TexasCHLforum.com

bridge wrote:Anyone know of a good mountable holster or another device good for storing and quick retrieval out of an F150 console?

Lookie here...Console Vault from Center of Mass

New guy here too by the way.
Class taken 8/23/08
Received by the state 8/29/08
Still waiting....

Thanks...kinda what I was looking for...but $275 is a little steep. It gives me a good idea. I could probably find a similar lock box at local office supply store for a bit less money and mount it myself.

bridge wrote:Thanks...kinda what I was looking for...but $275 is a little steep. It gives me a good idea. I could probably find a similar lock box at local office supply store for a bit less money and mount it myself.

The same company offers much cheaper boxes. I have two and they are very useful, especially for flying.

Chas.

http://www.center-of-mass.com/Store_InCarGunSafe.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

KBCraig wrote:I support "Alaska carry", where both OC and CC are legal with no license required, but a license is available for reciprocity purposes.

Beyond that, I support elimination of PC Chapter 46 -- guns, knives, all of it.

It took a long time to get licensed CC, then it took a number of years and a couple of clarifications to get unlicensed car carry. I don't expect to get everything we want in one big bite.

Well, we're on more uneven ground here. If OC advocates accept licensed OC, it will be a LONG time before we can get unlicensed OC, if ever, because the public will go "You've GOT OC!" whenever we bring up unlicensed OC. I personally push for unlicensed open carry; it works in 28 of 51 jurisdictions, while only 14 jurisdictions require a license and only 9 ban open carry (I include Cali, Illinois and DC in this group since handguns must be unloaded in California cities and are banned altogether from DC and many Illinois cities).

Now, the good news; I think a majority of people, when told that people in the blue state of New Mexico can OC while red-state Texans can't, would say that's totally backwards. I'm not sure if a majority of people would support changing that status quo; 80% of Texans live in the state's 5 largest metropolitan areas and all of them hear daily news reports about gun violence. You also must admit that John Lott's argument, "More guns = Less crime", is rather counterintuitive, until people grasp the first truth about gun laws; they don't work on criminals, who, by definition, disobey the law as they see fit. More good news; that argument is actually pretty easy to get across to anyone willing to listen, as is the argument that crime can happen to anyone, anywhere. You don't carry a spare tire in your trunk because you expect to have a flat today, but because you might at some time. Similarly, you don't buy car insurance because you expect to get in a wreck, or a fire extinguisher because you expect to set light to your entire stovetop. We don't carry guns because we expect to have to use them today, or tomorrow, or next week. If we could predict that, we'd carry on the days we knew we'd have to use it and save ourselves the trouble of having it hang on our waistbands all day. We carry guns because we MAY, someday, need to use them, and CANNOT predict when that will happen.

Well said!!

Liko81 wrote:

KBCraig wrote:I support "Alaska carry", where both OC and CC are legal with no license required, but a license is available for reciprocity purposes.

Beyond that, I support elimination of PC Chapter 46 -- guns, knives, all of it.

It took a long time to get licensed CC, then it took a number of years and a couple of clarifications to get unlicensed car carry. I don't expect to get everything we want in one big bite.

Well, we're on more uneven ground here. If OC advocates accept licensed OC, it will be a LONG time before we can get unlicensed OC, if ever, because the public will go "You've GOT OC!" whenever we bring up unlicensed OC.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, except to point out that unlicensed car carry faced the same response: "You can get a CHL, and you have the traveling exemption anyway!"

And yet, we managed to add the "traveling presumption" in 2005, and the unlicensed car carry exemption in 2007.

There is a bit of cultural reality to acknowledge, though: many people, even CHLs, only want to carry in their cars. This makes little sense, because inside one's own car is not only one of the safest places to be, it offers a huge advantage of mobility and potential to escape a deadly situation when one would be ill-served to dig in a console or glove compartment for a stowed-away gun.

DoubleJ wrote:

KBCraig wrote:I don't expect to get everything we want in one big bite.

Supreme Pizza. you take a good sized bite, and you can actually get one of each topping.
it's truly heaven, specially with good sauce and dough. maybe a sprinkle of parmesan.
no ranch, though (otherwise known as Texas Gravy). that's just blasphemy.

I like to OC my OC. just put it on my keychain and cruise. there it is, dangling from the "ignition switch" in my Beheamoth. Usually just leave it hangin' out of my pocket. makes the keys easier to grasp, too.

You are officially anointed the Forum Jester award...

Just don't Jest too much and drive...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There are two general approaches to open carry by supporters in Texas. One proposal would simply do away with requirement that CHLs conceal their handguns. So a license to carry would still be required, but the licensee could carry openly or concealed as they wish.

The other approach is unlicensed open carry meaning anyone not prohibited from possessing firearms could openly carry a handgun. If you wanted to carry a handgun concealed, that would still require a CHL.

Chas.

Of these two-I'm supportive of the second. By requiring a license for it, that kinda leaves it open for all sorts of potential harassing situations with officers "checking" licenses. I would like one requirement-use of a proper holster.I've been watching people's reactions for some time now when they're around officers in street clothes and a holster on their hip,and not a single person has appeared uneasy or skittish around these plain clothes officers/detectives. I know they're wearing a badge along with their firearm,but anybody seen with a holstered handgun is usually assumed to be an officer and nobody thinks anything about it,or at least they don't appear to be worried about it.
JL

Going back to the original question...at least I THINK it was the original question. In Arizona, when there was no CHL but open carry except in Nuclear Power Plants was the law, the codified definition was something to the effect that at least part of the holster had to show. I.E. If I was wearing a coat, part of the holster had to show below the hem. that would be reasonable IMO for OC (Open Carry you jokesters) legislation.

Dragonfighter wrote:Going back to the original question...at least I THINK it was the original question. In Arizona, when there was no CHL but open carry except in Nuclear Power Plants was the law, the codified definition was something to the effect that at least part of the holster had to show. I.E. If I was wearing a coat, part of the holster had to show below the hem. that would be reasonable IMO for OC (Open Carry you jokesters) legislation.

IMHO, I would rather see the law require that part of the weapon must be visible for OC. If it relies on the holster being visible, then one could argue that the clips on a tuckable IWB is sufficient to meet the requirement.

I see the purpose of the OC is to announce to the bad guys: "I've got a gun and I will use it. Think twice, scum bag". So if that's the intent, making visibility of the weapon should be a requirement.