A few thoughts on the issues with thoughts toward solving the concerns, and what compromises could be made, that make sense.
To continue this discussion, based on some additional information presented in "Through An Officer's Eyes"
https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/ ... cer-s-eyes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; another excellent article. Additionally I wanted to comment on some of the testimony provided to the Senate Affairs Committee.
http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... ip_id=9093" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With respect to how an officer would interact with an Open Carry person, should be no different than he would interact with a conceal carry person. That is, to say that an officer has every right, but not an obligation to talk to a licensee if he or she feels it is warranted. Like any other interaction with a LEO, the licensee should conduct themselves in a courteous and professional manner. The interaction, should be limited however to a request for a license and identification. It would be the officers discretion if he needs to "call it in" or take any additional actions.
Like a normal stop, once you identify yourself as a license holder, the officer may disarm you, at his or her discretion. I have had interactions with an LEO, where I told the LEO I'm CHL holder, by presenting my license and verbally. The officer may politely disarms me, and after our encounter, allows me to retrieve my weapon. I respect our LEO's and would never want them to be forced to feel uncomfortable, this puts them on the defensive, and that is where mistakes are made. It baffles me why people intentionally bait and harass officers, their job is difficult enough.
The key here, do not put a LEO in a position where he or she feels threatened, or provide a reason for an interaction at all. If a citizen calls and reports a "man with a gun" the 911 dispatch should be trained to ask the questions. What is he doing, is he carrying it in a holster, has there been some threatening action besides simply carrying a weapon in a holster. The scope of what the officer can do gives him some power, but needs to be limited in such a way that personal attacks opinions or lectures about open carry are frowned upon.
I would take it a bit further to say, most officers probably appreciate the fact that there are over 800,000 CHL holders on the street that "have their back". As a result, just maintaining the professional manner in which they generally conduct themselves, both officers and CHL holders will go a long way.
An additional consideration, which may be quite a stretch would be to allow CHL holders to police themselves. So, for example if there was an Open Carry individual any CHL holder could request to see their license, if in particular there was a reason to be suspicious of their actions. Carrying a pin, button, badge or other device to let someone know you are authorized does not seem effective, even if the state issued belt badges. They are easily forged, and an unnecessary burden.
From the invited witnesses
At approximately 2:09:00 video (2nd link) the Houston Chief of Police talks about retention. One thing he points out, that Officers are required to carry level III holsters. I want to point out that most if not all Level III holsters are designed to be fit to a duty belt, which in and of itself would be very difficult for the average citizen.
He states "According to the Officer Down Foundation, between 2000 and 2014 57 officers lost their lives when their own gun was turned against them". He goes on to say, and I will paraphrase, this is "Training in Self Defence, Training in weapon retention, and also a high level retention holster". He goes on to say that they are basically recommending a minimum of a level II holster, preferably a level III holster. He further states, that officers are required to use a level III holster when on duty.
While we all mourn the loss of those officers, the fact of the matter is, a deranged individual who is determined to take a weapon from an officer is able do so, despite the Level III holster. Keeping in mind, that our officers put themselves on the line, day in and day out, often thanklessly with every situation that comes up, often with the worst of the worst. This is simply not a situation the average citizen is going to run into, nor the level of constant training an officer undergoes.
In other testimony, it was also mentioned that a retention requirement would be virtually unenforceable, and require weapons to be removed from their holsters to demonstrate the retention level. That starts bout 2:14:20
I am listing here, definitions of retention types, so that we might better understand what we are asking for here. I cherry picked this from
http://www.firearmstalk.com/Holster-Ret ... s-101.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Level I
This is what I mentioned in my original post, it seems like a bad idea, but you can't legislate common sense.
It's at this level where there is the most confusion with holsters. Most instructors and holster manufactures consider the good old-fashioned plain Jane holster that has no snaps, straps, flaps, buttons, breaks, or other devices to hold the handgun in as a Level I. The pistol is held into these holsters by the gravitational pull of the earth as it rotates and the friction that the sides play on the frame of the gun. These holsters are usually the cheapest, the most easy to use, and the fastest. A handgun in a L1 can be deployed in a second or less by someone used to it. Unfortunately, if you get in a tussle or even if you get up fast from an awkward position, this type of holster can leave your gun rattling on the floor.
Level II
This is a standard type of holster that you will see plain clothes officers wearing all the time, even at the Capitol. I've seen many folks wearing these in TX.
For most people this means a thumbreak holster in which some device, usually a strap over the hammer but in some cases a lever or flap, has to be moved or snapped to get to the handgun to leave the holster. These are the minimum safe holsters for law enforcement, military, and security personnel. While the strap, flap, or lever will usually keep the gun in place if the wearer falls or stumbles, it can still be moved very fast and the handgun deployed. They take a little getting used to and its advised that the user practice drawing with an unloaded firearm from one of these holsters several hundred times to get used to it.
Level III
This definition speaks for itself. It would clearly be very difficult to expect CHL holders to where a duty belt, and get the additional training required to carry around a bulky duty holster.
.
For those who require more than the force of gravity, the friction of the holster sides, and a lever or strap to hold their gun in, they reach for a Level III design. These designs are trick holsters that incorporate all of the above methods while adding the need to push, pull, or rotate the gun in a certain way before the holster releases its hold. These holsters are rather expensive due to the craftsmanship involved, but can be a lifesaver in the field. In most cases, it's almost impossible for an assailant to remove one of these from the holster of another person, even if they are unconscious.
The downside of these is that they require a ton of training to develop the muscle memory to carry and use these holsters effectively. They are also bulky, leading to the primary users being law enforcement on patrol duties or those who open carry with a proper duty belt. For those who still need more retention, such as in the corrections industry, there are Level 4 and even 5 holsters that further add even more tricks to the design.
For most, the Level II is about as effective a holster that is needed. It provides more positive control on the handgun that gravity alone while not having all of the doo-dads, expense, and training required of the Level III.
So where does this leave us. The common sense approach, if a compromise is needed, would be to accept a Level II requirement, which can be worded in a way, that makes sense. Something in the requirements worded like "1 device or feature, of any nature designed to retain a handgun in the holster." You could further that, by specifying that the trigger guard be covered for example.
As an example, this revolver holster would meet the requirements as I described them, it has a covered trigger guard and it has a strap loop. The normal holster, an open carry holder might use would look like this.
http://www.kirkpatrickleather.com/holly ... -driver-37" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It would also meet the criteria, because it has a strap.
http://www.kirkpatrickleather.com/conce ... llenger-79" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; This holster would not meet the criteria,
http://www.kirkpatrickleather.com/conce ... -eagle-167" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; because it does not, the holsters are virtually identical otherwise. Finally have a look at a Level III holster that we might see
on an officer.
http://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs ... 32i_ts.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The issue I see, is that there are just a few companies I know of that make them.
Remember, the only difference between a CHL and a OC holder is a thin piece of cloth, nothing really changes the weapons are already out there. There is a big hang up with Open Carry, but how can we be perfectly fine with Concealed then. An out of sight out of mind mentality seems very elementary.
PS: On the article "Through an Officer's Eyes" my LEO friend in Texas says. "Very well written article. I believe LEO's for the most part, will have a more difficult time educating the public of the new law than anything else."
