. Since it's not a belt or shoulder holster, I wouldn't be able to carry in the car holster without it being concealed, which adds to the time I need to get to it.

And while I don't particularly care for "tacti-cool" ways of carrying, I don't think they pose any additional danger compared to belt or shoulder holsters. In fact, I find shoulder holsters to be inconsiderate at the very least, and possibly dangerous because of the draw stroke sweeping half the room.

However, with all this said, I'm okay with the current legislation because it's a great step in the right direction as far as OC is concerned. Instead of getting those fixed this session, I agree that HB308 (removing off-limits locations) should be much higher priority now that Campus Carry and Open Carry are all but guaranteed.

+1.
Still wondering if I take a belt holster and attach it to the steering column, am I good to go as far as OC goes?

[AJSully421]

I understand the reasoning for the "belt or shoulder" holster requirement, and I know it's not going to be changed before the bill passes the House. However, I do hope they fix it in future legislative sessions.

I specifically would like it changed so that I could open carry in my car-mounted holster during long trips. Since it's not a belt or shoulder holster, I wouldn't be able to carry in the car holster without it being concealed, which adds to the time I need to get to it.

And while I don't particularly care for "tacti-cool" ways of carrying, I don't think they pose any additional danger compared to belt or shoulder holsters. In fact, I find shoulder holsters to be inconsiderate at the very least, and possibly dangerous because of the draw stroke sweeping half the room.

However, with all this said, I'm okay with the current legislation because it's a great step in the right direction as far as OC is concerned. Instead of getting those fixed this session, I agree that HB308 (removing off-limits locations) should be much higher priority now that Campus Carry and Open Carry are all but guaranteed.

+1.
Still wondering if I take a belt holster and attach it to the steering column, am I good to go as far as OC goes?

If I were on your jury, you'd be alright.