TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: being able to let everyone see you are armed

This is certainly not why I would like to see OC passed. Not anywhere on my list of reasons.
Although I would agree that this is a motivation for some.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

XinTX wrote:I'm not going to point too much of a finger at Watkins and his band of merry cohorts. And it's not like anyone had no reason to think Patrick wouldn't support 2A legislation and OC.

[ Image ]

How is Dan Patrick supposed to bring an open-carry bill to the Senate floor for a vote if the bill never gets voted out of committee favorably?

Chas.

I suspect the heartburn derives from announcing less than 2 weeks into the session that open carry is on life support. From the outside, it might appear that not much effort was made to bring about something that was a rather prominent campaign promise.

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth... not mine either.

^^^ I'm ok with whatever the folks crafting the language can pass through the legislature. I just wanted to point out that the "shoulder and belt holster" language is way restrictive given the wide range of carry methods available today. I don't know many women that can match a proper gun belt to their routine attire, not to mention a shoulder holster.

Teamless wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster that
is wholly or partially visible.

Yes, but you are thinking as a law abiding person
What about the thugs who don't use holsters?

So should be

handgun carried upon the person that
is wholly or partially visible.

I believe I understand your intent to allow "Mexican Carry", but your version would also allow the handgun to be in your hand. Probably a non-starter.
Requiring a generic "holster" is not much of an impediment. "Mexican carry" should be avoided for safety reasons anyway.

I believe we'd agree that "shoulder or belt" is too restrictive. People carry in many different ways. It's a whole industry now.

After reading through HB164 (licensed OC) I have a few thoughts.

1. The following language could benefit from a cleanup. If I read it literally it says that "unconcealed" means that the "holster" is visible. Perhaps it should be the "handgun" that's visible?

As currently written....

SECTION 17. Section 411.171, Government Code, is amended by
adding Subdivision (8) to read as follows:
(8) "Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded
handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster that
is wholly or partially visible.

My cleanup

SECTION 17. Section 411.171, Government Code, is amended by
adding Subdivision (8) to read as follows:
(8) "Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded
handgun that is wholly or partially visible and
carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster.

And..... let's take it a step further...

2. I'm uncomfortable with the specificity of "shoulder or belt holster". If I'm using an ankle holster and my pants leg rises up when I sit down, is that a violation? How about a pocket holster and an unintentional exposure? What about a holster pocket built into my jacket? What about a brief case/woman's purse/shoulder bag/gear bag that has a built-in holster. Am I in violation if I open my bag to retrieve an item from it and the handgun is exposed?
I'd prefer to see the language changed to something less restrictive? How about just "holster"? Like this...

SECTION 17. Section 411.171, Government Code, is amended by
adding Subdivision (8) to read as follows:
(8) "Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded
handgun that is wholly or partially visible and
carried upon the person in a s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶b̶e̶l̶t̶ holster.