TexasCHLforum.com

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?

hansdedrich wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

hansdedrich wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I think you are way over analyzing this and making something very simple complicated. Exposed is exposed. Concealed is concealed.

Okay, is an inside the waist band holster considered open or concealed? It would seem to me that the lawmakers could easily clear things up by defining open carry as: " an OUTSIDE the belt waist belt holster or shoulder holster." It's a sticking point I believe because gangbangers wear guns stuck in the front of their pants, not different from me wearing an inside the belt holster in the front of my pants because an IWB holster is not visible. This might sound like nit picking until you are arrested and learn the details in court instead of asking the hard questions now. Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to protect everyone here who is law abiding.

Wow.

Is the gun visible to another party? I don't mean "printing". I mean "visible". Is it visible? If not, then you're good to go. If OC passes, then IT. WON'T. MATTER. Under current law, in the absence of an open carry law, if your gun is in an IWB holster with the grip exposed and visible to an observer, then it really boils down to whether or not you were intentionally concealing. If your shirt was tucked in, then you have no way to make a case for unintentional failure to conceal, and you will suffer the consequences. OTH, if your gun is carried IWB with the grip exposed above your belt, but you are wearing a cover garment which conceals it, then you are good to go. If the wind blows your cover garment aside, momentarily exposing the grips, then that is UNintentional failure to conceal, and you're good to go.

This stuff is not rocket science, and you are way overthinking it. There is a very important legal principle which your hypotheses and conclusions ignore, and that is that EVERYthing is legal until a law is written to make it illegal. In other words, "legal" is the default state. It's a binary state, much like in programming. It's like saying that everything is "O" unless a specific rule is written which switches "O" to "1" under specific circumstances. What you are advocating here is that LOTS of rules should be written.......a society with MORE laws rather than fewer. By definition, laws restrict liberty. Ergo, you are arguing for further restrictions on liberty.

If you want a law that covers every contingency you can possibly think of, it would be so cumbersome and difficult to interpret that it would have the opposite effect that what you desire.

Far better to simply stop obsessing about it. Conceal your gun, and go about your day. If OC passes, then you won't have to worry about it at all. If it doesn't pass, then simply conceal your gun. It is that simple.

Haha, I'm not trying to rewrite the law! I only want to know one thing: Is an IWB holster legal when open carrying> That's not too hard of a question, is it?

hansdedrich wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I think you are way over analyzing this and making something very simple complicated. Exposed is exposed. Concealed is concealed.

Okay, is an inside the waist band holster considered open or concealed? It would seem to me that the lawmakers could easily clear things up by defining open carry as: " an OUTSIDE the belt waist belt holster or shoulder holster." It's a sticking point I believe because gangbangers wear guns stuck in the front of their pants, not different from me wearing an inside the belt holster in the front of my pants because an IWB holster is not visible. This might sound like nit picking until you are arrested and learn the details in court instead of asking the hard questions now. Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to protect everyone here who is law abiding.

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.

WASHINGTON – They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier for people to vote.

{——SNIP——}

At least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment.