Because they can be open carry methods if the person wants them to be. My point is, why do they need to define Open Carry in such a small scope in the bill? Why does it matter how it's being openly carried as long as it's not in a threatening manner?SewTexas wrote:mr1337 wrote:I don't understand why HB 164 is defining an unconcealed firearm in that manner. It's limiting it to firearms in a shoulder or belt holster.
What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?
Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.
it's an open carry bill and those are concealed carry methods, why would they be mentioned?
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Open Carry Bills 2015”
- Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:43 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: Open Carry Bills 2015
- Replies: 64
- Views: 12130
Re: Open Carry Bills 2015
- Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:11 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: Open Carry Bills 2015
- Replies: 64
- Views: 12130
Re: Open Carry Bills 2015
I don't understand why HB 164 is defining an unconcealed firearm in that manner. It's limiting it to firearms in a shoulder or belt holster.
What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?
Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.
What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?
Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.