TexasCHLforum.com

NotRPB wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:43 am That's my position with belt or shoulder holsters = intended design> even when locked in the gun safe, it is still a belt holster (or shoulder holster). An elephant in a garage doesn't become a car even if you stick a ley in it.
I'd agree with the designed to be a belt holster is a belt holster, designed to be an ankle holster is an ankle holster (even if a small-headed person wore it as a headband) and a holster designed to be a shoulder holster is a shoulder holster, even if it was attached to a sock, that doesn't make it a shoe...>>> a shoe used as a belt holster though ... i don't know.

We might benefit from a few definitions

46.15 Non-Applicability
(b)  Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun;  and
(B) a handgun:

(i) in a concealed manner;  or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster;

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:25 am By the same logic, is a handgun still a handgun if it's not being held in your hand? Or is it a handgun while I am holding it, and a non-distinct firearm while sitting in my holster, or safe, or range bag, only to magically become a handgun again as soon as I grab it with my hand? Or is it just holsters that have this magically ability to change their basic nature as soon as they touch something else?

It's dangerous to decide that things morph into different things based on what they are attached to, or how they are used. The thing doesn't change. If we don't like it being used in a certain way, then outlaw that use, but don't try to change it into a different thing that is now illegal, but will become legal again later, etc., etc.

Also, what is the legal definition of a "belt". Is it something that wraps entirely around your body? If so, a seat belt wouldn't count (unless you consider the seat to be part of the seat belt. But an ankle holster attached to a belt that wraps entirely around your leg should count, right? Maybe we need to start calling that a belt instead of a strap.

Or we could just get rid of all this craziness and refine the legal definitions. If the intent of the law is to keep people from stuffing a gun in their pants or otherwise carrying it in an unsafe manner, then simply change the 30.07 section to say "holster". If we don't want a holstered gun visible on the passenger seat, then say "holstered gun carried on a person's body".

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:35 am Well, I'm glad I stumbled across this post. It somehow escaped me that the official definition of concealed had been removed from the Penal Code. However, 30.06 applies to concealed carry. So, without an official definition of concealed, what is the criteria for arrest if one carries past the sign? What about 30.07? The former would seem more clearcut than the latter. You had a handgun on you, you were licensed, and you carried past the 30.06 sign. But if you had the handgun covered by say, an untucked shirt, and it became momentarily visible when bending over, etc, and someone called the police on you for violating 30.07 without your knowledge, is that grounds for arrest when the intent was not to make it visible? Have we come full circle back to it being a matter of loose interpretation? Some older members of this forum will remember a posting about a person who went through a terrible experience over something similar. I am certainly no fan of making laws that apply specifically, but then not defining the parameters for said specific law. The whole point of the legendary Code of Hammurabi wasn't that it was nice to people, but that for the first (known) time, the laws were written down for all (who could read) to see.