open carry bill filed

[MasterOfNone]

Just got off the phone with Lavenders office, spoke with a staffer named Bryan.
This is what I was told;
The 30.06 wording was removed because their is a question of the constitutionality of 2 different signs for carry even if its 2 different types of carry. If one type of carry is allowed it may be unconstitutional to stop another. This is something they what to clarify and fix as the bill progresses.

The "dual points of resistance" is in reportedly to help get backing from LE agencies. Bryan stated that this one complaint last session with the OC bill. LE is concerned about people who OC being unknowingly disarmed

The unintentional failure to conceal was left in because they want complete concealment or "dual points of resistance" OC. Not lackadaisical conceal carry. This is to help enforce the difference.

Isn't this what we have today?

[K.Mooneyham]

I want to know what states like Arizona, Wyoming, and Oklahoma have in regards to requirements about holster types. That retention business sounds ridiculous. And you can certainly put me in the column that if this will mess up our concealed carry laws, then I don't want it. I'm an NOT against open carry, I think it might be useful in some situations...but not if it will ruin what we have now.

[anygunanywhere]

But....we get to buy more accessories.

Anygunanywhere

[Wes]

"dual points of resistance" is probably taken from duty holsters that have to be level 2 with two points of retention (google level 2 duty holster to see what they are). that would mean a simple strap would not be enough, nor would the push button style holsters as well. it seems quite excessive. It also seems excessive to keep the failure to conceal around because of this rule just so they can distinguish concealed carry and open carry on a legal basis. very strange bill, and just one more thing im not crazy about on top of the 30.06 mess.

[joelamosobadiah]

If I put a small Velcro "button" on my gun and another on my holster is that "dual points of resistance"?

[AEA]

That "dual points of resistance" is the most foolish statement I have ever heard. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean a Level II retention holster or not?

I that is left in the bill, a lot of peeps will be going to Jail at the interpretation of the LEO that comes to the scene of MWAG!

Not to mention that there are very few Level II retention holsters available for 1911's. Yes Timmy, not everyone carries a Glock!

I really wish that people writing these bills had a clue about what they were talking about.

But I guess I will submit that what they are talking about IS NOT a Level II retention holster but just two points of retention. That would then be a Leather/Kydex thumb break holster with a tension screw on the holster itself providing the 2nd point of retention.

I am pretty sure that is what they are talking about as I cannot see people having to go and buy a Level II LEO Duty holster to carry openly! Why can't they say it without being ambiguous?

[RPB]

retention strap plus ................... duct tape

retention is important, more so with open carry

My stomach muscles are finely tuned to work with my double layered kydex reinforced gun belt to retain my Concealed IWB weapon, less so if I just took a Gas-X ... but I know techniques ... from Tai Kwon Do, Judo, and General Tsao and chow mein methods... try to get my gun, watch out for my flying double eggroll....

[AEA]

The way they have it worded, a IWB with a thumb break would do. Again, ambiguous, but I believe the belt of the IWB would suffice as the 2nd retention point. Now the question is.....would the LEO that came to visit with you agree?

The other question is........ does anyone make a IWB with thumb break?

[anygunanywhere]

retention strap plus ................... duct tape

retention is important, more so with open carry

My stomach muscles are finely tuned to work with my double layered kydex reinforced gun belt to retain my Concealed IWB weapon, less so if I just took a Gas-X ... but I know techniques ... from Tai Kwon Do, Judo, and General Tsao and chow mein methods... try to get my gun, watch out for my flying double eggroll....

You love Batman don't you?

Anygunanywhere

[AEA]

Just got off the phone with Lavenders office, spoke with a staffer named Bryan.
This is what I was told;
The "dual points of resistance" is in reportedly to help get backing from LE agencies. Bryan stated that this one complaint last session with the OC bill. LE is concerned about people who OC being unknowingly disarmed.

How about calling Bryan back and give him the link to this thread so that he can see the comments from people who actually carry guns and have a clue!

[Charles L. Cotton]

Just got off the phone with Lavenders office, spoke with a staffer named Bryan.
This is what I was told;
The 30.06 wording was removed because their is a question of the constitutionality of 2 different signs for carry even if its 2 different types of carry. If one type of carry is allowed it may be unconstitutional to stop another. This is something they what to clarify and fix as the bill progresses.

It is not unconstitutional. For the sake of argument, if it were unconstitutional, then it means HB700 must not pass for the very reasons that have been discussed for at least four years. I regret having published the article Straight Talk about Open-Carry. I did so in good faith to help pave the way for open-carry with the general public and fully relying upon the statements that TPC §30.06 absolutely would not be amended.

In fairness to Rep. Lavender, I smell leg counsel's hands all over this bill.

TPC §30.06 must not be amended, period!

Chas.

[Wes]

But I guess I will submit that what they are talking about IS NOT a Level II retention holster but just two points of retention. That would then be a Leather/Kydex thumb break holster with a tension screw on the holster itself providing the 2nd point of retention.

if this is all they are talking about, i wouldnt have as big a problem with it but like you mention its ambiguous as written and would open it up for interpretation from a LEO. Just as the change to 30.06 leaves what constitutes notice up to interpretation and does not spell out exactly what the sign must be. Both of these are major problems, I know Mr. Cotton clearly states not to touch 30.06 but I am worried about this one as well (among other things).

[Charles L. Cotton]

If this were to pass as written, then someone could be charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon because of the holster they wore. Interesting . . .

Chas.

[AEA]

It appears that no one in the Legislature has any knowledge of Carry in Texas. Is there even one there that actually carries?

Can we find that one that carries & understands what 30.06 means, who can write and sponsor a readable and correct bill that even has a slight chance of passing? Is that too much to ask?

[Charles L. Cotton]

It appears that no one in the Legislature has any knowledge of Carry in Texas. Is there even one there that actually carries?

There are many!

Chas.