joe817 wrote:TAM, is that the mayor of Kermit?
Or Odessa?
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
joe817 wrote:TAM, is that the mayor of Kermit?
If that's what you think constitutes a "belt holster," then give it a try and find out.Jason K wrote:So....I could actually use an ankle holster as long as there was a dangle-thingy that attached to my belt, right?....Charles L. Cotton wrote:
There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.
just think of the bling I could use to match my dressTexasCajun wrote:Why in the world would anyone want to open carry with an ankle holster?Jason K wrote:So....I could actually use an ankle holster as long as there was a dangle-thingy that attached to my belt, right?....Charles L. Cotton wrote:
There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.
The only absurdity are the ridiculous "examples" that are being thrown out.Jason K wrote:It's the principle of the thing.....illustrating absurdity through the absurd.TexasCajun wrote:Why in the world would anyone want to open carry with an ankle holster?Jason K wrote:So....I could actually use an ankle holster as long as there was a dangle-thingy that attached to my belt, right?....Charles L. Cotton wrote:
There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.
Yep! It's starting to remind me of the nursery at church with all of the whining going on. (BTW, I'm not making a joke.)joe817 wrote:Anybody besides me think that this thread has turned into a circular discussion, not to dissimilar to a circular firing squad?
I'm more concerned with what the Legislature thinks constitutes a "belt holster". With the way things are currently written, it will depend on each LEO that you encounter to make up their own definition....kinda like the "reasonable speed" signs in Montana a few years back.Charles L. Cotton wrote:If that's what you think constitutes a "belt holster," then give it a try and find out.Jason K wrote:So....I could actually use an ankle holster as long as there was a dangle-thingy that attached to my belt, right?....Charles L. Cotton wrote:
There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.
Chas.
I'm more concerned with what the Legislature thinks constitutes a "belt holster". With the way things are currently written, it will depend on each LEO that you encounter to make up their own definition....kinda like the "reasonable speed" signs in Montana a few years back.Jason K wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:If that's what you think constitutes a "belt holster," then give it a try and find out.Jason K wrote:So....I could actually use an ankle holster as long as there was a dangle-thingy that attached to my belt, right?....Charles L. Cotton wrote:
There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.
Chas.
There's a dedicated sub-forum dedicated to holsters in the Day-To-Day section of the forum. I believe ALL discussions related to holsters should be done there; eliminate the baiting questions, and discuss only items relevant to legislative actions being discussed in this section of the forum.Rrash wrote:Can we just pull the holster talk into oncoming traffic, leave it there, and move on yet?
SawdustBytes wrote:I do not wish to get "off topic", but at the risk of doing so -- What is the current state of HB 910?
Wouldn't that technically be getting on topic?SawdustBytes wrote:I do not wish to get "off topic", but at the risk of doing so -- What is the current state of HB 910?