TexasCHLforum.com

casp625 wrote:I also don't know why this is so confusing? The only time you *might* have an issue if a business prohibits open carry by posting a 30.07 sign. Then, if your handgun is partially visible, you *may* be committing a crime.

And I think we're going to have threads here that discuss how you have or could do the "Texas tuck/untuck" as you move from places with no business owner restrictions to one that is 30.07 posted but not 30.06 posted.

CJD wrote:I think the concern is that because "belt holster" is not defined, that anti-gun police and prosecutors may try to say that holsters which don't directly attach to a belt, such as paddle holsters and iwb holsters, are not "belt" holsters.

Exactly the point for me. And if you do a simple Google search on gun belt holster, and then take a look at the images, there are lots of variations that show up. For example, is a "belt holster" a holster that attaches TO your belt (and is that by clipping, or by attached will someone only believe that having an ability to thread the belt through a part of the holster is okay) or is it a holster that is worn at belt level, or is it a holster that has its own gun belt.

Just look at the pictures posted and you should get an idea of the variations...and I fully expect that most of us here GET that, and wouldn't be scratching our heads over anything there (well unless there was an ankle holster down the page somewhere), but I think that it is assuming a lot to believe that every LEO you might run into would also be as enlightened. Or necessarily willing to be, as it would be I think very easy to say that YOUR idea of what a "belt holster" is doesn't match their idea and away you go on a nice ride with your new non-friend.

I simply would like to be completely confident that what I would be using is absolutely correct. The same way that I want to be absolutely confident that I understand any and all firearms laws. And you're only paranoid IF they aren't out to get you (and I believe there are a lot of folks not happy that this is getting passed, so we're going to have a whole new round of even just MWAG calls).

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

hansdedrich wrote:"It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder."

Are we again having to guess at what the law is? C'mon. If I have my pistol on an IWB holster and my shirt blows up, will I be arrested for brandishing - or an OWB holster with my shirt covering it, will I be arrested for concealment? In other words, if my pistol is in a holster, can I wear or not wear any kind of clothes I choose? These darn laws are legal speak and don't make sense - you have to go to court to find out what you did opr didn't do. Maybe that's the plan, more attorney fees and court action??

There's nothing confusing or ambiguous at all. You can carry concealed in any way you like. If open-carry passes as in SB17/HB910, then you can still carry concealed in any way you like, or you can carry openly with a belt or shoulder holster.

Chas.

What I'm still unsure of is what exactly is a "belt or shoulder holster" -- is there a definition (as don't recall seeing that)? My specific question would be whether a FOBUS paddle retention holster is a "belt" holster as it clips over my belt.

Was out again -- did I miss them coming back, or has that not happened yet?

TVGuy wrote:

Glockster wrote:I only got to follow the first 20 minutes or so -- what was the final result, did it pass out of committee?

Adjourned until 1030am or so. Business being conducted on House floor.

Thanks!

I only got to follow the first 20 minutes or so -- what was the final result, did it pass out of committee?