Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: transparant holster?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hickory, MS
    Posts
    169

    Post imported post

    on the Mississippi forums the idea of a transparent holster was brought up to conform to the "in part" concealment deal in the MS law. Has anyone ever heard of/seen anything like this? I've seen those magnet holsters but that just doesn't seem safe to me. I think a transparent plastic would be a great thing to have until we can get that law changed.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    I think the one issue you would come upon is that the current clear kydex available on the market is a thinner and more brittle material due to the manufacturing process that keeps it clear.

    Of course I have not seen testing on the use of clear kydex as a holster, so it might work out. But with its weaker structural stability I would be worried about it not being as secure.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  4. #4
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Better yet, I've seen belt clips that attach directly to the slide of your Glock. No holster required, adn the weapon remains fully in view on your belt.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Eeyore wrote:
    Better yet, I've seen belt clips that attach directly to the slide of your Glock. No holster required, adn the weapon remains fully in view on your belt.
    The "Jentra inside the waistband clip" is about $30, and replaces one of the pins with the clip mount. It provides no real retention, and is not advised for use directly on a belt, because if the gun twists when the wearer sits down, the gun pops off.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    Eeyore wrote:
    Better yet, I've seen belt clips that attach directly to the slide of your Glock. No holster required, adn the weapon remains fully in view on your belt.
    The "Jentra inside the waistband clip" is about $30, and replaces one of the pins with the clip mount. It provides no real retention, and is not advised for use directly on a belt, because if the gun twists when the wearer sits down, the gun pops off.
    not to mention the trigger guard is leftwide open.

  7. #7
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    Pointman wrote:
    Eeyore wrote:
    Better yet, I've seen belt clips that attach directly to the slide of your Glock. No holster required, adn the weapon remains fully in view on your belt.
    The "Jentra inside the waistband clip" is about $30, and replaces one of the pins with the clip mount. It provides no real retention, and is not advised for use directly on a belt, because if the gun twists when the wearer sits down, the gun pops off.
    not to mention the trigger guard is leftwide open.
    Well I guess you could carry empty chamber.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    IIRC, there was a court decision in Ms where they stated that even if the pistol were hung around your neck on a cord, it would still be concealed "in part" because the side next to your body could not be seen.
    This is what "higher education" has gotten us..........

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    I guess all LEOs are going to have to go around with their eyelids held open in MS, then.




    'cause you know, it's not visible if their eyes are closed.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hickory, MS
    Posts
    169

    Post imported post

    Comp-tech wrote:
    IIRC, there was a court decision in Ms where they stated that even if the pistol were hung around your neck on a cord, it would still be concealed "in part" because the side next to your body could not be seen.
    These lawsare REALLY raining on my parade.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    I guess all LEOs are going to have to go around with their eyelids held open in MS, then.




    'cause you know, it's not visible if their eyes are closed.
    Don't blame the LEO's, they simply enforce the laws your legislature passes.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    superdemon wrote:
    Don't blame the LEO's, they simply enforce the laws your legislature passes.
    If an officer arrests a man for concealed carry because the holster obscures part of the gun, the officer is a large part of the problem, as is everyone up the chain of command who doesn't give a written repremand for being assinine. That's why the officer, superior, department, and possibly county get sued.
    And again, if that's what YOUR legislature mandates they do, then they must do it. If you and yours did not put a stop to the legislation that would mandate this action, it is your fault, not the LEO's.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    No, if it is written as "shall", then they have to, pure and simple. I don't know if it applies in this instance, but if it says "shall", then it is so.

    I might be a "new poster", but I am a decade-long LEO veteran.



  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    superdemon wrote:
    Don't blame the LEO's, they simply enforce the laws your legislature passes.
    If an officer arrests a man for concealed carry because the holster obscures part of the gun, the officer is a large part of the problem, as is everyone up the chain of command who doesn't give a written repremand for being assinine. That's why the officer, superior, department, and possibly county get sued.
    Pointman, IIRC, this was a MsSupCo opinion that started all this "in part" nonesense...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    AbNo wrote:
    I guess all LEOs are going to have to go around with their eyelids held open in MS, then.


    'cause you know, it's not visible if their eyes are closed.
    Don't blame the LEO's, they simply enforce the laws your legislature passes.
    I'm not. I'm pointing out the logical conclusion of this ed law.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    maybe this sheds some light

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Can someone point me in the right direction to find the statute?

    I'm confused on it. Any holster would conceal part of the gun.

    I can tell you that in KY, if you can see enough of the gun to tell it is a gun, then it is not concealed, even if the majority of it is covered/concealed.

    There is even a court case (appeals) that states that even when completely covered, if it is plain to see that the object is a gun, it is not concealed.

    For instance: a loose shirt over a hip holster, but the gun prints through the shirt would mean that the gun was not concealed.

    Weird, huh?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •