Open Carry question

[JALLEN]

If it isn't in a belt or shoulder holster, it must be concealed.

Cover it in the car.

That's not the question. The question is, does the law require that the holster be WORN at the time and in a strict reading of the penal code it does not appear to. "on or about your person" seems to leave the "ABOUT" as an option in addition to "ON".

Have you researched the point in the Court of Criminal Appeals, where any answer might be found, or are we just going to speculate pointlessly?

[TexasRifleman]

If it isn't in a belt or shoulder holster, it must be concealed.

Cover it in the car.

That's not the question. The question is, does the law require that the holster be WORN at the time and in a strict reading of the penal code it does not appear to. "on or about your person" seems to leave the "ABOUT" as an option in addition to "ON".

Have you researched the point in the Court of Criminal Appeals, where any answer might be found, or are we just going to speculate pointlessly?

"On or about your person" shows up in many cases, and they all generally fall into the description given above which is some form or another of "reachable without significantly altering ones position".

[JALLEN]

If it isn't in a belt or shoulder holster, it must be concealed.

Cover it in the car.

That's not the question. The question is, does the law require that the holster be WORN at the time and in a strict reading of the penal code it does not appear to. "on or about your person" seems to leave the "ABOUT" as an option in addition to "ON".

Have you researched the point in the Court of Criminal Appeals, where any answer might be found, or are we just going to speculate pointlessly?

"On or about your person" shows up in many cases, and they all generally fall into the description given above which is some form or another of "reachable without significantly altering ones position".

IOW, there are no cases decided under the modern statutes, only those decided ~100 years ago when the statutes were different than today.

I don't have access to research facilities to do a proper research job myself. I did find in googling a number of very old cases on which it would be risky to hazard ones future.

[denwego]

If it isn't in a belt or shoulder holster, it must be concealed.

Cover it in the car.

That's not the question. The question is, does the law require that the holster be WORN at the time and in a strict reading of the penal code it does not appear to. "on or about your person" seems to leave the "ABOUT" as an option in addition to "ON".

Have you researched the point in the Court of Criminal Appeals, where any answer might be found, or are we just going to speculate pointlessly?

"On or about your person" shows up in many cases, and they all generally fall into the description given above which is some form or another of "reachable without significantly altering ones position".

Several quite recent cases are relevant, some of which quote older cases as still being precedentially valid: Welch v. State, 262 S.W. 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 1924) Pistol in handbag on floor of vehicle driven by appellant sufficient to sustain conviction. Same for pistol in briefcase inside car. Freeman v. State, 864 S.W.2d 757 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st District] 1993, pet ref’d); Contreras v. State, 853 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st District] 1993) “The statute requires only a particular form of possession: carrying on or about the person, which includes, in our modern view, the interior of one’s vehicle.”

The precedent indicates that pretty much anywhere inside the passenger area of a car is going to fall under "about the person" purview, whether it be LTC-authorized carrying or MPA-authorized carrying.

It is my personal honest belief that since all undefined words in the Penal Code are given their plainly understood meaning unless specifically indicated otherwise, that a "belt holster" is plainly a "belt holster" by manufacture; to wit, a reasonable person can read "belt holster" on a bit of packaging and understand what is meant without the manufacturer needing to supply a belt as a freakin' hands-on diagram. But, as I've gotten back into my habit of taking off my OWB holsters in the car if I'm going to be driving for more than 15 minutes or so, it costs exactly 0¢ to put a handtowel over it on the seat, and lawyers have developed an unpleasant habit of wanting money to state the obvious to people in funny robes.

[fickman]

It is my personal honest belief that since all undefined words in the Penal Code are given their plainly understood meaning unless specifically indicated otherwise, that a "belt holster" is plainly a "belt holster" by manufacture; to wit, a reasonable person can read "belt holster" on a bit of packaging and understand what is meant without the manufacturer needing to supply a belt as a freakin' hands-on diagram.

I had wondered about the definition of belt and shoulder holster, I agree with your assessment.

Still, I was so annoyed that they added this requirement (while simultaneously happy they didn't add any language about retention) that I almost instinctively cam up with these provocative questions:
- Can I velcro my ankle holster around my belt?
- Can I wear an IWB friction holster in the open? (I don't think so.) If not, what if I punch a hole in it and tie it to my belt with a shoelace?
- What if I wear a shoulder holster around my neck instead of around my shoulders?
. . . and many more like these

[denwego]

I had wondered about the definition of belt and shoulder holster, I agree with your assessment.

Still, I was so annoyed that they added this requirement (while simultaneously happy they didn't add any language about retention) that I almost instinctively cam up with these provocative questions:
- Can I velcro my ankle holster around my belt?
- Can I wear an IWB friction holster in the open? (I don't think so.) If not, what if I punch a hole in it and tie it to my belt with a shoelace?
- What if I wear a shoulder holster around my neck instead of around my shoulders?
. . . and many more like these

I can offer my opinions on such questions, since I enjoy thought exercises

- Can I velcro my ankle holster around my belt? - On a jury, I would vote that that is a belt holster under the circumstances, much the same way a SIG brace held to a shoulder constitutes the redesigning of the brace to a stock; absent that plainly demonstrated intent, I wouldn't say it is, if it were, say, on the seat of your car instead. Very subjective though, of course.

- Can I wear an IWB friction holster in the open? (I don't think so.) If not, what if I punch a hole in it and tie it to my belt with a shoelace? - A friction holster, not made to be worn with a belt, wouldn't seem to meet the meaning as I see it, either. But if you punched a hole and tied it to your belt, ridiculous though it be, would satisfy my opinion, much the same way tactical thigh rigs with a belt loop attachment have satisfied many anti-gun police forces throughout the state.

- What if I wear a shoulder holster around my neck instead of around my shoulders? - Still a shoulder holster in my own eyes, just as a belt holster would always be a belt holster. Plain language to me.

Personal opinions, of course, but I feel tenable!

[fickman]

Personal opinions, of course, but I feel tenable!

Great reply! I am literally doubled over laughing.