WinoVeritas wrote:I personally don't feel there is any confusion or ambiguity as to what constitutes a belt holster - I expect paddle, belted drop leg; western unitized; belt loop or clipped OWB holsters will all meet requirements of the law.
Possibly. I am familiar enough, however, with litigation, having worked in a law firm and having been through it myself, to know this...the prosecutor will find a hole in whatever defense you use in order to ensure a conviction. If that hole is an interpretation in what constitutes a belt holster then, depending on the prosecutor (and I, for one, do not want to depend on the prosecutor) he will use a strict interpretation of what that means, if he can find a rationale for that strict interpretation; whatever serves his agenda, and that agenda will be to achieve a conviction.
The question is.......what does the term "belt holster mean". I am not making any assumption one way or the other. I try not to make assumptions. And assumptions are running rampant in this thread at the moment. I do not know, as of now, what is the definition of a belt holster, although I have my own personal ideas. That is why I posed my OP the way I did. My question is...does anyone else K-N-O-W what the definition of a belt holster is...if there IS a definition. If it isn't defined in the statute then the definition is based on its common usage. The question then becomes...what does the term "belt holster" mean in its common usage. I know what holster means...I know what belt means...
I THINK I KNOW what "belt holster" means. And I do know the canons of statutory interpretation and extensively studied them and used them in teaching aviation regulations daily.
In a battle of statutory interpretation the first rule will be that the congress knows how to use words and knows how to say what they mean and mean what they say. That means they will given the presumption, absent of any included statutory definition, that the legislators used the word "belt" to describe the type of holster for some reason. And the jury will be given all of this interpretive data and be asked to make a finding of fact as to whether the holster in question was a "belt holster" according to whatever evidence was introduced to substantiate that required element of the alleged violated statute. There might be an objection and a point of appeal established based on interpretation or jury instruction and then an appellate court will TELL US AND ESTABLISH what "belt" in the phrase "belt holster" means. Until then it is speculation as to whether a paddle holster means belt holster. We may all have good reasoning one way or the other but unless someone knows of a definition somewhere speculation is all it is.
And that brings us back to the original question...has anyone seen any definition of the term "belt holster"? Because that would end all argument and speculation. Does it mean a holster worn ON the belt (and what does "on" mean, this might include paddles). Does it mean a holster clipped ONTO the belt in some fashion? Does it mean a holster suspended FROM the belt? Or does any of these satisfy the law and more importantly the DA? Just exactly what statutory role does the belt play in the use of a "belt holster" or is it simply meant to describe a holster that is generally worn somehow on the waist. That really is the crux of the issue, isn't it?
I hope everyone is right in the idea that there is no real difference between a belt and paddle holster. That would make things simpler.
Now, personally, I think it will end up not making a difference.
tex