TexasCHLforum.com

Jason K wrote:

Charles L. Cotton 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?....

If that's what you think constitutes a "belt holster," then give it a try and find out.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton 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?....

If that's what you think constitutes a "belt holster," then give it a try and find out.

Chas.

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?

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.

mojo84 wrote:That's when the real quid pro quo can start. People will hold out their support for more money for their pet projects and cronies.

Votes for sale.

CJD wrote:"Reported favorably as substituted"

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bladed wrote:

Srnewby wrote:Read in the House rules that bills approved by the Senate are to receive first reading and assignment to committee as soon as "practicable". SB 17 was received in the House a week ago tomorrow. If SB 17 has not been assigned to a committee by the end of this week, I'm thinking it is pretty clear that the Speaker is stalling.

SB 17 wasn't received by the House until last Friday (four days ago).

Of the 32 Senate bills thus far received by the House (some of which were received weeks before SB 17), two have been referred to committee.

We don't gain anything by jumping to conclusions.

Correct! Something is working, so rest easy folks. This isn't a guarantee, but there's no reason to suspect a conspiracy at this point.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:

Jason K wrote:While we're at it, why not require periodic refreshers on election law before one can get their voter registration? Why not require periodic refreshers on political science or world history before one can read a news source or comment on an issue on an Internet forum?

This is just too delicious to pass up. We all know that "they" would argue loudly and longly that voting is a right, and forcing someone to take periodic refresher course would infringe on that right as well as be racist (because minorities are somehow not as capable of taking care of themselves as majorities are.)

I'll leave it to the forum members to extend the argument to gun rights.

Salty1 wrote: I will put it this way, if it did come back I would not rant and rave about it and attend the class. If it came down to a negotiation point to get OC passed then I would not voice opposition although I may not like it.

mojo84 wrote:

Paragrouper wrote:

Salty1 wrote:I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

I would agree. periodic refresher training is a good way to ensure the CHL population is made aware of any changes to the laws that may impact on how or where they carry. We are all responsible for our actions; training helps us all to better understand those responsibilities under the law.

Are you saying the training should be required by law or are you saying we should all be responsible and obtain the training we determine we need individually.

RogueUSMC wrote: Theoretically, you ARE represented by people like that...they are called senators and congressmen...

tlt wrote: Like everyone else, he has his own agenda. It would be very unprofessional for anyone to seek him out and say anything or post negative reviews regarding his testimony. Everyone who puts themselves out there to testify should be able to do so without any harassment. There are also lots of folks who disagree with OC supporters, particularly on this subject, folks should be on their best behavior and not hooting and hollering in the gallery for example.

I've met a ton of folks who do seek out additional training on their own if they feel they need it. So, I don't think it needs to be forced in to form of more requirements, that's just my opinion. He probably sees people that scare him, and need more training, and that's his opinion.

Jasonw560 wrote: I quit watching after one or two of the "the teachers (professors) will be the targets if this bill is passed..." Um....this bill is geared towards you, dillweed.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm more than a little tired of hearing professors lie about how tough college life is and the alarmingly high rate of nut jobs on campus. I would love the opportunity to sit on the committee and cross-examine these folks.

Chas.

TVGuy wrote:I think this teacher says he won't teach again if campus carry passes. Did I get that right?