HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now

[mr1337]

Okay, here's the section below. Question: Is an inside the belt holster that is attached to the belt legally considered 'being carried in a belt holster'? In that case, only the butt of the gun would show.

Also: what does this mean? "Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries"

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder.
(b) 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 or carried in a shoulder or belt holster, on or about the license holder's person:

Intentionally, knowingly, and wrecklessly are mental culpable states. In other words, the level of awareness that you had doing what you were doing. Read up on Texas Penal Code section 6.03

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

[mojo84]

This doesn't seem that difficult to understand to me.

IWB can be either. Is there a shirt, jacket, vest or other cover garment concealing the part of the gun? If so, it's concealed. If not, it's open carried.

Same goes for a gun in a belt holster or shoulder holster except part of the gun will not be inside one's pants.

I don't know why a paddle holster designed to hang on the belt wouldn't be considered a belt.

What am I missing?

[casp625]

I also don't know why this is so confusing? The only time you *might* have an issue if a business prohibits open carry by posting a 30.07 sign. Then, if your handgun is partially visible, you *may* be committing a crime.

[CJD]

I think the concern is that because "belt holster" is not defined, that anti-gun police and prosecutors may try to say that holsters which don't directly attach to a belt, such as paddle holsters and iwb holsters, are not "belt" holsters.

[Glockster]

I think the concern is that because "belt holster" is not defined, that anti-gun police and prosecutors may try to say that holsters which don't directly attach to a belt, such as paddle holsters and iwb holsters, are not "belt" holsters.

Exactly the point for me. And if you do a simple Google search on gun belt holster, and then take a look at the images, there are lots of variations that show up. For example, is a "belt holster" a holster that attaches TO your belt (and is that by clipping, or by attached will someone only believe that having an ability to thread the belt through a part of the holster is okay) or is it a holster that is worn at belt level, or is it a holster that has its own gun belt.

Just look at the pictures posted and you should get an idea of the variations...and I fully expect that most of us here GET that, and wouldn't be scratching our heads over anything there (well unless there was an ankle holster down the page somewhere), but I think that it is assuming a lot to believe that every LEO you might run into would also be as enlightened. Or necessarily willing to be, as it would be I think very easy to say that YOUR idea of what a "belt holster" is doesn't match their idea and away you go on a nice ride with your new non-friend.

I simply would like to be completely confident that what I would be using is absolutely correct. The same way that I want to be absolutely confident that I understand any and all firearms laws. And you're only paranoid IF they aren't out to get you (and I believe there are a lot of folks not happy that this is getting passed, so we're going to have a whole new round of even just MWAG calls).

[Glockster]

I also don't know why this is so confusing? The only time you *might* have an issue if a business prohibits open carry by posting a 30.07 sign. Then, if your handgun is partially visible, you *may* be committing a crime.

And I think we're going to have threads here that discuss how you have or could do the "Texas tuck/untuck" as you move from places with no business owner restrictions to one that is 30.07 posted but not 30.06 posted.

[ELB]

I am also concerned that the holster I prefer, the Raven Concealment Systems Vanguard2, will be thought by some to not be a holster for the purposes of OC because it covers only the trigger guard (which is attached to the belt by a snapped strap). Only the strap part of the holster is visible, and so I am concerned that some cops may think I do not have a holster at all (which, by the way, should not be a legal problem either). I don't plan to OC much, but it would very nice to know that I could carry like I normally do but take off my outer shirt or jacket on occasion and not have to worry about the law.

I will be happy, even ecstatic if the OC law in its present form passes, but the specification for "belt or shoulder holster" presents an unnecessary complication. Other states do OC just fine without specifying this. Why was this ever put in there in the first place? (Is this some consequence of the OCT/OCTC antics?) In Indiana, I believe, the law is entirely silent on carry method -- there is no "concealed" or "open" carry, there is simply a license to carry handgun. If we have to have a license that is all it should be. I hope we can clean this up in the future.

[gljjt]

Why was this ever put in there in the first place? (Is this some consequence of the OCT/OCTC antics?)

If you don't have a holster, and a handgun is visible, LE has PC to make a stop. Gangbanger.

[jmra]

I wonder how the slider holsters will be viewed. The holster attaches to the belt but the lower portion on the firearm is exposed. Only the midsection of the firearm is covered.

[ELB]

Why was this ever put in there in the first place? (Is this some consequence of the OCT/OCTC antics?)

If you don't have a holster, and a handgun is visible, LE has PC to make a stop. Gangbanger.

If that's true, that's a lousy reason. And exactly the reason the specification should not be in the law. It criminalizes something that in itself is not criminal, and restricts people who are not criminals. It's like saying tattoos are PC for gangbangers, or a NRA ball cap is PC for checking someone for guns at a basketball game.

[gljjt]

Why was this ever put in there in the first place? (Is this some consequence of the OCT/OCTC antics?)

If you don't have a holster, and a handgun is visible, LE has PC to make a stop. Gangbanger.

If that's true, that's a lousy reason. And exactly the reason the specification should not be in the law. It criminalizes something that in itself is not criminal, and restricts people who are not criminals. It's like saying tattoos are PC for gangbangers, or a NRA ball cap is PC for checking someone for guns at a basketball game.

I was speculating, but it reads like I was stating fact. Sorry about that.

[hansdedrich]

"I simply would like to be completely confident that what I would be using is absolutely correct. The same way that I want to be absolutely confident that I understand any and all firearms laws. And you're only paranoid IF they aren't out to get you (and I believe there are a lot of folks not happy that this is getting passed, so we're going to have a whole new round of even just MWAG calls)."

This my point. I don't want some law enforcement officer interpreting the law so that I have to go to court to defend myself from an ambiguous statute. Look, it's a simple question that nobody wants to address. I have a kydex holster that fits inside my belt. It is invisible, but it is attached to my belt. Only my gun handle shows above the belt line. It looks as if I just have the gun stuck in my belt, but it is in a holster. I then, under current law, wear a long tailed shirt to cover the gun. So, with the new law, and this is a very simple question, can I now take off the long tailed shirt and just expose the gun??

[mojo84]

Seems to me like they just want to make sure the gun is properly secured and carried safely. In other words, not just stuck in someone's waistband without a holster or carried in one's hand openly.

[mojo84]

"I simply would like to be completely confident that what I would be using is absolutely correct. The same way that I want to be absolutely confident that I understand any and all firearms laws. And you're only paranoid IF they aren't out to get you (and I believe there are a lot of folks not happy that this is getting passed, so we're going to have a whole new round of even just MWAG calls)."

This my point. I don't want some law enforcement officer interpreting the law so that I have to go to court to defend myself from an ambiguous statute. Look, it's a simple question that nobody wants to address. I have a kydex holster that fits inside my belt. It is invisible, but it is attached to my belt. Only my gun handle shows above the belt line. It looks as if I just have the gun stuck in my belt, but it is in a holster. I then, under current law, wear a long tailed shirt to cover the gun. So, with the new law, and this is a very simple question, can I now take off the long tailed shirt and just expose the gun??

I think your question has already been answered. If it's in a belt holster, iwb or owb, it meets the requirements whether exposed or concealed.

[hansdedrich]

LOL. I wish the law would state it that simply! I don't trust judges or juries.