Maybe they should have, but to me, the legislative intent is plain enough. Common usage would say that a belt holster is worn on the belt, and a shoulder holster is worn on the shoulder. Legislators have two sort of foundational requirements when writing legislation: 1) to make the language of the law as clear to as many people as possible, and 2) to make their intent as clear as possible.mojo84 wrote:Maybe the legislature should have said wearing a firearm openly in a belt or shoulder holster instead of carrying.
For me personally, "carried in a belt holster or shoulder holster" is self evident. I do understand the impulse to clarify the minutiae, but I am also bothered by the "looking for loopholes" mentality of some. In another thread ongoing at the moment, we have a discussion of whether or not it is permissible to shoot someone under a pretty far-fetched scenario. One of the respondents said:
He's right.EEllis wrote:As an aside[,] what is up with all the "Can't I please shoot them" threads?
It seems to me that the OP's question in this thread is already answered by existing law. You're already allowed to have a firearm in your car under MPA, even without a CHL. The only requirement is that it be concealed from plain sight. There have been a number of assertions on this forum over the past few years, from people knowledgeable about the law, that, even with a CHL, MPA supersedes CHL while in your vehicle. (I suspect that this is because MPA covers all motorists who may legally possess a firearm, while CHL pertains only to a small subset of all motorists who may legally possess a firearm.....but I could be wrong about that.) If MPA supersedes CHL while in your vehicle, then it follows that the concealment requirements for MPA supersede those for CHL. Under those requirements, the gun must be concealed, with one exception provided by CHL as of 1/1/16: any firearm openly carried in a belt or shoulder holster, accounting for legislative intent.
Only someone who is looking for ways to poke the law in the eye would question whether or not the legislature intended "carried" while specifying "in a belt or shoulder holster" to mean anything other than "worn on the person".
As Jim pointed out above (very wisely, I might add), that if you are confident of your position, do what you like, but accept all the consequences without complaint. I also like his use of the term "sea lawyers". And Jim, I wonder if it wouldn't be more effective to ask the AG to issue that opinion with respect to what the law means, rather than DPS. DPS's involvement in any infractions begins with making an arrest, and ends with testifying at trial.......whereas the AG can define once and for all whether anyone will even be arrested, and if erroneously arrested, whether or not a trial will go forward - since it is a state offense, not a local one. Individual police agency management might feel less bound by an official DPS policy than they would feel bound by the AG's policy, who has authority over all violations of state law regardless of agency. Individual agencies might interpret a DPS policy to apply only to DPS officers, while an AG policy would apply to ALL officers regardless of agency. There would be no wiggle room for interpretation. At least, that is the way I see it.
