TexasCHLforum.com

This may be a dumb question and probably is one some of you have answered 40 times, but … would the exposed loops, clips and other gizmos on tuckable IWB holsters such as the Crossbreed constitute a violation of the law if some one were smart enough to deduce what they are and complained about it?

I'm not a lawyer, but my guess would be "No," for the two reasons that 1) as far as I can recall, the law doesn't say anything about holsters - just firearms; and 2) just because someone has made a shrewd guess doesn't mean that your firearm is exposed.

They might be curious, and they might guess what it is, but that's all they're doing - guessing. After all, even if they are correct, and that is a holster they think they are seeing, they cannot state for certain what is in it, without actually seeing it. For all they know, it could be your cell phone or a money clip.

The weapon has to be concealed. Having said that I personally dont like any tell tell sign I am carrying. And no such animal as a dumb question, especially if it keeps you out of jail

dac1842 wrote:The weapon has to be concealed. Having said that I personally dont like any tell tell sign I am carrying. And no such animal as a dumb question, especially if it keeps you out of jail

Absolutely agree. I'm just saying that I don't think he would have broken any laws just because somebody "made" some loops on his belt.

MAS8200 wrote:This may be a dumb question and probably is one some of you have answered 40 times, but … would the exposed loops, clips and other gizmos on tuckable IWB holsters such as the Crossbreed constitute a violation of the law if some one were smart enough to deduce what they are and complained about it?

No.

Additionally --- with all the IWBs running around out there, if exposed clips and loops and such constituted "unconcealed," we would be hearing about arrests left and right. Not a peep as far as I know.

Some of the more obvious concealment "holsters" are held by some to be pretty good indicators of the presence of a weapon.

What I have always wondered about is what the effect of a full cover flap holster might be, after all, the firearm is concealed . . .

jimlongley wrote: What I have always wondered about is what the effect of a full cover flap holster might be, after all, the firearm is concealed . . .

I have often wondered the same thing.

jimlongley wrote:Some of the more obvious concealment "holsters" are held by some to be pretty good indicators of the presence of a weapon.

What I have always wondered about is what the effect of a full cover flap holster might be, after all, the firearm is concealed . . .

That's a good question. Especially since with some holsters, you really can't tell if there is a gun in there.

In the Philippines, private armed guards are very common. Almost any decent retail store or bank branch will have several on duty at any given time. Sometimes they carry short-barreled shotguns, but most often they carry revolvers.

Frequently, the revolvers are carried in open topped holsters where the gun is fully visible. But it is not uncommon to see them carried in full flap holsters.

But things are not always as they seem. If you look carefully at some of these full flap holsters, you will see that some of them are stuffed with tissue paper! In other words, the poor guys are pretending to be armed guards when all they really have are nightsticks.

What a gig, hey? There you are looking like the first target to be shot at, and you are essentially unarmed.

The Philippines is a very poor country, and it is amazing what some people will do to try to support their families.

But the bottom line is, just because you see someone with a full flap holster is no guarantee as to what might be in it.

And this raises an interesting question under Texas law. But not interesting enough for me to be the test case.

When I was an LEO we used to refer to the full cover flap holsters as widow makers. If you were in a fire fight, by the time you unsnapped the holster, raised the flap and pulled the weapon, your wife was a widow.

dac1842 wrote:When I was an LEO we used to refer to the full cover flap holsters as widow makers. If you were in a fire fight, by the time you unsnapped the holster, raised the flap and pulled the weapon, your wife was a widow.

Just so in the military too.

jimlongley wrote:What I have always wondered about is what the effect of a full cover flap holster might be, after all, the firearm is concealed . . .

Howdy, Jim. It is possible that your interesting question gives someone the chance to create a classic example of reductio ad absurdum -- making a huge jump from an exposed belt loop to a full flap holster.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

jimlongley wrote:What I have always wondered about is what the effect of a full cover flap holster might be, after all, the firearm is concealed . . .

Howdy, Jim. It is possible that your interesting question gives someone the chance to create a classic example of reductio ad absurdum -- making a huge jump from an exposed belt loop to a full flap holster.

Jim

I don't think it's really reductio ad absurdum, to me that would be something on the order of carrying a gun covered with a thin handkerchief or some other unsuitable covering. Yes the holster pretty much obviously contains a gun, but it also may not, whereas the light handkerchief casually draped over the butt of what is obviously a gun makes it concealed while exposing its presence.

So is the intent of the law that no one knows you're carrying, or just that the gun is not exposed where innocent eyes might see it and be incensed?

Once again we fall victim to a lack of adequate definition, which could be corrected by more legislation, or we could just scrap the current law and go to Vermont Style carry.

jimlongley wrote:Once again we fall victim to a lack of adequate definition, which could be corrected by more legislation, or we could just scrap the current law and go to Vermont Style carry.

We could compromise and remove the penalty for intentionally failing to conceal.

jimlongley wrote: So is the intent of the law that no one knows you're carrying, or just that the gun is not exposed where innocent eyes might see it and be incensed?

Once again we fall victim to a lack of adequate definition, which could be corrected by more legislation, or we could just scrap the current law and go to Vermont Style carry.

I am sure the intent was to hide the actual gun. Otherwise people would learn to recognize dayplanners, laptop bags etc that were designed for carry in hidden pockets. Also any printing would get you in trouble.