TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

couzin wrote:The next person that includes all of the previously quoted text in their post that has already been quoted should have to write 'I will not include previously quoted posts ever again'!

What??????

I completely agree. Stop it!

Stop what?

In all seriousness...

Any prosecutor with something to prove and who doesn't much like the new legislation will use...let me repeat that...WILL USE...anything he can to secure a conviction; if for no other reason than to show that it was all a bad idea and that we can't be trusted to follow the letter of the law.

Many of us, including me, insist that establishments follow the law with their signage, and we are in our rights to do so. The state, as represented by the prosecutor, is within his right to do the same.

There will either be or not be a sectional or chapter definition of "belt holster". If the legislators thought to include that then that definition will be whatever it is and any deviation from that definition will be subject to prosecution by the state. Any speculation as to the degree of deviation or its relevance is exactly that, speculative.

Absent any legislative definition, the term "belt holster" will take its definition from its common usage and commonly accepted definition in a trial. So, what is meant or interpreted to be meant by the word belt is very important, especially to the one of us who is defending themselves against a charge of a violation.

A holster that clips onto the belt is clearly a belt holster. A holster that clips onto, say, the pants pocket clearly is not. So, assuming that there CAN BE a matter of degree and interpretation, somewhere between the two the limit of acceptability is reached...in the eyes of the prosecutor representing the state.

Now, the difference between an actual belt clipped holster and a paddle holster may be de minimis in a trial where the mission is to find fact. So, unless we have guidance, I believe it is very definitely something to wonder about. I like using the elastic web belts that have some stretch to them but they are not conducive to holding the weight of a gun and do not provide a stable clipping platform. I would prefer, therefore, to use a paddle holster.

tex

Considering the design of a paddle holster, what is it designed to be supported by?

mojo84 wrote:Considering the design of a paddle holster, what is it designed to be supported by?

That depends on what the definition of IS is.

-YMMV
-IANAL
-You can beat the rap but not the ride.
-Insert tired TXCHLForum cliche HERE

mojo84 wrote:Considering the design of a paddle holster, what is it designed to be supported by?

Some would say it is designed to be supported by the waistband of the pants.

WildBill wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Considering the design of a paddle holster, what is it designed to be supported by?

Some would say it is designed to be supported by the waistband of the pants.

And I believe those folks would be wrong.

mojo84 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Considering the design of a paddle holster, what is it designed to be supported by?

Some would say it is designed to be supported by the waistband of the pants.

And I believe those some would be wrong.

My main carry holsters are paddle holsters.
Without a belt I would be wearing my gun and holster around my knees.

WildBill wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Considering the design of a paddle holster, what is it designed to be supported by?

Some would say it is designed to be supported by the waistband of the pants.

And I believe those some would be wrong.

My main carry holsters are paddle holsters.
Without a belt I would be wearing my gun and holster around my knees.

I hear you. I have to cinch my belt snug or I'll do the same.

WildBill wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Considering the design of a paddle holster, what is it designed to be supported by?

Some would say it is designed to be supported by the waistband of the pants.

And I believe those some would be wrong.

My main carry holsters are paddle holsters.
Without a belt I would be wearing my gun and holster around my knees.

I'm thinking that might result in an officer asking for ID.

Maybe belt holster should have been called hip holster it would remove some of the confusion.

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.

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

I guess it comes down to what the definition of "is" is.

Like beauty, a "belt holster" is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect there may be some people / LEO's nothing is acceptable that will meet their definition, right along with others that will either not notice or care. I also suspect that some licensed OC'ers will stretch the limits as to what a "belt" holster may be, particularly if they are in league with "Cory" types. In any event, until it's legal to OC, I'm not losing any sleep for the next six months over it, as my OWB open carry or concealed will not change when legal. I'm very confident that what may be acceptable in Shiner, TX may be a bit different than SATX - in time we shall see.

theTexan hit the nail on the head, as of yet we do not really know what type of enforcement will become the operating procedure for each PD in each area. What I do understand is that if a certain area decides a certain holster does not meet the definition as they see it then it will cost a lot of money to defend it. I do wonder what the charge would be if it was decided that the holster did not meet their definition and one was arrested for it.......