TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:59 pm

WildRose wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:41 pm It's what is put out in the instructor's course itself. There's nothing in the law defining "belt". According to the DPS instructors both belly band and ankle holsters which attach to your body by "belting" are lawful. One encircles your waist the other encircles your leg.

OK, guess I missed that they had gotten word that because belt was not defined as the standard we know and that the other methods would be acceptable. I can see that being a issue though with a police force or prosecutor not knowing this was considered acceptable by RDS.

I'd let my instructor's license go out of date a decade ago so when I renewed I had to go back through the whole course in Dec. We discussed those two items specifically when going over "holsters". There is no legal definition of a belt to be found under the code so any accepted common definition fits. Anything that wraps securely around your body or a portion thereof that can hold a holster or has one built in is acceptable according to them.

A holster must cover the weapon and at least partially cover the trigger guard "securely" but even "securely" isn't defined beyond retaining the firearm during normal activities so while the definitions seem pretty specific at first glance they are not.

Even pocket carry is deemed lawful as long as the firearm is protected and doesn't tend to fall out during normal activities.

Sure you could always find some anti gun cop or JP that might want to make an issue of it but it would never stand up at the district court level and that's why we have insurance through various companies and organizations that will cover our legal fees should we run into one of them.

Think about it, if we go by the letter of the statute all off body carry would be unlawful but that was never the intent of the legislature either.

There's probably some AG guidance letters out there on the subject but I've never needed to delve that deeply so I haven't looked.

I guess they figured that people would be smart enough to know what a belt is.

DynamicDan wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:49 pm I guess they figured that people would be smart enough to know what a belt is.

I think this is interesting and I disagree with the DPS on what a belt is, I guess. The Code Construction Act says that if a term is not defined in the law, then it has the same meaning as the common usage of the term. I think most people would say that the term belt means something going around the waist (I will grant the exception is machine gunners).

I could see where you can certainly argue that a belly band is a type of belt, though I would not have thought so. I do not expect this to come up very often since that would most likely be concealed anyway.

But I do not see how anyone could honestly think the average jury member would say that an ankle holster is a belt holster. I could be wrong, but I would not think an openly visible ankle holster would be legal. I would not recommend chancing it.

srothstein wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:09 pm I think this is interesting and I disagree with the DPS on what a belt is, I guess. The Code Construction Act says that if a term is not defined in the law, then it has the same meaning as the common usage of the term. I think most people would say that the term belt means something going around the waist (I will grant the exception is machine gunners).

I could see where you can certainly argue that a belly band is a type of belt, though I would not have thought so. I do not expect this to come up very often since that would most likely be concealed anyway.

But I do not see how anyone could honestly think the average jury member would say that an ankle holster is a belt holster. I could be wrong, but I would not think an openly visible ankle holster would be legal. I would not recommend chancing it.