jmra wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:casp625 wrote:But does the law state that the belt or shoulder holster must be affixed to said belt or shoulders? Otherwise, I could have it in belt holster being strapped to my forearm, chest, leg, etc.
Prior to this past weekend, I would have argued based on nothing more than WAGing that the law would state that said holster had to be on one's person, and that paddle holsters would probably be "grandfathered" in. But the person I spend the past weekend with is a CHL instructor who has stayed on top of the proceedings, and he says that the way the law is worded, there is no requirement for the holster to be on your person, and that therefore, after 1/1/16, a pistol in plain view on the passenger seat of your vehicle, but holstered
IN a shoulder holster (for instance), would be perfectly legal for a CHL holder. But he ALSO said that he is waiting to hear from DPS for official confirmation of how this is to be enforced.
He also said that a paddle holster was not considered a belt holster since it doesn't directly affix to the belt.....even if it has a means of retention on the belt........but he also said that he was waiting to see exactly how DPS will address this. I own two paddle holsters (which I rarely use), but they both attach pretty positively to the belt/waistband, and if someone was able to get the holster off of my body, they would have long been able to first remove the gun from the holster.......so personally, I don't regard paddle holsters as being any more or less dangerous than any other type,
IF properly seated. In fact, one of them is a cheap Fobus that Springfield sent me for free because I'm left handed and my XDM came with a right handed holster, and it is so difficult to draw the gun due to the natural retention of the design, that while it is plenty secure, I don't think I could draw fast enough from it to beat anyone else to the draw.
Seems there are a number of opinions on this issue. Both Mr. Cotton and Ms. Tripp have both indicated that off body open carry would not meet the requirements for HB 910. It will be interesting to see how it all comes out in the wash. Obviously I prefer that DPS comes out with the lest restrictive interpretation.
Well, that is why my host said that despite his opinion, he would wait to see how DPS tells instructors to cover that issue. My own reaction is that I would wear a belt holster - which I do anyway - in order to be compliant with the law, but I
believe....my
opinion, in other words......is that paddle holsters ought to be legal for open carry. Plain clothes LEOs use them all the time. The way
we as private citizens carry emulates a plain clothes LEO more closely than it does a uniformed patrol officer. If paddle holsters are OK for plain clothed cops, why not for "plain clothed" citizens? But that is merely my opinion. I will of course comply with whatever regulations are issued. In fact, I will probably buy new holsters with an additional level of retention than required by the law for the times that I open carry.
I'm reading the enrolled version of the law right now (
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00910F.htm), and I did a word search on the word "holster". Within the first 2 or 3 hits are references to a "restraint holster".... whatever that means. Does that mean a higher level of retention? The law doesn't say anything that I've found so far about "retention devices", or "retention levels"...... only "restraint holsters". there are
multiple references to handguns being "carried in a belt holster". That said, if I stick my XD(M)-45 in its Hopp Custom Leather holster, and then open-carry the holstered gun in my hand (not on my belt), I
AM carrying my handgun in a belt-holster in compliance with the
word, but not the
spirit of the law. I am fairly certain that a LEO would likely follow the spirit of the law in this case, not because he was trying
interpret the law to his advantage, but because the legislative intent is probably best reflected in the spirit rather than the wording of the law. Obviously, you'd have to be a complete ninny not to understand that the legislature would just assume that you were
wearing the holster, not carrying it.
Another linguistic inaccuracy in the wording of the law is several mentions of carrying a handgun in a belt or shoulder holster "on
or about the person". Well, "about the person" isn't ON the person. ABOUT the person would translate as "within handy reach". If I say I have a pen on or about my person, it means I either have one in my hand, in a pocket, or on the desk in front of me at which I am sitting, which said pen can be grasped merely be reaching for it. So, using the example of a holstered gun in plain view on the car seat, the gun is in an approved holster, and it is "about my person"........ therefore,
according to the strict wording of the law, that would be legal. But again, that would probably fly in the face of legislative intent, since you'd have to be a dummy to imagine that the legislature wanted that pistol anywhere but on your person if it is being carried. Perhaps "on or about" is intended to permit purse or man-bag concealed carry......but it is a
linguistic fact that "on or about" also includes a gun holstered in an approved holster laying on a car seat in plain view.
PLEASE NOTE: I am
not trying to make the argument that it
SHOULD be Ok, or
IS OK to leave a holstered gun in plain view, per HP 910. What I AM saying is that the law contains blurry use of language which might encourage some people to do more than what the legislature intended to allow, and that will necessarily lead to "self-lawyering" at the roadside during traffic/investigatory stops. Even though the law is not clear on these finer points, I would follow a more conservative interpretation until these details have time to be ironed out.
I will not be doing any form of off body carry.