...it is not the place of legislators who in reality, no nothing about proper forms of carry to dictate how I carry my pistol, nor is it your place.
No, it is not my place to dictate how you carry your pistol. It is our government's place (those same legislators you refer to) that give you the right to carry and have the ABILITY (not the right) to take that privilige away if they choose. My state of residence only recently granted me that privilige. If a bunch of people in my fragile state of residence start having accidents because they chose not to purchase a holster, that seams to me a pretty good excuse those legislators could have to take that privilige away from me. My purpose is to point out that carrying in that way should not be endorsed in general and to point out that it could be very dangerous.
My rant about the state dictating the use of a holster is simply my concern about being legislated how do something else.
I'm tired of the government thinking they know what is always best for me and telling me so and then taking my tax dollars to do it...whether the majority agrees or not. They simply have to convince the majority of like minded legislators to support it. Thus the backroom deal making that helps get stupids bills made into stupider laws...often further limiting our rights.
And in your comment reprisejim, it is not those legislators that give me the right to carry, I wish the legislators that gave us the right were still around...you'd see a much different country. The constitution gave us that right and we have allowed too many to legislate away that right. I have mine and you obviously just got your back...congratulations.
I do not advocate mexican carry, I never thought pocket carry of my P-64 or Beretta 25cal was considered mexican. I always assumed it meant in the waistband.
Bottomline it is not the government's place to legislate this at all as proven by the new liberal laws in Florida that have reduced violent crime by 40% since implemented. Let gun owners own guns. If someone is stupid enough to shoot themselves then there are laws to remove that person's right to carry as unsuitable. Not everyone should own a gun but it is everyones right to own a gun. Like it or not that is a fact.
Sorry for the soap box but I'm sick and tired of the government protecting me so much that I can't do anything anymore! I have 1 mother and 1 father and that is all I need (ed).
Last edited by carguy on September 27th, 2007, 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Papabear
what did you start ???
To add a might of fuel to the confusion..
I didnt know what Mexican style was until recently. I always just thought it was stuck in waist band either side or back..
I will say we never called it Mexican we used to call it Gangster style.But that is where I was from, guess it was a colloquialism. Hey Carguy what kinda of Beretta 25.. I have a 418..
Boy I cant believe there is really legislation on holsters, does it have to been made of leather, or nylon ,or silk.. No wait it must be from horse's ass leather like the people who wrote it up and made it law.. gimma a break .
I carry my P64 about 50% of the time, and my Tauraus pt45 the other 50%. I carry in my front right pocket, both of them. I made a leather pocket holster for my p64 that I use about half the time that I am carrying the p64. I carry my pt45 loose in my pocket all the time that I carry it. It usually depends on what pants I am wearing as they all have somewhat different pocket construction configurations. One of these methods works withe every pair of pants that I own - and for me there is not better or safer place for my pistol than in my front pocket.
I have a hard time accepting that I can be trusted to carry a firearm, but have to be instructed by legislation on how to carry it, as in must be in a holster. It is strange logic to trust me to carry but not to trust me to figure out the best way.
But then the laws that have restricted our natural freedom to carry any gun anwhere in any manner we choose to carry are based on the perverted notion that all citizens are incipient criminals just aching to commit a crime, and that it is the responsbility of the government to prevent us from committing crimes.
I say it is the responsibility of the government to punish those who committ crimes, after they have committed a crime, not trying to prevent crimes by pre-punishing everyone with restrictions on their freedoms and God given and Constitutionally protected liberties.
The logic that says it is OK to mandate the use of holsters is the same logic that says it was OK to remove the freedom of owning and carrying a gun in the first place. It is logic based on the govenrment believes that it knows better how to handle my personal choices than I do - and I reject that logic and will go toe to toe with anyone who wants to support it. It is the Nanny State Logic, pure and simple.
Papabear
what did you start ???
To add a might of fuel to the confusion..
I didnt know what Mexican style was until recently. I always just thought it was stuck in waist band either side or back..
I will say we never called it Mexican we used to call it Gangster style.But that is where I was from, guess it was a colloquialism. Hey Carguy what kinda of Beretta 25.. I have a 418..
I have a 950BS that was a gift from a good friend years ago. I love this thing! It is fun and easy to shoot.
I had it at the range one day when another shooter's wife saw it and said what a cute little girlie gun. Luckily her friend caught her before I did and said..."it will kill you as fast as my S&W 500. And if you own it you better practice with it." She apologized for any insult and I nodded understanding. Her husband was the one cowering at the thought of shooting the afore mentioned S&W 500.
Believe me, we are all on the same side here!!!
I am just pointing out, perhaps un-neccesarily to most, that carrying in that fashion can be dangerous. If my state had a law that stated that if I carry a pistol, I must carry it in a holster I would not have a problem with it. As previously stated, I actually would be in favor of it. Not because I am in favor of more laws but because I believe that it is a safer way to carry. I compare it to my states seatbelt law. If you drive in my state, you must buckle up. I do so.
There was a gentleman that went to a gun show near my home. He was carrying a glock loaded with one in the tube. He had to use the restroom and hung his gun on the coat hook by the trigger guard. Can anyone guess what happened? He finished doing his business and grabbed his gun to put it back in it's holster. The trigger caught on the coat hook and fired, shooting the man in the hand. That's not where it ends. The recoil caused the gun to keep firing as the trigger kept getting forced back to the coat hook!! He was shot several times before getting the situation under control.
I guess no one told him that hanging a Glock on a coat hook was a really bad idea. It seems fairly obvious to me that it is a bad idea but, obviously not to all.
Has anyone seen the video of the CCW instructor (a police officer) instructing his class and winds up shooting himself in the foot. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE3QAeYRk-A
We all know there are idiots out there and as I said before...everyone has the right to own a firearm but not everyone should own a firearm.
I'm sorry I just don't like being told what to do. When I drive I really try to buckle up but sometimes I forget and when I'm told I have to I often don't. When I ride a motorcycle in Mass I wear a helmet because it is the law, it is the safe and smart thing to do but when I'm in NH or ME, I still take it off becasue I can! Stupid I know but fun and liberating. Sometimes I take it off just because everyone says not to... :-[
Oh and Reprisejim...you're fairly new here...welcome, and realize this...everyone gets used and abused here, no one takes offense (unless you mean to offend), we just love debating and exchanging opinions, so I wasn't picking on you personally just what you said. We all are here sharing a hobby, a particular pistol and yes are on the same side. I hope I didn't offend with my rant... :'(
When I do carry in my pocket I usually ahve a Desantis pocket holster in there anyways. Now I'm waiting on my Clip-Draw!!
Last edited by carguy on September 28th, 2007, 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't think it's tactically sound to carry a firearm w/o a holster unless it is in the front pocket. (Although I know Mel Gibson pulled it off in 4 Lethal Weapon movies.) I carry my Kel-Tec P32 when I'm off duty in a small holster in my front pocket. In the winter, I may carry my Glock 27 in a IWB holster. As soon as I can take my P-64 out and break it in, I'll probably go with it most of the time. Maybe some can confidently carry "Mexican" style, but how stable will that be in your waistband if you have to run after or away from someone (yes it is OK to run away if possible). Or what happens if the altercation goes physical instead of "mechanical". How stable will "Mexican" carry be in a good ol' roll-around-on-the-ground fight? I guess it depends on the owner and the circumstances. I don't think it should be legislated though. If your qualified to carry the weapon, you shouldn't be told how to carry it.
PS, I think motorcycle helmet laws was the result of heavy lobbying by Funeral Home Directors. At a 70+ mph crash, the only thing a helmet is good for is determining open or closed casket.
My sister-in-law the nurse tells me the ER calls them brain buckets. You are correct all they are good for is keeping stuff together making clean up a little easier. The styrofoam liner just doesn't cut it for saftey at any sort of speed. But I do obey the law and wear one...I usually wear one anyways, I figure anything is better than nothing. :'(
I love my P-64, but I don't have the oppurtunity to carry too often. Many argue with me because I choose to carry unchambered with no safety, but I feel it is safe in my usual circumstances. One fear I have is that if I carry chambered with the safety off (DAO), should I worry about whether the gun will discharge if dropped? I know some modern guns have firing pin blocks, what about P-64? Also, off subject, there is a new forum www.usacarry.com It is a great new website with a quality forum for discussing all things ccw related. I don't want to steal the fire from the P-64 board because I love it here, just wanted to let the word out.
Don't take me wrong, I am not upset at anyone, I am trying to point out a major fallacy in a relatively minor law. But because it is a major fallacy, it is a major problem. I too have failed to see the obvious from time to time, to wit:
Some years ago I was indifferent to the ban on assault style guns. I did not have any or have any interest in them, and did not see them as legitimate sporting arms. Until a friend kindly pointed out that there is nothing in the constitution about guns be for sporting purposes, and in point of fact are for use against a tyrannical government, making assault style guns more to the point than sporting guns. This peeled my eyes back - what had I been thinking, or not thinking?
Not long ago I was more or less in favor of eliminating the background check loophole at gunshows. Until I read an article that pointed out that there is no loophole. I can sell a gun to anyone in my state without a background check or an FFL - I still have the right to dispose of my property as I see fit, and that is not a loophole, that is a right, at least intrastate.
Banning the sale of private guns at gunshows is the same as banning my right to sell my neighbor a gun, or to even give it to her. Pretty soon the anti's would be trying to close the next loophole, my right to do what I want to with my guns. The federal govt already interferes in that now by forcing me to go through FFLs for interstate transfer of ownership of a firearm.
The point of these two examples is that I have not always seen the light right off the bat. Our goverment was founded to protect our liberties, not to curtail them, and not to protect us from life. If the govt tells me that I have to use a helmet or seatbelts, that is infringement. If the government is doing this for my own good, well there is nothing in the Constitution that says the goverment has the right to protect me from myself, or from lifes accidents. In fact the supreme court has ruled that your local police do not have a duty or an obligation to protect you from criminals.
If the goverment tells me that I have to use a holster, it is yet another infringement. Is it for my own good? Doesn't matter, it is none of their business. The goverment will happlily curtail the freedom of millions and millions of people on the off chance that they will protect one or two people from being stupid and harming themselves or others. Guess what, it doesn't work, you can not legislate against stupidity or weird accidents.
There will undoubtedly be accidents where people harm or kill themselves or others nearby. Friends, that is life in the real world. There never has been or ever will be life without risk. You can minimize the risk if you lock yourself in a root cellar and never come out, but you lose all of your freedom in the process - and eventually you die anyway. Bad things happen to good people all the time, it is the simple nature of reality. Living in fear of bad things happening is a waste of thinking time.
Our goverment would love to try and protect us to that same root celler extent, and will if we let them. What a pathetic life that would be.
???
