TexasCHLforum.com

CoffeeNut wrote:

Glockster wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Just make sure it's not in your hand or stuck in your waistband without a holster.

That does bring up one thing that I've been wondering about as Texas doesn't have a brandishing law per se, and disorderly conduct covers display in a manner calculated to alarm, so wonder what will happen the first time someone is seen resting their hand on their holstered gun and someone either calls it in as a MWAG because they "touched it" or a LEO sees that and decides that it was. I bring that up because I lived in a state where OC was so "normal" that frankly both LEO and OC'ers often could be seen resting their hand on their gun, to the point that it was covered in my CHP class and the instructor made a point that doing that in front of the wrong person could become a problem for you.

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

I've had this concern too especially with the Moms Demand Nonsense group encouraging calling 911 on open carriers. I can understand wanting to rest your hand on your openly displayed gun as you take great effort to avoid it and I imagine it gets tiring; especially for police that have full gun belts. I don't really care for it however and like quite a few citizens I am apprehensive about approaching an officer that is essentially ready to draw. I'd feel the same way if I see regular Joe in Walmart standing around pawing at his pistol. I won't be dialing 911 to report an active shooter but I will keep my distance.

I would think you'd get hit with disorderly conduct if you're dumb enough to engage in an argument with someone while your pistol is displayed and you decide to rest your hand on your holstered handgun in the heat of the argument.

If you're going to OC I would suggest getting proficient at resting your hands on your belt buckle rather than on your pistol. Problem solved.

Yup, that's exactly who I was thinking of.

I have OC'd before and I made it a practice when standing around to hook my thumb into my front pocket. But I have seen several times where someone who is used to putting their hand in their pocket, not being able to do so because of the holster, and without thinking about it at all rest their hand on their gun. And I've seen LEOs do that a lot - maybe it is their way of ensuring that it's harder to grab it?

goose wrote: <snip>

Next, we could start a betting pool on how soon before anyone is arrested for OCing with the wrong holster.

That.
And not only how soon, but where that is more likely to happen.

mojo84 wrote:

Glockster wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Just make sure it's not in your hand or stuck in your waistband without a holster.

That does bring up one thing that I've been wondering about as Texas doesn't have a brandishing law per se, and disorderly conduct covers display in a manner calculated to alarm, so wonder what will happen the first time someone is seen resting their hand on their holstered gun and someone either calls it in as a MWAG because they "touched it" or a LEO sees that and decides that it was. I bring that up because I lived in a state where OC was so "normal" that frankly both LEO and OC'ers often could be seen resting their hand on their gun, to the point that it was covered in my CHP class and the instructor made a point that doing that in front of the wrong person could become a problem for you.

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

I don't think just resting one's hand on the butt of the gun is a problem as long as the person isn't threatening to pull it on someone without justification. Keep in mind the words "manner calculated to alarm".

Yes, I agree with you. But was pondering the it could happen side of things as the context it was discussed was doing so could become a problem with a less than reasonable person seeing it. I do know of a case that was like that in VA, where the guy was pointing his finger while carrying and if I recall correctly the issue of whether or not he touched his weapon in anyway came up.

mojo84 wrote:Just make sure it's not in your hand or stuck in your waistband without a holster.

That does bring up one thing that I've been wondering about as Texas doesn't have a brandishing law per se, and disorderly conduct covers display in a manner calculated to alarm, so wonder what will happen the first time someone is seen resting their hand on their holstered gun and someone either calls it in as a MWAG because they "touched it" or a LEO sees that and decides that it was. I bring that up because I lived in a state where OC was so "normal" that frankly both LEO and OC'ers often could be seen resting their hand on their gun, to the point that it was covered in my CHP class and the instructor made a point that doing that in front of the wrong person could become a problem for you.

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

joelamosobadiah wrote:

mojo84 wrote:If there really is a man in the moon and the moon really is made of cheese, is it really a belt or shoulder holster?

If one has to come up with qualifiers to make it not a belt or shoulder holster, then it's probably a belt or shoulder holster.

Common sense dictates if it is designed to attach to or be held by a belt or shoulder, it's probably acceptable. If common sense doesn't seem enough for you, just wear a holster you think is a belt or shoulder holster. I don't think this is where the cops will be splitting hairs. Just make sure it's not in your hand or stuck in your waistband without a holster.

This. If this doesn't work for you, modify your paddle holster to add belt loops and thread your belt through it. This would be simple enough to do.

Furbis makes an attachment to all of their paddles that will then allow you to thread a belt through.

Skiprr wrote:

Glockster wrote: Nice Kimber! Ultra CDP ii?

Good eye. My EDC.

Thanks, and it looks just like mine!

Countryside wrote:I...I can't believe this!
All of you...ALL of you are WRONG!

THIS is a "belt holster" ....



It's a belt....holster.

Nice Kimber! Ultra CDP ii?

RedRaiderCHL wrote:

Glockster wrote:

RedRaiderCHL wrote:I think you guys are putting to much thought into this whole "belt holster" and "shoulder holster" wording..

I believe the way that the new OC statutes are worded is to the absolute benefit of the carrier. Reason being is any holster you wear on your waist is considered a belt holster.. whether it be a Blackhawk serpa holster, a leather paddle holster, a crossbreed IWB holster, or even a drop holster (because it does have to be connected to your belt to work properly).. As for the shoulder holster provisions in the statute, I think it was put in there as well to give the carrier more freedom of choice when it comes to carrying.. For example, if you don't want to carry your full-size handgun on your basketball shorts on the way home from the gym because the combination of the paddle holster and the weapon is to heavy to sit on your waistline nicely, then you have the option to wear a shoulder holster.

I mean think about it. Under both the provisions of "belt holster" and "shoulder holster" what do they leave out? I mean if you want to be the knucklehead open carrying your piece on your ankle then I suppose they left you out but as far as im concerned every possible angle you could possible want carry openly in has been explicitly allowed for us.

just my thoughts on the matter.

I can offer one thing left out...now mind you, am not suggesting that I'd do it as OC or that anyone should, simply pointing out an example. Sticky holster - designed to fit into your pants pocket. IF someone were to use that, not so much to OC but instead a case of CC with a "just in case it exposes" during a carry, that perhaps it might have been nice to have been covered. Yes, I understand intentional display vs accidental, but that's been subject to an interpretation that could get you a ride. I look forward to OC using a belt holster for CC simply for the reason that with that I will not worry about an exposure which I know was accidental but someone else might decide to view it as otherwise. Again, just offering this one up as a "too bad" example, and know that if I have my BUG in a sticky holster that I will still have to ensure that it isn't seen, even if I had a belt holster weapon inches away and OC'ed.

That's a completely different argument.. reason being is because unintentional exposures of someones weapon are still covered under the previous statutes.. this type of holster is meant for concealed carry. if you can some how make it an OC holster than you are going out of your way to make a holster do something its not meant to do; and if you are using it correctly and someone does notice.. you don't fall under the OC "belt or shoulder holster" rule because you are concealed carrying..

I guess that I missed my point, so trying again. For example, I can take a sticky holster and depending upon the size of the gun, have it fit mostly inside of my pocket, with just the back of the grip showing. That holster is for that gun, fits the way that it is supposed to, but the pocket may simply not be deep enough to completely conceal the gun. If you do that, and go out that way, you are then I believe in violation of the law as you knew that the gun was partially exposed and that it wasn't a belt holster. If the pocket was an inch deeper, in compliance. That's what I was meaning about it being too bad as I don't see a lot of difference between it being legal because it is in a deeper pocket on one hand and slightly showing on the other. Same gun, same holster.

WildBill wrote:What if the law said you had to carry it in a shoulder purse?

Would that mean you had to carry the purse on your shoulder for it to be legal?

That's sort of like what I've wanted (deep down inside) to say - which is that I don't need a holster to hold my belt nor a holster to hold my shoulder.

Forgive me.

oljames3 wrote:

Glockster wrote:I'm confused by your post and why/how someone wouldn't see the holster of a paddle holster, unless you're only talking about an IWB holster? Speaking for myself, im referring to an OWB Fobus holster, which is clearly visible as a holster. The only part which is not visible would be the actual paddle attached to my belt.

Sorry about being unclear. I have three holsters for my BTA-90. When carrying concealed, such as at work, I carry in a Galco IWB holster under my shirt. Last August, my 18 year old son and I spent 10 days flying rockets in the desert outside of Tucson, AZ. He carried a .45, I carried my BTA-90 IWB with the shirt tucked behind the pistol. After a non-local commented about my not using a holster, I switched to an OWB, threaded belt, holster with a snap-strap. I also have a paddle holster with no retention.

I consider all three to be belt holsters. I wore my OWB Fobus paddle holster to church this morning, under my suit coat. It was the most comfortable choice, today.

HUA, thanks!

oljames3 wrote:In my opinion, a paddle holster meets the requirements of HB910 as a belt holster.

My initial intent, upon the signing of HB910, was to carry openly in an in waistband holster. I'd simply tuck my shirt behind or in front of the pistol as the situation required. However, this summer I was carrying openly at a model rocket contest in Tucson, AZ, when I had cause to reconsider. A fellow contestant, not local, asked why I was not carrying in a holster. That got me to thinking.

If the average citizen sees my method of carry as a gun stuck in the waistband without a holster, it seems reasonable that they would be more likely to be concerned than if the pistol was in an outside the waistband holster. Further, law enforcement officers would have to look closely to see that the pistol as in a holster. All this would seem to tend to lead to more law enforcement scrutiny.

I'm attending the Citizen Police Academy in my city. My intent is to get acquainted with the officers and their procedures. Before the course is over, I will learn their concerns and intent about holsters.

My intent now is to carry concealed, IWB, at work. Outisde of work, I'll switch to paddle or threaded OWB as the mood strikes me and the situation allows.

I'm confused by your post and why/how someone wouldn't see the holster of a paddle holster, unless you're only talking about an IWB holster? Speaking for myself, im referring to an OWB Fobus holster, which is clearly visible as a holster. The only part which is not visible would be the actual paddle attached to my belt.

mojo84 wrote:

thetexan wrote:One of the concerns is that the holster industry itself distinguishes between a belt holster and a paddle holster. These are clearly two different animals.

Let's reverse the thought. What if the legislature had specified that the holsters for open carry had to be a shoulder or paddle holster? What kind of conversation would we be having then? It is we who are trying to make a paddle holster fit into the definition of a belt holster. If it were the other way around would we even trying to convince ourselves that a belt holster is really a paddle holster?

What we are doing is making an assumption that when the legislature said belt holster they really didn't mean that as a distinctive type as does the holster industry, but rather meant any ole holster that is carried somewhere over, on, or in the vicinity of the belt.

I wouldn't be so sure that distinction doesn't matter.

tex

Based on that, you and anyone else that is concerned about it should probably stick to wearing a belt holster.

I still believe a paddle holster is designed to attach to a belt. Therefore it's a belt holster. I don't think the legislature was too concerned with how a belt holster attaches to a belt but just that it does.

thetexan wrote:One of the concerns is that the holster industry itself distinguishes between a belt holster and a paddle holster. These are clearly two different animals.

Let's reverse the thought. What if the legislature had specified that the holsters for open carry had to be a shoulder or paddle holster? What kind of conversation would we be having then? It is we who are trying to make a paddle holster fit into the definition of a belt holster. If it were the other way around would we even trying to convince ourselves that a belt holster is really a paddle holster?

What we are doing is making an assumption that when the legislature said belt holster they really didn't mean that as a distinctive type as does the holster industry, but rather meant any ole holster that is carried somewhere over, on, or in the vicinity of the belt.

I wouldn't be so sure that distinction doesn't matter.

tex

I don't agree with those statements. Fobus reviews - and I've also seen it on their sites - say that the paddle holster is just that, a holster. They indicate that it is worn at the waistband, clipped over that -- and if you have a belt there, then it is clearly using the belt for support. Fobus also sells an attachment that fits every Fobus that also allows for your belt to be threaded through it. A paddle holster without the threaded belt clip allows you to easily attach or detach the holster, or adjust the position, without having to remove your belt. But those are the options - clipped over your belt or threaded the belt through.

I think that you're making an assumption about what was said and what was intended. For example, they said shoulder holster as an alternative. But as was pointed out here during one of the many other discussions about this topic, a shoulder harness doesn't **have** to be a particular kind of a harness so much as an indication of where it is worn. You could duck tape it to your shoulder, then you have a shoulder harness. There is no definition of what a harness is - meaning that they didn't say what a belt holder is or what a shoulder holster is.

My point is that it seems clear to me that the intent was that belt or shoulder referred to the location, and not the kind of harness. At your shoulder, or at your belt which distinguishes that from having a gun or guns strapped all over your body by those who would think that was okay to do. That is at least how I read the law and what I take away from what seems to be a very simple understanding of the words there.

RedRaiderCHL wrote:I think you guys are putting to much thought into this whole "belt holster" and "shoulder holster" wording..

I believe the way that the new OC statutes are worded is to the absolute benefit of the carrier. Reason being is any holster you wear on your waist is considered a belt holster.. whether it be a Blackhawk serpa holster, a leather paddle holster, a crossbreed IWB holster, or even a drop holster (because it does have to be connected to your belt to work properly).. As for the shoulder holster provisions in the statute, I think it was put in there as well to give the carrier more freedom of choice when it comes to carrying.. For example, if you don't want to carry your full-size handgun on your basketball shorts on the way home from the gym because the combination of the paddle holster and the weapon is to heavy to sit on your waistline nicely, then you have the option to wear a shoulder holster.

I mean think about it. Under both the provisions of "belt holster" and "shoulder holster" what do they leave out? I mean if you want to be the knucklehead open carrying your piece on your ankle then I suppose they left you out but as far as im concerned every possible angle you could possible want carry openly in has been explicitly allowed for us.

just my thoughts on the matter.

I can offer one thing left out...now mind you, am not suggesting that I'd do it as OC or that anyone should, simply pointing out an example. Sticky holster - designed to fit into your pants pocket. IF someone were to use that, not so much to OC but instead a case of CC with a "just in case it exposes" during a carry, that perhaps it might have been nice to have been covered. Yes, I understand intentional display vs accidental, but that's been subject to an interpretation that could get you a ride. I look forward to OC using a belt holster for CC simply for the reason that with that I will not worry about an exposure which I know was accidental but someone else might decide to view it as otherwise. Again, just offering this one up as a "too bad" example, and know that if I have my BUG in a sticky holster that I will still have to ensure that it isn't seen, even if I had a belt holster weapon inches away and OC'ed.

HKsig wrote:I've read something somewhere about the open carry holster required to be looped in a belt and not clipped. I can't remember the source so I can't cite it but that question did come up and answered.

There is no such language or requirement in the law.