TexasCHLforum.com

For me, the most useful thing was watching the town hall meeting recording from Houston with the Chief and a Judge. A guy holds up a drop leg and asks if it is legal. They both say yes, then the telling part. The Judge states that CHLers are the state's most law abiding adults, and that she would not bring someone in for something so trivial. Then the Chief says something to the effect of, "I would be embarrassed to call and ask the DA because someone was carrying a holster that is 6" below their belt."

For me, I will take me chances with wearing my Ranch drop leg in a restaurant or a gas station on the way to or from the ranch. I am convinced that I can talk a jury in Hood, Erath, or Comanche Counties to see my side of things if I ever go to court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQGrM_vOH7w

53:10 mark.

mojo84 wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

casp625 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

casp625 wrote:Do I spy with my little eye... a paddle holster showing under "Example of Holsters -> Belt Holster" ?!
http://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/CHL/docume ... lsters.pdf

Looks like that holster (safariland?) is a paddle holster with additional loops for a belt (and it looks like the belt is holding it up).
However, the Serpa on page 11 (Automatic Restraint) definitely looks like the paddle only is being used (belt is not supporting the holster).
Good find!

Good call!

That is a Safariland 7390, it has regular belt loops, no type of paddle whatsoever. The mount looks exactly like the one shown (a little better) on the last slide.

BTW, a 2.25" mount on a 1.75" belt cannot be discouraged enough (Look at the last slide). It will screw up our draw. Get the 2".

Slide 11 definitely shows it worn as a paddle holster.

Oh, now I see, two different things. Slide 7 left side is the Safariland with belt loops. You are right, slide 11 is a Serpa paddle, then slide 13 is the same safariland mount as slide 7.

casp625 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

casp625 wrote:Do I spy with my little eye... a paddle holster showing under "Example of Holsters -> Belt Holster" ?!
http://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/CHL/docume ... lsters.pdf

Looks like that holster (safariland?) is a paddle holster with additional loops for a belt (and it looks like the belt is holding it up).
However, the Serpa on page 11 (Automatic Restraint) definitely looks like the paddle only is being used (belt is not supporting the holster).
Good find!

Good call!

That is a Safariland 7390, it has regular belt loops, no type of paddle whatsoever. The mount looks exactly like the one shown (a little better) on the last slide.

BTW, a 2.25" mount on a 1.75" belt cannot be discouraged enough (Look at the last slide). It will screw up our draw. Get the 2".

casp625 wrote:

AverageJoe wrote:

oljames3 wrote:

Glockster wrote:
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.

Please forgive what may be a noob question and I know that it is a little off topic but I see that you carry at church. I have read a few other members' posts which discussed carrying at church. I thought that we could not carry in a place of worship. Did something change in the last few years?

-Average Joe

Here is the law, however, I can't find which bill this language was added to, so I don't know the date:

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental entity.
...
(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

Subsection (i) was added by HB 2909 in the 75th Leg. 1997 - same bill that established 30.06... first session after CHL was passed. We wasted no time.

You see, we had to negotiate to get CC passed by adding in things like this, then we turned around and immediately started fighting to repeal some parts and get what we really wanted. This is the same pattern that has worked for OC, and I anticipate that next year we will get a few more things knocked off in our favor... we just need to stay the course and do what works. That is where Charles comes in. I listen to him intently on these matters.

I talked to me cop buddy at church today. I asked if his dept. had given them any "policy and procedures" for calls about open carry. He said it sounded pretty cut and dry, and that he had been through a Computer Based Training about OC and that all that the training said is that the handgun had to be in a shoulder or belt holster. No discussion or details about paddle / drop leg / anything else. He took it as basically "It has to be in a holster".

The one thing he did say that caught his ear was that the training said that if an officer sees a person open carrying that they may approach them and ask to see a LTC. While that is true, an officer can approach you and ask you anything, much like any other person can... what the training did not go on to say was what options that the officer has the legal ability to do if a person refuses to show a LTC outside of PC / RS situation.

In some ways, this is good news.

Go back and watch some videos. Sen. Estes said on the floor that he had copied the Oklahoma OC legislation when he specifically brought up the "belt or shoulder holster" requirement. He also said in the committee hearing that the purpose of the Oklahoma rule was so that people didn't just toss a pistol in their belt, or carry it around in their hands and call that open carry.

So, now that we have established the our law is modeled after Oklahoma's, when you go look at the actual text of the OK's SB1733 (2012), here is their definition:

“Unconcealed handgun” means a loaded or unloaded pistol carried upon the person in a belt or shoulder holster that is wholly or partially visible, or carried upon the person in a scabbard or case designed for carrying firearms that is wholly or partially visible

In the OK case, the specifically said that the purpose of this regulation specifically to not have someone walking around carrying a handgun in their hand and calling it "open carry". The wanted to make sure it stayed in a holster, scabbard, or case until it was actually being used.

So, even though we can talk about a "scabbard or case" not being in our law, the intent of the law in both states is clear... they don't want people walking around with pistols in their hands, only in holsters.

That being said, the only things what will solve this is a clarification in 2017 that just says "carried in a holster", or someone gets arrested for UCW because they were carrying a paddle or drop leg and gets acquitted.