Open carry with holster requirements

[A-R]

A crazy idea just popped into my head so thought I'd share and add a wrinkle to the ongoing open carry debate.

If I understand police regulations correctly (one of you LEOs please correct me if my assumptions are wrong), the department you work for can not only mandate the type of gun you carry but most importantly the type of holster you use to carry it - meaning the type of retention. I'm not 100% sure what the classifications Level 1 Level 2 Level retention all mean (again, LEOs, feel free to fill in the blanks here). But here's my idea (jumped in my head reading flintknapper's response to one of Charles' open carry polls mentioning need for specific open carry training.

What if an open carry bill could pass, but it mandated that only certain types of holsters be used (to avoid the scenario of a bad-guy snatching a good guy's gun out of the holster in order to use it to commit a crime)? One of the original selling points of CONCEALED carry, as I remember, was that no one (including bad guys) would know who was and who was not carrying.

What if Open Carry Law says a) must have additional training and b) guns must be carried in a Level 3 retention holster or whatever. ??

Anyway, just another little point for all of y'all to argue about .... I'm enjoying reading from the sidelines a bit

[C-dub]

Darn it. I only have a level 2.

Just teasing.

This is an interesting idea, but as I mentioned in another thread I think I am more in favor of unlicensed carry to possibly further separate our CHL from OC.

[Warhammer]

Seems pretty pointless to me. If a criminal wants to commit a crime with a gun, he'll use his own gun, not wait around for an OCer to come in the door so he can snatch their gun and then rob the store. Cops use retention holsters because, by the nature of their work, the WILL frequently come into very close physical contact with criminals and one WILL try to make a grab at their gun. Non-LEOs... not so much.

[flintknapper]

Seems pretty pointless to me. If a criminal wants to commit a crime with a gun, he'll use his own gun, not wait around for an OCer to come in the door so he can snatch their gun and then rob the store. Cops use retention holsters because, by the nature of their work, the WILL frequently come into very close physical contact with criminals and one WILL try to make a grab at their gun. Non-LEOs... not so much.

Yes, we've done the "bad guy snatches your weapon" thing here several times before and pretty much concluded it doesn't happen. I do NOT want restrictions on holsters....but I do think "reality" dictates that OCers be aware of something like a small child (not knowing better, or curious) trying to reach for your weapon.

It would be well to give thought to how you would respond (retain your weapon).

No...its not likely it would happen, but it could. Depending upon your Open Carry Mode (I.E. Outside Waist Band) and your weapon, it is possible to "snag" your weapon on things. Just something to think about.

Still, I would want no mandates on holsters or even holsters at all. You only set yourself up for further restrictions.

[longtooth]

I thought Arizona had retention regs on open carry. yea or nay.

[Beiruty]

SERPA`are level-2 and of curse Blackhawk have L-3 that holster havea flip up hood, cost like 2-3 times more.
L-2 holsters for OC are good idea.

[anygunanywhere]

So, we need reasonable restrictions to exercise a constitutional right? More training? Special hoslters?

Amazing.

Anygunanywhere

[baldeagle]

So, we need reasonable restrictions to exercise a constitutional right? More training? Special hoslters?

Amazing.

Anygunanywhere

I've read the Constitution a time or two. I didn't see the word "irresponsibly" in there - as in "the right to keep and bear arms irresponsibly shall not be infringed".

[anygunanywhere]

So, we need reasonable restrictions to exercise a constitutional right? More training? Special hoslters?

Amazing.

Anygunanywhere

I've read the Constitution a time or two. I didn't see the word "irresponsibly" in there - as in "the right to keep and bear arms irresponsibly shall not be infringed".

Correct. It does not say anything about stupid or must be responsible to bear arms either.

Whether stupid, brilliant, responsible, irresponsible, all have the same right to keep and bear arms.


Anygunanywhere

[Warhammer]

When I lived in Oregon for 5 years, I open carried quite often. I used a leather holster than had no retention system other than fitting my K40 really well. I never had the gun fall out, snag on something, or get grabbed by a child (although I had a few ladies strike up conversations asking me about it). If anyone ever did reach for my gun, they would have received a VERY firm physical correction and been told to keep their hand to themselves. That goes for man, woman or child.

As for requiring retention holsters, or anything else, to exercise a right that is given to me by God and confirmed by the Constituion... There are plenty of Antis trying to control us and bend us to their wills. Why on earth would gun owners try to do the same thing to themselves?

[baldeagle]

So, we need reasonable restrictions to exercise a constitutional right? More training? Special hoslters?

Amazing.

Anygunanywhere

I've read the Constitution a time or two. I didn't see the word "irresponsibly" in there - as in "the right to keep and bear arms irresponsibly shall not be infringed".

Correct. It does not say anything about stupid or must be responsible to bear arms either.

Whether stupid, brilliant, responsible, irresponsible, all have the same right to keep and bear arms.


Anygunanywhere

Sorry, but I disagree. The Constitution is quite clear that the government can take your liberty away through due process of law. While they cannot prevent citizens from keeping a bearing arms, they can certainly prevent felons from doing so - Constitutionally - and I think that argument extends to reasonable requirements for the means and method of carry as well. The government can't take a citizen's RKBA away from them, but it can set reasonable standards for the exercise of that right. Just as you have the right to freedom of speech yet cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have the RKBA but cannot do it in an irresponsible manner that endangers others.

[anygunanywhere]

So, we need reasonable restrictions to exercise a constitutional right? More training? Special hoslters?

Amazing.

Anygunanywhere

I've read the Constitution a time or two. I didn't see the word "irresponsibly" in there - as in "the right to keep and bear arms irresponsibly shall not be infringed".

Correct. It does not say anything about stupid or must be responsible to bear arms either.

Whether stupid, brilliant, responsible, irresponsible, all have the same right to keep and bear arms.


Anygunanywhere

Sorry, but I disagree. The Constitution is quite clear that the government can take your liberty away through due process of law. While they cannot prevent citizens from keeping a bearing arms, they can certainly prevent felons from doing so - Constitutionally - and I think that argument extends to reasonable requirements for the means and method of carry as well. The government can't take a citizen's RKBA away from them, but it can set reasonable standards for the exercise of that right. Just as you have the right to freedom of speech yet cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have the RKBA but cannot do it in an irresponsible manner that endangers others.

In your world, carrying in a truly irresponsible manner can be defined by law but until someone violates that law then they have the RKBA.

Exactly how many restrictions are you willing to put up with And at what point do you draw the line?

You are willing to allow the government to define irresponsible? The government?

If you allow the government control of the line they can put it wharever they want and they seldom move it back.

Anygunanywhere

[C-dub]

I'm with anygunanywhere on this one.

There are way more intellectually challenged or irresponsible people than criminals and they manage to not break any laws. As much as I would like to keep the intellectually challenged from doing a lot of things it's just not right. And except for the whole getting caught breaking the law thing, some criminals are very smart people.

[terryg]

Exactly how many restrictions are you willing to put up with And at what point do you draw the line?

You are willing to allow the government to define irresponsible? The government?

Anygunanywhere

Here is that whole balance thing again. So let me ask you then, why does the gun have to be holstered at all? Any reason I shouldn't be able to walk through Walmart with my pistol at low ready?

Ridiculous - right? But there is a line somewhere, right?

[anygunanywhere]

Exactly how many restrictions are you willing to put up with And at what point do you draw the line?

You are willing to allow the government to define irresponsible? The government?

Anygunanywhere

Here is that whole balance thing again. So let me ask you then, why does the gun have to be holstered at all? Any reason I shouldn't be able to walk through Walmart with my pistol at low ready?

Ridiculous - right? But there is a line somewhere, right?

Not a valid argument.

Kind of like someone some of us knew who used to use a vending machine that dispensed machine guns in airports as an example. Not a valid argument.

I stand by my assertion. Balance is the government honoring the constitution and the second amendment as it is written.

Anygunanywhere