Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Open Holster Carry

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    I am posting this here, because Texas is a state in which only concealed carry is allowed. Please discuss the idea for its feasibility in Texas. If your laws concerning what is "concealed" are similar to Florida's, this manner of carry might be a middle ground between concealed and full open.

    In Florida, we are somewhat limited in our ability to show this reminder of force to power, as we cannot openly display our guns:

    790.053 Open carrying of weapons.
    --

    (1)Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device.

    Our weapons must be concealed:

    790.001 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, except where the context otherwise requires: (2)"Concealed firearm" means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.

    Since I can't openly carry the gun, the next best course is to openly carry a holster, but the holster must "conceal
    the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person." With cops being what they are, you are well advised to ensure that not a single atom from the gun is visible to the ordinary sight of another person.

    To this end, I've purchased this holster:



    It's a hard-shell holster for a Walther P38, but I'll see what else fits in it. It completely conceals and encases the gun, and it could as easily contain a cell phone and a hairbrush as it would a gun.

    I'm planning on wearing it on a nylon duty belt, completely openly. If we can't have open carry, open holster carry might be the next best thing.

    Now, I'm not going to stuff a gun down it, right away. I'm going to wear it a while and document the interactions with police here. I want to create a database of police interaction that evidences that police made a fuss about these holsters and found nothing in them but cell phones so that when we decide to switch over to carrying, there will be abundant documentation that a holster worn openly is not proof that the gun is not concealed from the ordinary view of another.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    You know you may be onto something with this!

    Some say you can get arrested for imprinting but most those cases are thrown out cause the gun was never actualy in plain sight. and if you have no gun in the holster just a cell phone or other items and they do detain and search you it will most likley fall under illegal search etc. Just because it looks like you have a gun should not be probable cause to search and detain someone other wise they would be checking briefcases... but thats my opinion... I think you will get alot of harrasment over it but would be worth it to see the look on their faces when they find nothing but trivial items...FYI erase all pictures that could be questionable off your phone just to be safe..lol

  3. #3
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    IIRC, in Texas you can't even have the holster or part of it showing. However,I can't find it in the Texas Penal Code.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Efforts to demonstrate respect for misinterpreted Texas laws won't workas well as in other states.

    The more folks try to squeeze any sense out the handgun laws in Texas - the more they are likely to draw unwanted attention to themselves. The first and foremost handgun law in Texas is Article I, sec 23 of the Texas Constitution.

    There is no law prohibiting the open wearing of a holstered handgun in Texas except in certain specified locations .Those who would restrict the free exercise of this right have worked hard to instill the illusion. The provision addressing "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to conceal" applies only to a concealed handgun licensee, andthe licensed offender mustdisplay menacing behavior, otherwise Article I, sec 23 of the Texas Constitution applies [the right of every citizen to bear armsfor the purpose of defense of one's person].

    The intent of the Texas legislature expressed in Title 10, sec 46.02is to discourage criminal conduct. If you will notice all of the exceptions or "allowances" for carrying a handgun are affirmative lawful purposes.Lawful defense of one's person is always an affirmative defense. Under the Texas Constitution any bearing/wearing of a handgun "in defense of" one's person IS lawful.

    Those who choose to construeTexas law as providing a larger general prohibition against carrying/wearing a handgun in Texas arevoluntarily waiving their constitutionally protected right, or surrendering that right to the "privileged brotherhood" that believes they and only they are endowed with the right of self-defense,and are actually reinforcing the misguided conceptionthat a law-abiding citizen cannotlawfully wear a holstered handgun publicly in Texas.

    I'm not suggesting the performance of a public test of this premise-just to see what happens..... Some folks understand what I'm trying to communicate here.Some folks after having given this matter some serious reflectionwill come to the same realization.We can lobby the legislature till we're blue in the face and it may still not result in any meaningful clarification in the statutes of what I said above.

    We are going to have to exercise the right we already have. Nobody can giveus "permission" to exercise this right.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    Post imported post

    Texas has prohibited, by statute, carrying of handguns and other deadly weapons for over 50 years. The most recent set of laws quite clearly states that, with a few exceptions, carrying a handgun by an unlicensed person is illegal.
    Plenty of case law, plenty of history. The legislature didn't make a mistake in how they wrote the law.

    (pardon the cut and paste text... it is OCR from the online state documents)

    The Texas Government Code, related to CHL licensing, defines:
    GC 941 1 .I 71. DEFINITIONS...
    (3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of
    which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable
    person
    Edited to add: Your proposed holster is plainly a handgun holster, to my observation, and so would probably be a violation of PC 46.035 (see below), by this definition.

    And, in general, carrying of handguns in currently illegal under:
    PC 46 WEAPONS...
    PC 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person
    commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
    carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if
    the person is not:
    (1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's
    control; or
    (2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned
    by the person or under the person's control.
    (a-I) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly,
    or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a
    motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's
    control at any time in which:
    (1) the handgun is in plain view; or
    (2) the person is:
    (A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor
    that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
    (B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
    (C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section
    71 ...

    And the requirement to conceal is:
    PC 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
    holder carries a handgun on or about the license holders person
    under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
    and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

    And not until you get to the related amendment, below, does the 46.02 prohibition on carry become legal for CHL holders:
    (b) *[as added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., HB 1815. (HB2101 & HB964 similar)] Section 46.02 does not
    apply to a-person who:
    ...
    (2) is traveling;
    (3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity
    on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en
    route between the premises and the actor's residence or motor
    vehicle, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;
    ...
    (5) is carrylng a concealed handgun and a valid license issued
    under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a
    concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person
    is carrying;

  6. #6
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Aha! It was in the Government Code, not the Penal Code.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    nonameisgood wrote:
    The Texas Government Code, related to CHL licensing, defines:
    GC 941 1 .I 71. DEFINITIONS...
    (3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of
    which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable
    person
    Great. So the Walther holster looks like it satisfies Texas law, as its contents are not "openly discernable to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person."

    Only Clark Kent had x-ray vision.

    The only way Open Holster Carry("OHC") could be a crime would be if carrying the holster, itself, were a crime. Since a holster is not a gun, however, and can carry a cell phone, keys, etc., such is clearly not the case.

    And the requirement to conceal is: PC 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holders person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
    Perfect. It looks like we're in business.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    I would consider it a mistake for the Texas legislature/executive to enact statutes in violation of the State's constitution.

    It is strange logic to rely uponquoting statutory law in determining "the law", when constitutional provisions such as Article I, sec. 23 clearly define legislative/executive limits of authority.

    Article I, sec. 23 does not provide a grant of power tothe Texas legislature to regulate the wearing of handguns out of existence by excepting a commonly carried firearm from the protection of the right referred to . According to theexisting Texas statutory "law" regarding handguns - a person NOT LICENSED under the authority of Subchapter H, chapter 411 [Concealed Hangun licensesee] MAY "legally" wear/carry a handgun in plain view [or concealed]UNDER CERTAIN (somewhat vague)CIRCUMSTANCES, but a CHL holder who has undergone a background investigation MAY NOT.

    That is not a mistake ? If not, it logically follows that the legislature/executive cannot make a mistake. Any "law" enacted is by definition never "a mistake" because such enactments are "unmistakable".

    I don't share the reverance for statutory "law" that some do. Perhaps that's because I've lived in Texas long enough to have witnessed the gradual erosionof the right to keep & bear arms as the anti-2A mentality has been allowed to take root and suppress free exercise of this FIRST freedom.

    It is time to push back by exercising this right, while keeping the pressure on the legislative/executive branches to bring statutes into harmony with constitutional law. No - I don't have much respect for statutory law because more often than notit resemblesan ill-conceived patch-work "quilt", or State-wide "garage sale" where everybody brings their worthless personal junk to peddle- but there's nobody buying it !

    That's why CONSTITUTIONS were established in order to erect a HIGHER[superior] "unmistakable" BAR of MEASUREMENT that all statutorylaws mustbe harmonized with for quality control purposes.

    Iwouldrecommend that all future citations of Texas statutory law regulating the keeping & bearing of arms on this Texas forum be preceded by citation of Article I , sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution.

    "EVERY CITIZEN SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN DEFENSE OF HIMSELF [HERSELF], OR THE STATE, BUT THE LEGISLATURE SHALL HAVE POWER TO REGULATE [not prohibit] THE WEARING OF ARMS WITH A VIEW TO PREVENT CRIME."

    Advocates of "working within the framework of existing Texas laws" should try to remember that the Texas Constitution still falls within the definition of EXISTING LAW in Texas.

    I am well aware of the complicated nuances, contradictions, and tyranny embedded within the concept of "judicial review".That's the process by which our State and U.S. constitutions have been relegated to virtual obscurity , seldom referred to, or cited.




  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    nonameisgood wrote:
    The Texas Government Code, related to CHL licensing, defines:
    GC 941 1 .I 71. DEFINITIONS...
    (3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of
    which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable
    person
    Great. So the Walther holster looks like it satisfies Texas law, as its contents are not "openly discernable to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person."
    You will not likely win the argument that a holster which is plainly for the purpose of carrying a handgun, and is in the shape of a handgun, is "concealment".

    If you wish to risk losing your CHL for such an obviously silly endeavor, go ahead.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    nonameisgood wrote:
    smoking357 wrote:
    nonameisgood wrote:
    The Texas Government Code, related to CHL licensing, defines:
    GC 941 1 .I 71. DEFINITIONS...
    (3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of
    which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable
    person
    Great. So the Walther holster looks like it satisfies Texas law, as its contents are not "openly discernable to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person."
    You will not likely win the argument that a holster which is plainly for the purpose of carrying a handgun, and is in the shape of a handgun, is "concealment".

    If you wish to risk losing your CHL for such an obviously silly endeavor, go ahead.
    In America, the government has to prove its case. The citizen doesn't have to prove his innocence.

    Have you done any work on the 4th Amendment? How do they open a concealed container carried about your person without your consent? How do they prove that a gun-shaped case necessarily has a gun in it? Further, how do they prove that such an arrangement is not concealed? What if you locked it such that they had to take it into the station and obtain a warrant to open it with a drill, chisel or some other tool?

    You're actually arguing that a concealed container is unconcealed carry? Come on.

    Show some backbone. Don't go down, this easily.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    Post imported post

    The Constitution plainly gives the legislature the authority to regulate the wearing of handguns.

    The legislature has chosen to regulate the wearing of handguns. There is no ambiguity in the law.

    I do respect the statutes, because they are the law. I work to change the laws, but I am not in the habit of ignoring the ones with which I do not agree.



  12. #12
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    nonameisgood wrote:
    smoking357 wrote:
    nonameisgood wrote:
    The Texas Government Code, related to CHL licensing, defines:
    GC 941 1 .I 71. DEFINITIONS...
    (3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of
    which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable
    person
    Great. So the Walther holster looks like it satisfies Texas law, as its contents are not "openly discernable to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person."
    You will not likely win the argument that a holster which is plainly for the purpose of carrying a handgun, and is in the shape of a handgun, is "concealment".

    If you wish to risk losing your CHL for such an obviously silly endeavor, go ahead.
    In America, the government has to prove its case. The citizen doesn't have to prove his innocence.

    Have you done any work on the 4th Amendment? How do they open a concealed container carried about your person without your consent? How do they prove that a gun-shaped case necessarily has a gun in it? Further, how do they prove that such an arrangement is not concealed? What if you locked it such that they had to take it into the station and obtain a warrant to open it with a drill, chisel or some other tool?

    You're actually arguing that a concealed container is unconcealed carry? Come on.

    Show some backbone. Don't go down, this easily.
    Try reasonable suspicion.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    smoking357 wrote:
    nonameisgood wrote:
    smoking357 wrote:
    nonameisgood wrote:
    The Texas Government Code, related to CHL licensing, defines:
    GC 941 1 .I 71. DEFINITIONS...
    (3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of
    which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable
    person
    Great. So the Walther holster looks like it satisfies Texas law, as its contents are not "openly discernable to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person."
    You will not likely win the argument that a holster which is plainly for the purpose of carrying a handgun, and is in the shape of a handgun, is "concealment".

    If you wish to risk losing your CHL for such an obviously silly endeavor, go ahead.
    In America, the government has to prove its case. The citizen doesn't have to prove his innocence.

    Have you done any work on the 4th Amendment? How do they open a concealed container carried about your person without your consent? How do they prove that a gun-shaped case necessarily has a gun in it? Further, how do they prove that such an arrangement is not concealed? What if you locked it such that they had to take it into the station and obtain a warrant to open it with a drill, chisel or some other tool?

    You're actually arguing that a concealed container is unconcealed carry? Come on.

    Show some backbone. Don't go down, this easily.
    Try reasonable suspicion.
    And? What are the reasonable articulatable facts pursuant to Terry that you believe are present when someone carries a fully concealed holster?

    Even if the cop guesses right (and guesses are not RAS), he guessed that you were carrying concealed.

    So? What crime does he believe is being committed such that he could conduct a warrantless search of a closed satchel?

    Listen, I wouldn't have published this idea if I didn't give it a bit of thought. The counter-arguments seem to be going in circles.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Citizens who pretend that their RIGHTS are derived from government , or determined by statute, or license have none.

    When government revokes your CHL where does your right to keep & bear arms in defense of your person reside ?

    Before you were issued a CHL did you carry a rifle or shotgun with you while on your rounds in order to exercise the right cited in Article I sec. 23 ?

    Why do you[ or do you] claim to actually possess the right to keep and bear arms in defense of your person - if you hold the unconstitutional statutes in higher regard than the constitution that authorizes the legislature to enact statutes at all ?

    By what contorted, and strained logic can anyone conclude that the framers of the Texas Constitution intended to protect the right to keep & bear arms in defense of one's person inthe primary clause of a section 23 - and then authorize the legislature to deny that same right in the secondary clause ?Ridiculous.

    We were all grateful to the legislature and Governor Bush for enacting the CHL provision into the law in 1995. I recall feeling quite proud the first time I walked out of the house, and got in my vehiclewearing my handgun "legally" for the first time.

    Once I was issued the CHL , I too became consumed with concern that I might have have the license suspended, or revoked for some other infraction of State law. So the issuance of the CHL made all the licensees "model citizens" - lest they lose the PRIVILEGE of "legally" bearing arms for the purpose of righteous self defense.

    Once you are licensedto wear that handgun, you are no longer exercising your right to keep & bear arms in defense of your person. BEFORE Texas issued you that license - that's when you were exercising that right !

    Don't be so proud of your "privileges" that you relinquish your RIGHTS.













  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    SANDCREEK wrote:
    Citizens who pretend that their RIGHTS are derived from government , or determined by statute, or license have none.

    When government revokes your CHL where does your right to keep & bear arms in defense of your person reside ?

    Before you were issued a CHL did you carry a rifle or shotgun with you while on your rounds in order to exercise the right cited in Article I sec. 23 ?

    Why do you[ or do you] claim to actually possess the right to keep and bear arms in defense of your person - if you hold the unconstitutional statutes in higher regard than the constitution that authorizes the legislature to enact statutes at all ?

    By what contorted, and strained logic can anyone conclude that the framers of the Texas Constitution intended to protect the right to keep & bear arms in defense of one's person inthe primary clause of a section 23 - and then authorize the legislature to deny that same right in the secondary clause ?Ridiculous.

    We were all grateful to the legislature and Governor Bush for enacting the CHL provision into the law in 1995. I recall feeling quite proud the first time I walked out of the house, and got in my vehiclewearing my handgun "legally" for the first time.

    Once I was issued the CHL , I too became consumed with concern that I might have have the license suspended, or revoked for some other infraction of State law. So the issuance of the CHL made all the licensees "model citizens" - lest they lose the PRIVILEGE of "legally" bearing arms for the purpose of righteous self defense.

    Once you are licensedto wear that handgun, you are no longer exercising your right to keep & bear arms in defense of your person. BEFORE Texas issued you that license - that's when you were exercising that right !

    Don't be so proud of your "privileges" that you relinquish your RIGHTS.
    You are one of the few who truly "get it."

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    Speaking to the kind of holster one chooses to OC...

    IMO, a flap-holster would,to most everyone, look like the person wearing it is armed -- and that would be a very reasonable assumption --even though it could be empty or have other things being carried in it.

    So I can't blame cops who want to stop someone wearing such a holster tocheck it out if it's in a state that allows OC but only of an UNloaded firearm. Or, in a state that does NOT allow OC like here in sorry Texas.

    Further, if a gun inside a flap-holster is considered CC instead of OC -- and again, I don't see how as it screams "gun inside" to me, most other citizensand even to criminals I suspect -- that would be unfortunate in my case as I would prefer to OC using a flap-holster (military type, GI-issue leather for a 1911 or my Russian military leather flap-holster for my Tokarev or Zastava M88 9mm)...when OC comes to Texas or I move to a Gold Star OC state.

    So I hope a flap holster -- even if it hid the gun completely as in the case of the Walther holster pictured above or almost completely as in the case of MY 2 1911 and Tokarev flap-holsters -- is not consideredCC since (legally speaking) "an average person could reasonably expect such a holster to carry a gun." Expecially if the holster is openly carried on a belt/pistol-belt with no attempt to cover it up.

    -- John D.


    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    MY 2 1911 and Tokarev flap-holsters -- is not consideredCC since (legally speaking) "an average person could reasonably expect such a holster to carry a gun." Expecially if the holster is openly carried on a belt/pistol-belt with no attempt to cover it up.

    -- John D.
    I haven't researched Texas law. Is that a direct quote from statute?

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    No, they were MY words...I did not say (or want to imply) that I was quoting any laws.

    The phrase in quotation marks I was just making upto show what a judge might say, especially if a law were ambiguous as many are and very much open to "interpretation," in this case what is considered "concealed" and what is not.

    I couldn't even get a definitiveanswer over in the NM forum when I asked about where flap holsters fit in...seems no one really knows!

    -- John D.

    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    No, they were MY words...I did not say (or want to imply) that I was quoting any laws.

    The phrase in quotation marks I was just making upto show what a judge might say, especially if a law were ambiguous as many are and very much open to "interpretation," in this case what is considered "concealed" and what is not.

    I couldn't even get a definitiveanswer over in the NM forum when I asked about where flap holsters fit in...seems no one really knows!

    -- John D.
    O.K.

    I'm trying to bring some OC relief to the Big 5, Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. These are cc-only states, and in Florida, the handgun has to "be concealed from the ordinary view of another." If someone accuses me of carrying a gun in this holster, my response will be "yeah, what's it look like?"

    I'm fairly confident that the ordinary fellow doesn't have x-ray vision, yet.

    Remember, this isn't civil court. Any ambiguities in the law inure to the benefit of the accused.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    Good luck,

    -- John D.


    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    It's called Concealed Carry in the Open. Check out the Widerness' Safepacker Holster

    http://www.dillonprecision.com/#/con...packer_Holster

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    there are a few less feasible ideas out there. one is that in having a concealed carry license the gun must be continuously concealed. another is that we need a license (a right that is granted and which carries certain requisites) to exercise a right that we are born with. finally, carrying an unloaded gun is less effective that wielding a short club or throwing a brick. scott v. sanford as well as others shed some light upon the meaning of keep and bear. delaware v. prouse upon the 4th. most cops will interpret the law differently than it is written, and it seems that judges will take and run with obscene interpretations. i have, after making sure that the cops in my area now the second, i have donned a shoulder rig or a drop leg rig.i asked a detective what was the deal with open carry, he later on a traffic stop tried to search me for a gun, i responded get a f%^&ing warrant as they grabbed me and subdued me. if i would've had my piece, i would have used it. shame they are so ignorant and petty. this forum's operation is lacking sorely. thirty minutes to get this typed, sheesh!

Posting Permissions

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