• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Bill vs. bill

Which bill do you support?


  • Total voters
    10

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Licensed OC bill is bad. They define OC as carry in a shoulder or belt holster.

Carry using a drop leg? You're going to jail, homes.
 

Preyn2

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
13
Location
Burnet, Tx
Also prefiled: HB 106. I dislike this bill because it requires a license and a "shoulder or belt holster withat least dual points of resistance that is wholly or partiallyvisible."
 

RoyGBiv

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
24
Location
Tejas
Gut check:
Would you support licensed OC as an interim step if unlicensed OC could not muster the votes to pass in 2015?

Of course unlicensed OC (and CC) is preferred.
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Gut check:
Would you support licensed OC as an interim step if unlicensed OC could not muster the votes to pass in 2015?

Of course unlicensed OC (and CC) is preferred.

I would not "support" it but I'd "take" it :D Am I just mincing words?
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
I would not "support" it but I'd "take" it :D Am I just mincing words?

I oppose it.

Bill 164
(8)

AA
"Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded

handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster that

is wholly or partially visible.

Bill 106
(8)

AA

"Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded

handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster with

at least dual points of resistance that is wholly or partially

visible.




These two bills are very similar. I'd like to know who is behind them. :uhoh::uhoh:
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Gut check:
Would you support licensed OC as an interim step if unlicensed OC could not muster the votes to pass in 2015?

Of course unlicensed OC (and CC) is preferred.

If you do, then you are admitting that they can regulate it .. making "constitutional" carry argument void.
 

papabling

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2014
Messages
22
Location
Texas
What do they mean by "dual points of resistance"?

They probably 'mean' "dual points of retention" which is a way to describe a holster design that includes snaps, locks, straps, etc. that must be un-snapped, un-locked, un-strapped, etc. before the gun will come out of the holster. I think most uniformed LEOs are issued those types of holsters to make it harder for a bad guy (or a bad child) to grab the weapon. I'm not sure why the bill author(s) use the term 'resistance' instead of 'retention'. The 'retention holster' should also minimize the chances of a gun falling out of the holster if the user gets in an awkward position, like on the back, upside down, running and jumping.

I also don't understand lots of other confusing phrases and terms used when referring to a firearm topic, like saying 'clip' when they're talking about a 'magazine', and saying 'automatic' when the mean 'semi-automatic', etc. :eek: The lawmakers need feedback to address things like this. I also noticed some bills introduced that still refer to the old requirement (Texas) of attending a class for CHL renewals.
 
Last edited:

Statkowski

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,141
Location
Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
Only politicians make things more complicated than they need to be.

Simply remove the prohibition on open carry.

End result? License need for concealed carry, no license needed for open carry. The control people still retain what they presently have, and the freedom people get what they want. Seems to work that way in about 35 of the 57 states.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
They probably 'mean' "dual points of retention" which is a way to describe a holster design that includes snaps, locks, straps, etc. that must be un-snapped, un-locked, un-strapped, etc. before the gun will come out of the holster. I think most uniformed LEOs are issued those types of holsters to make it harder for a bad guy (or a bad child) to grab the weapon. I'm not sure why the bill author(s) use the term 'resistance' instead of 'retention'. The 'retention holster' should also minimize the chances of a gun falling out of the holster if the user gets in an awkward position, like on the back, upside down, running and jumping.

I also don't understand lots of other confusing phrases and terms used when referring to a firearm topic, like saying 'clip' when they're talking about a 'magazine', and saying 'automatic' when the mean 'semi-automatic', etc. :eek: The lawmakers need feedback to address things like this. I also noticed some bills introduced that still refer to the old requirement (Texas) of attending a class for CHL renewals.

I could be wrong, but I believe it's basically the same language that was in George Lavender's open carry bill, and it was my understanding that it meant the holster had to attach at 2 points. So, for instance, a holster that had just 1 clip that clipped to a belt wouldn't qualify, but a holster with 2 belt loops would qualify. Also, obviously, just sticking the pistol in your pants wouldn't qualify.
 

papabling

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2014
Messages
22
Location
Texas
Holster resistance wording...

I could be wrong, but I believe it's basically the same language that was in George Lavender's open carry bill, and it was my understanding that it meant the holster had to attach at 2 points. So, for instance, a holster that had just 1 clip that clipped to a belt wouldn't qualify, but a holster with 2 belt loops would qualify. Also, obviously, just sticking the pistol in your pants wouldn't qualify.

Regarding the "points of resistance" wording, I have sent Dan Flynn (HB 106) an email asking for clarification. When I hear something I'll post.

I found he article at http://www.gundigest.com/concealed-carry-news/understanding-holster-retention informative.

Holster retention is an important concept to grasp, whether you open or concealed carry.
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Only politicians make things more complicated than they need to be.

Simply remove the prohibition on open carry.

End result? License need for concealed carry, no license needed for open carry. The control people still retain what they presently have, and the freedom people get what they want. Seems to work that way in about 35 of the 57 states.
That is the constitutional carry bill that has been proposed.

It is the simplest of all the bills and merely removes the prohibition against lawful carry.
 
Top