From the TxDPS website:
TxDPS website said:
"Unconcealed handguns, loaded or unloaded, must be carried in a shoulder or belt holster."
From the bill/law, as an example since the same phrase is used throughout the open carry revisions:
HB910 said:
"SECTION 45. Section 46.02(a-1), Penal Code, is amended to
read as follows:
(a-1) 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 or watercraft that is owned
by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is
licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt
holster; or...
Proposed House Amendment 3 used the phrase "visibly holstered" without limiting to "belt or shoulder holster". This amendment was tabled.
Proposed House Amendment 4 would have required a retention holster. This amendment was tabled.
Seems to be common sense and legally defensible that something described as a "chest holster" or a "crossdraw vest" is not strictly a "belt or shoulder holster." I would also guess that a thigh rig is not a belt holster in common vernacular. The legislature was specific with the use of "belt or shoulder holster", when "holster" would have sufficed. While my guesses are just that, I would also guess that thigh rigs and chest holsters are particular examples of methods of open carry they intended to prohibit (by omission.) While I think we should always craft laws that limit specific things rather than permit only specific things, that is not what they did here. The vague but not too vague phrasing leaves room to litigate. If someone wants to be a test case and risk giving us a black eye, they can give this a try. As with many things, people will push a little too far for no good purpose and then the rest of us will hear the phrase, "this is why we can't have nice things... another goof with a gun."
Someone with a physical need to carry this way, NOT just in a mood for confrontation or a desire to "become a victim of the law", should be the test case. On my motorcycle, a thigh rig would be most convenient, but I will be able to carry to the letter of the law and will choose to do so. For Now. I may change my mind since having a pistol on the belt or against my rib cage may increase my risk of serious injury in a mishap.
We can push for expansion in the Legislature, not the courts - unless exigent circumstance or to accommodate physical limitations require taking a course of litigation.
