• 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.

transparant holster?

S

Seif5034

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
169
Location
Hickory, MS
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.
 
D

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 
P

Pointman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
, ,
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
N

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
not to mention the trigger guard is leftwide open.
 
Felid`Maximus

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,714
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
not to mention the trigger guard is leftwide open.
Click to expand...
Well I guess you could carry empty chamber.
 
C

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
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..........:banghead:
 
A

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

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

clockworkorangedx7.jpg



'cause you know, it's not visible if their eyes are closed.
 
S

Seif5034

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
169
Location
Hickory, MS
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.
Click to expand...
These lawsare REALLY raining on my parade. :banghead::cuss:
 
S

superdemon

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
343
Location
Central, Kentucky, USA
imported post

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

clockworkorangedx7.jpg



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

superdemon

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
343
Location
Central, Kentucky, USA
imported post

Pointman wrote:
superdemon wrote:
Don't blame the LEO's, they simply enforce the laws your legislature passes.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
S

superdemon

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
343
Location
Central, Kentucky, USA
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.
 
C

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

Pointman wrote:
superdemon wrote:
Don't blame the LEO's, they simply enforce the laws your legislature passes.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Pointman, IIRC, this was a MsSupCo opinion that started all this "in part" nonesense...
 
A

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
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.
Click to expand...
Don't blame the LEO's, they simply enforce the laws your legislature passes.
Click to expand...
I'm not. I'm pointing out the logical conclusion of this :cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss:ed law.
 
S

superdemon

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
343
Location
Central, Kentucky, USA
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top