Removing "Shoulder or Belt" holster from SB17

[TVGuy]

............ but without a legal definition it's hard to say.

Which is the point of this thread. When looking at this law we can't simply say "well this is what I think." Look at the law from 2 distinct extremist point of views. Each group is going to try to push the law as far as they can.

The people against OC are going to use every little nuance of the law to cause problems.

The people who want to be "in your face" about it are going to do the same.

Unless we want to see people getting arrested in Austin for wearing a paddle holster with board shots, and folks in Arlington wearing a shoulder holster as a drop leg rig this tiny portion of the bill needs to be cleaned up.

Agreed, but I'm not sure it's going to unfortunately.

[K5GU]

Are there even legal definitions to the terms "shoulder holster", "belt holster", and "attached"?....

Not sure how 'legal' it is , but a definition for 'holster' can be found in the American Heritage Dictionary.

holster
n.
1. A case of leather or similar material into which a pistol fits snugly and which attaches to a belt, strap, or saddle so that it may be carried or transported.
2. A belt with loops or slots for carrying small tools or other equipment.

[Jason K]

Are there even legal definitions to the terms "shoulder holster", "belt holster", and "attached"?....

Not sure how 'legal' it is , but a definition for 'holster' can be found in the American Heritage Dictionary.

holster
n.
1. A case of leather or similar material into which a pistol fits snugly and which attaches to a belt, strap, or saddle so that it may be carried or transported.
2. A belt with loops or slots for carrying small tools or other equipment.

You'd be surprised how many legal definitions come nowhere near AHD definitions....

[locke_n_load]

So if I take a belt holster and attach it to my steering column, am I within the definition of the law?

[K5GU]

So if I take a belt holster and attach it to my steering column, am I within the definition of the law?

Maybe..if you're wearing your steering column? I don't know. There may be some implied rules for interpretation by someone there.

[Srnewby]

............ but without a legal definition it's hard to say.

Which is the point of this thread. When looking at this law we can't simply say "well this is what I think." Look at the law from 2 distinct extremist point of views. Each group is going to try to push the law as far as they can.

The people against OC are going to use every little nuance of the law to cause problems.

The people who want to be "in your face" about it are going to do the same.

Unless we want to see people getting arrested in Austin for wearing a paddle holster with board shots, and folks in Arlington wearing a shoulder holster as a drop leg rig this tiny portion of the bill needs to be cleaned up.

Agreed, but I'm not sure it's going to unfortunately.

I agree that getting holster language is not likely this session. Right or wrong, the language currently in SB 17 appears to be the language that the House will eventually vote up or down (hopefully up).

[K5GU]

Right. I'm guessing the legislature will likely do what they call a "clean up? amendment later, similar to what they did when amending the caliber specs for the CHL proficiency rules when they changed from .38 to .32 ,etc. In the captions, they used wording like, non-substantive changes for that. And apparently when they use that method to get amendments in (uncontested, etc.) it goes to passage at warp speed.

[G.A. Heath]

Right. I'm guessing the legislature will likely do what they call a "clean up? amendment later, similar to what they did when amending the caliber specs for the CHL proficiency rules when they changed from .38 to .32 ,etc. In the captions, they used wording like, non-substantive changes for that. And apparently when they use that method to get amendments in (uncontested, etc.) it goes to passage at warp speed.

Not in this session, but in future sessions I am certain we will improve and revise this legislation until we are happy with it. Keep in mind that we are trying to overcome nearly a century and a half of bias against the carry of handguns, to make any progress is better than the alternative of leaving it alone which is far better than allowing our opponents to make an progress and bring us closer to how things were as a result of HB115 that was passed in 1871...

[K5GU]

Right. I'm guessing the legislature will likely do what they call a "clean up? amendment later, similar to what they did when amending the caliber specs for the CHL proficiency rules when they changed from .38 to .32 ,etc. In the captions, they used wording like, non-substantive changes for that. And apparently when they use that method to get amendments in (uncontested, etc.) it goes to passage at warp speed.

Not in this session, but in future sessions I am certain we will improve and revise this legislation until we are happy with it. Keep in mind that we are trying to overcome nearly a century and a half of bias against the carry of handguns, to make any progress is better than the alternative of leaving it alone which is far better than allowing our opponents to make an progress and bring us closer to how things were as a result of HB115 that was passed in 1871...

Agree. And the frequency of arrests because of a holstering offense will probably be few and far between.

[Jason K]

Right. I'm guessing the legislature will likely do what they call a "clean up? amendment later, similar to what they did when amending the caliber specs for the CHL proficiency rules when they changed from .38 to .32 ,etc. In the captions, they used wording like, non-substantive changes for that. And apparently when they use that method to get amendments in (uncontested, etc.) it goes to passage at warp speed.

Not in this session, but in future sessions I am certain we will improve and revise this legislation until we are happy with it. Keep in mind that we are trying to overcome nearly a century and a half of bias against the carry of handguns, to make any progress is better than the alternative of leaving it alone which is far better than allowing our opponents to make an progress and bring us closer to how things were as a result of HB115 that was passed in 1871...

Agree. And the frequency of arrests because of a holstering offense will probably be few and far between.

Which is well and good.....unless you are the one arrested.

[locke_n_load]

Right. I'm guessing the legislature will likely do what they call a "clean up? amendment later, similar to what they did when amending the caliber specs for the CHL proficiency rules when they changed from .38 to .32 ,etc. In the captions, they used wording like, non-substantive changes for that. And apparently when they use that method to get amendments in (uncontested, etc.) it goes to passage at warp speed.

Not in this session, but in future sessions I am certain we will improve and revise this legislation until we are happy with it. Keep in mind that we are trying to overcome nearly a century and a half of bias against the carry of handguns, to make any progress is better than the alternative of leaving it alone which is far better than allowing our opponents to make an progress and bring us closer to how things were as a result of HB115 that was passed in 1871...

Agree. And the frequency of arrests because of a holstering offense will probably be few and far between.

Which is well and good.....unless you are the one arrested.

Agreed.

[mojo84]

Do you guys really believe there is a debate whether either of these guns are concealed or exposed? Do you really want to argue whether it meets the proposed law?

[BigGuy]

4,638

[TexasGal]

Do you guys really believe there is a debate whether either of these guns are concealed or exposed? Do you really want to argue whether it meets the proposed law?

[ Image ]

[ Image ]

Goin' out on a limb here....but I would say that was exposed. As in not concealed. Any reasonable person would discern it was a gun. Well...maybe not the Huffington Post reporter who recently asked if orange ear plugs were "rubber bullets", but just about everybody else.

[steveincowtown]

Do you guys really believe there is a debate whether either of these guns are concealed or exposed? Do you really want to argue whether it meets the proposed law?

[ Image ]

[ Image ]

Mojo,

The thread isn't intended to be about concealed vs. exposed. It is about the unclear definitions in SB17 about what a "belt or shoulder" holster really means.

We have seen localities abuse laws that apply to CHLer even when the law is CRYSTAL clear.

-even seen a 30.06 posted on public property? The law is very clear about this, and yet some localities still ignore it.

-there is a thread going about someone who carried passed a "No Guns" sign and was arrested. Again the law is 100% clear about this, and yet somehow he still didn't avoid the ride.

Someone else brought up a point that I had not even thought of. If I am OC'ing in my car what applies?