What is a belt holster

[RedRaiderCHL]

I think you guys are putting to much thought into this whole "belt holster" and "shoulder holster" wording..

I believe the way that the new OC statutes are worded is to the absolute benefit of the carrier. Reason being is any holster you wear on your waist is considered a belt holster.. whether it be a Blackhawk serpa holster, a leather paddle holster, a crossbreed IWB holster, or even a drop holster (because it does have to be connected to your belt to work properly).. As for the shoulder holster provisions in the statute, I think it was put in there as well to give the carrier more freedom of choice when it comes to carrying.. For example, if you don't want to carry your full-size handgun on your basketball shorts on the way home from the gym because the combination of the paddle holster and the weapon is to heavy to sit on your waistline nicely, then you have the option to wear a shoulder holster.

I mean think about it. Under both the provisions of "belt holster" and "shoulder holster" what do they leave out? I mean if you want to be the knucklehead open carrying your piece on your ankle then I suppose they left you out but as far as im concerned every possible angle you could possible want carry openly in has been explicitly allowed for us.

just my thoughts on the matter.

[couzin]

KISS - intent of the language is something secure enough to keep your handgun in it and not go skittering across the floor at Denny's! No Mexican carry (is that derogatory??). No corner boy carry either...

[Glockster]

I've read something somewhere about the open carry holster required to be looped in a belt and not clipped. I can't remember the source so I can't cite it but that question did come up and answered.

There is no such language or requirement in the law.

[Glockster]

I think you guys are putting to much thought into this whole "belt holster" and "shoulder holster" wording..

I believe the way that the new OC statutes are worded is to the absolute benefit of the carrier. Reason being is any holster you wear on your waist is considered a belt holster.. whether it be a Blackhawk serpa holster, a leather paddle holster, a crossbreed IWB holster, or even a drop holster (because it does have to be connected to your belt to work properly).. As for the shoulder holster provisions in the statute, I think it was put in there as well to give the carrier more freedom of choice when it comes to carrying.. For example, if you don't want to carry your full-size handgun on your basketball shorts on the way home from the gym because the combination of the paddle holster and the weapon is to heavy to sit on your waistline nicely, then you have the option to wear a shoulder holster.

I mean think about it. Under both the provisions of "belt holster" and "shoulder holster" what do they leave out? I mean if you want to be the knucklehead open carrying your piece on your ankle then I suppose they left you out but as far as im concerned every possible angle you could possible want carry openly in has been explicitly allowed for us.

just my thoughts on the matter.

I can offer one thing left out...now mind you, am not suggesting that I'd do it as OC or that anyone should, simply pointing out an example. Sticky holster - designed to fit into your pants pocket. IF someone were to use that, not so much to OC but instead a case of CC with a "just in case it exposes" during a carry, that perhaps it might have been nice to have been covered. Yes, I understand intentional display vs accidental, but that's been subject to an interpretation that could get you a ride. I look forward to OC using a belt holster for CC simply for the reason that with that I will not worry about an exposure which I know was accidental but someone else might decide to view it as otherwise. Again, just offering this one up as a "too bad" example, and know that if I have my BUG in a sticky holster that I will still have to ensure that it isn't seen, even if I had a belt holster weapon inches away and OC'ed.

[locke_n_load]

I've read something somewhere about the open carry holster required to be looped in a belt and not clipped. I can't remember the source so I can't cite it but that question did come up and answered.

It would not make sense that a holster had to be looped through the belt, most likely for retention, when there is no actual retention requirement for the holster to gun. Just saying. I'm running a paddle holster for OC - just way more convenient. If a cop is removing my holster to check, there will be a lawsuit coming.

[Dragonfighter]

Okay, in the interest of stirring the pot. Does it have to be on the belt that holds up your pants? What about on a web belt? Or better yet, a SAA in an Arvo Ojala cartridge belt and holster?

[thetexan]

One of the concerns is that the holster industry itself distinguishes between a belt holster and a paddle holster. These are clearly two different animals.

Let's reverse the thought. What if the legislature had specified that the holsters for open carry had to be a shoulder or paddle holster? What kind of conversation would we be having then? It is we who are trying to make a paddle holster fit into the definition of a belt holster. If it were the other way around would we even trying to convince ourselves that a belt holster is really a paddle holster?

What we are doing is making an assumption that when the legislature said belt holster they really didn't mean that as a distinctive type as does the holster industry, but rather meant any ole holster that is carried somewhere over, on, or in the vicinity of the belt.

I wouldn't be so sure that distinction doesn't matter.

tex

[mojo84]

One of the concerns is that the holster industry itself distinguishes between a belt holster and a paddle holster. These are clearly two different animals.

Let's reverse the thought. What if the legislature had specified that the holsters for open carry had to be a shoulder or paddle holster? What kind of conversation would we be having then? It is we who are trying to make a paddle holster fit into the definition of a belt holster. If it were the other way around would we even trying to convince ourselves that a belt holster is really a paddle holster?

What we are doing is making an assumption that when the legislature said belt holster they really didn't mean that as a distinctive type as does the holster industry, but rather meant any ole holster that is carried somewhere over, on, or in the vicinity of the belt.

I wouldn't be so sure that distinction doesn't matter.

tex

Based on that, you and anyone else that is concerned about it should probably stick to wearing a belt holster.

I still believe a paddle holster is designed to attach to a belt. Therefore it's a belt holster. I don't think the legislature was too concerned with how a belt holster attaches to a belt but just that it does.

[Glockster]

One of the concerns is that the holster industry itself distinguishes between a belt holster and a paddle holster. These are clearly two different animals.

Let's reverse the thought. What if the legislature had specified that the holsters for open carry had to be a shoulder or paddle holster? What kind of conversation would we be having then? It is we who are trying to make a paddle holster fit into the definition of a belt holster. If it were the other way around would we even trying to convince ourselves that a belt holster is really a paddle holster?

What we are doing is making an assumption that when the legislature said belt holster they really didn't mean that as a distinctive type as does the holster industry, but rather meant any ole holster that is carried somewhere over, on, or in the vicinity of the belt.

I wouldn't be so sure that distinction doesn't matter.

tex

I don't agree with those statements. Fobus reviews - and I've also seen it on their sites - say that the paddle holster is just that, a holster. They indicate that it is worn at the waistband, clipped over that -- and if you have a belt there, then it is clearly using the belt for support. Fobus also sells an attachment that fits every Fobus that also allows for your belt to be threaded through it. A paddle holster without the threaded belt clip allows you to easily attach or detach the holster, or adjust the position, without having to remove your belt. But those are the options - clipped over your belt or threaded the belt through.

I think that you're making an assumption about what was said and what was intended. For example, they said shoulder holster as an alternative. But as was pointed out here during one of the many other discussions about this topic, a shoulder harness doesn't **have** to be a particular kind of a harness so much as an indication of where it is worn. You could duck tape it to your shoulder, then you have a shoulder harness. There is no definition of what a harness is - meaning that they didn't say what a belt holder is or what a shoulder holster is.

My point is that it seems clear to me that the intent was that belt or shoulder referred to the location, and not the kind of harness. At your shoulder, or at your belt which distinguishes that from having a gun or guns strapped all over your body by those who would think that was okay to do. That is at least how I read the law and what I take away from what seems to be a very simple understanding of the words there.

[Glockster]

One of the concerns is that the holster industry itself distinguishes between a belt holster and a paddle holster. These are clearly two different animals.

Let's reverse the thought. What if the legislature had specified that the holsters for open carry had to be a shoulder or paddle holster? What kind of conversation would we be having then? It is we who are trying to make a paddle holster fit into the definition of a belt holster. If it were the other way around would we even trying to convince ourselves that a belt holster is really a paddle holster?

What we are doing is making an assumption that when the legislature said belt holster they really didn't mean that as a distinctive type as does the holster industry, but rather meant any ole holster that is carried somewhere over, on, or in the vicinity of the belt.

I wouldn't be so sure that distinction doesn't matter.

tex

Based on that, you and anyone else that is concerned about it should probably stick to wearing a belt holster.

I still believe a paddle holster is designed to attach to a belt. Therefore it's a belt holster. I don't think the legislature was too concerned with how a belt holster attaches to a belt but just that it does.

[WildBill]

I agree that some people may be "making too much of it", but the topic deserves discussion.

I think the reason manufacturers list paddle holsters in a different category than the belt holster is for marketing purposes.

It makes it easier for the consumer to search and find the particular type or design of holster that they are looking for, the same as IWB and pocket holsters.

I use a paddle holster for the convenience of a quicker on and off and adjustment. I don't like threading a stiff gun belt through loops on a holster.

I always wear the paddle holster with a gun belt.

As far as a shoulder holster, I wouldn't wear with open carry.

[oljames3]

In my opinion, a paddle holster meets the requirements of HB910 as a belt holster.

My initial intent, upon the signing of HB910, was to carry openly in an in waistband holster. I'd simply tuck my shirt behind or in front of the pistol as the situation required. However, this summer I was carrying openly at a model rocket contest in Tucson, AZ, when I had cause to reconsider. A fellow contestant, not local, asked why I was not carrying in a holster. That got me to thinking.

If the average citizen sees my method of carry as a gun stuck in the waistband without a holster, it seems reasonable that they would be more likely to be concerned than if the pistol was in an outside the waistband holster. Further, law enforcement officers would have to look closely to see that the pistol as in a holster. All this would seem to tend to lead to more law enforcement scrutiny.

I'm attending the Citizen Police Academy in my city. My intent is to get acquainted with the officers and their procedures. Before the course is over, I will learn their concerns and intent about holsters.

My intent now is to carry concealed, IWB, at work. Outisde of work, I'll switch to paddle or threaded OWB as the mood strikes me and the situation allows.

[Glockster]

In my opinion, a paddle holster meets the requirements of HB910 as a belt holster.

My initial intent, upon the signing of HB910, was to carry openly in an in waistband holster. I'd simply tuck my shirt behind or in front of the pistol as the situation required. However, this summer I was carrying openly at a model rocket contest in Tucson, AZ, when I had cause to reconsider. A fellow contestant, not local, asked why I was not carrying in a holster. That got me to thinking.

If the average citizen sees my method of carry as a gun stuck in the waistband without a holster, it seems reasonable that they would be more likely to be concerned than if the pistol was in an outside the waistband holster. Further, law enforcement officers would have to look closely to see that the pistol as in a holster. All this would seem to tend to lead to more law enforcement scrutiny.

I'm attending the Citizen Police Academy in my city. My intent is to get acquainted with the officers and their procedures. Before the course is over, I will learn their concerns and intent about holsters.

My intent now is to carry concealed, IWB, at work. Outisde of work, I'll switch to paddle or threaded OWB as the mood strikes me and the situation allows.

I'm confused by your post and why/how someone wouldn't see the holster of a paddle holster, unless you're only talking about an IWB holster? Speaking for myself, im referring to an OWB Fobus holster, which is clearly visible as a holster. The only part which is not visible would be the actual paddle attached to my belt.

[AJSully421]

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.

[Taypo]

In my opinion, a paddle holster meets the requirements of HB910 as a belt holster.

My initial intent, upon the signing of HB910, was to carry openly in an in waistband holster. I'd simply tuck my shirt behind or in front of the pistol as the situation required. However, this summer I was carrying openly at a model rocket contest in Tucson, AZ, when I had cause to reconsider. A fellow contestant, not local, asked why I was not carrying in a holster. That got me to thinking.

If the average citizen sees my method of carry as a gun stuck in the waistband without a holster, it seems reasonable that they would be more likely to be concerned than if the pistol was in an outside the waistband holster. Further, law enforcement officers would have to look closely to see that the pistol as in a holster. All this would seem to tend to lead to more law enforcement scrutiny.

I'm attending the Citizen Police Academy in my city. My intent is to get acquainted with the officers and their procedures. Before the course is over, I will learn their concerns and intent about holsters.

My intent now is to carry concealed, IWB, at work. Outisde of work, I'll switch to paddle or threaded OWB as the mood strikes me and the situation allows.

I'm confused by your post and why/how someone wouldn't see the holster of a paddle holster, unless you're only talking about an IWB holster? Speaking for myself, im referring to an OWB Fobus holster, which is clearly visible as a holster. The only part which is not visible would be the actual paddle attached to my belt.

I believe he's referring to an IWB looking like its just stuck in the waistband. I can see how the uninitiated and the sheeple may get that idea.