Carrying without a holster

I carry a J-frame revolver in my (inexpensive but servicable) Mika pocket holster for 3-reasons:

1. It breaks-up the outline of the gun.
2. It keeps the muzzle from poking a hole in the bottom of my pocket.
3. It keeps the hammer from getting caught in the pocket and interfering w/ my draw.
 
Carrying without a holster can be done safely. My grandfather used to carry a single-action revolver in his pocket. Perfectly safe because it was a single-action and the hammer was down. You can carry the S&W M&P involved in this incident in condition 3 with no holster and it will be every bit as safe (and probably a bit safer from a drop safe perspective).

What you can't do without creating a much higher risk of negilgent discharge is carry a safe-action pistol in Condition 1 with the trigger exposed.
 
Gotta kick my two cents in guys.

I do sometimes carry my S&W 4006 .40cal tucked in the back of my pants with no holster. This is a comfortable way for me to carry this gun, however mine does have a safety and it is always on when I carry in this fashion. I've done this for sixteen years without incident.
 
I don't carry without a holster, but I no longer have a handgun suitable for doing so, either. In defense of kraigwy and others who make a considered and well-informed choice to carry in that manner, there is a whole heap of difference between the triggers of various revolvers and pistols. When I had a 642, I occasionally carried in that manner, but I wouldn't consider doing so with my Glock 26. Understanding the capabilities and limits of a given firearm seems to me to be much more valuable than making blanket statements.

My concern with the story in the OP is that it leaves the appearance that the officer was either misinformed, made poor decisions, or was too casual in his considerations and handling. I have a hunch that this may have been a case in which gun handling became so routine that it became thoughtless, which is something we would all do well to guard against.
 
"Kraigwy can do it- hell, he makes his own guns, he must kow what he's talkin' about.... and now we have some newb that thought he was an aspiring Kraigwy and was really just another Plaxico......
Click to expand...

Well in that case, I guess I wont discuss my days when I use to "run with scissors or talked to the bus driver when the bus was in motion"
 
kraigwy, sorry, I wasn't trying to make a bad guy out of you. I was just pointing out that what may be a no-no to some may be ops normal to others; and that in the absence of statute or case law to the contrary, lack of a holster or safety does not in and of itself equal criminal negligence. I used you as an example of a reasonable, respected person.
 
The issue isn't about holsters or not,,,

In my mind the issue is that the man allowed his gun to go out of his immediate control and a bad thing happened as a result of it.

This line of the statute applies here,,,
"Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon"

One can waistband carry for years and if nothing ever happens then negligence never happened.

But in this case something bad did happen,,,
So I think a charge is completely valid.

Mleake made a point that I am in some agreement with,,,
We may have become a society too eager to lay blame and deal out punishment.

In that light I will not call out for him to be hung out to dry,,,
But some sort of punitive sanction should be applied towards him.

The charge could just be "Stupid in Public",,,
He should not however be allowed to get off scott free.

Aarond
 
Kraigwy: I pocket carry my 642 without a holster. I tried ever way from Sunday to get it to fire (empty of course). Just don't see it. Not with a 642 anyway.
Click to expand...

I pocket carry my S&W 642 airweigh too, but I have a Charter Arms holster
I bought for less than $20 for my CA Bulldog. I only use the CA holster for
the S&W and the Bulldog in a Galco paddle hoslter. My 642 has no hammer
or reclused, so I don't believe one like mine can go off from being dropped.
That CA holster works really well when I draw the gun, it stays in the pocket
because of the material its made out of. I don't think the guns accidentally
going off are revolvers, unless they are old ones.:)
 
I don't think anyone has mentioned it, so I will. We keep talking about holster or not here (which i'm a fan of), but there's one more thing worth repeating. While it's not 100% clear that this happened, there's enough evidence to think it MIGHT have been the case that he caught the gun while it was falling.

As he reached for the weapon, it went off, blowing a hole through his pants.
Click to expand...

Most of us already know it, but don't catch that falling gun. It's infinitely more likely to go off if you catch it than if you just let it hit the floor.

If that's not quite what happened then so be it, but I'll throw that out there anyway.
 
I have dropped a gun once, and barely overcame the urge to catch it.

When I was younger, while quartering an orange with a Chicago Cutlery knife, I dropped the orange. On pure reflex, I caught it. Knife was still in the orange. Slashed up my left thumb pretty nicely.

Point being, reflex often kicks in and has us do things we would not do, if given a moment to reflect. Thinking about the problem ahead of time can help pre-condition against reflex.

That said, I have been shooting for thirty years or so, including military training; yet I don't think an instructor ever mentioned not catching a dropped gun until fairly recently.

I still think too many people want to make crimes of what more reasonable people would use as teachable moments.
 
I still think too many people want to make crimes of what more reasonable people would use as teachable moments.
Click to expand...

The sinking of the Titanic provided a teachable moment for the entire industry. That does not justify the recklessness of many of the decisions leading to the disaster, or the loss of life and property.

I think reasonable men can disagree. It does not necessarily mean I'm less reasonable than you because we disagree on this issue.
 
So, K_Mac, is it reasonable to assume you think all hunting accidents that result in injury should be criminally charged? All traffic accidents? All boating accidents? If not, what is your cutoff for criminal vs civil liability?
 
Its a chance you take carrying a pistol with a round in the chamber. If he didn't we would not be having this discussion.

The problem is there was a complaint made the police have to follow it up i would think end expect an experienced police officer to know better than to carry a loaded firearm and not have it in a holster. Before having to much sympathy for the officer if you did the same thing he or one of his colleagues could be round arresting you and telling you how stupid you where.
 
So, K_Mac, is it reasonable to assume you think all hunting accidents that result in injury should be criminally charged? All traffic accidents? All boating accidents? If not, what is your cutoff for criminal vs civil liability?
Click to expand...

No, that conclusion is not supported by my posts.

I think the question of where the line is drawn is a fair one though. At the end of the day the line is not always clear. You simply cannot use a one size fits all answer to this question. All hunting, or boating, or lawn darts accidents are not criminal, but if someone is killed or injured and you have been reckless in your actions, maybe it is. To use your argument, mens rea is either intent or recklessness. The administration of justice is is not simple or easy. Our system of justice that you find oppressive takes this into consideration.

Back on topic, if this negligent discharge of a weapon in a shopping mall is not 'endangering safety by use of a deadly weapon' what is? Is it right for the government to have laws on the books that protect citizens? Seems like I've read that somewhere...
 
Intent or recklessness, great.

Since his intent was not to shoot, now you are left with recklessness. Since there have been many gun owners, over the years, for whom holster-less carry was normal, IMO you can't establish recklessness simply because you (and I) think holster-less is a bad idea. You would need either statute or case law that said such carry met the level required for recklessness, as opposed to simple carelessness. These are not the same.

Some folks have thrown "Plaxico" around. Please bear in mind that Mr. Burress was not licensed to carry in NY. I am not sure if his gun was legally owned in NY. His charges did not directly result from the discharge of the weapon, but from the fact he was carrying it in the first place.
 
Proper holsters and proper cases** provide the only reasonable way to avoid violating Rule 1 while carrying a loaded gun.

If you're carrying a loaded gun without one then it's virtually impossible not to violate Rule 1.

As far as I'm concerned, the person involved intentionally violated the first rule of gun safety with a loaded gun in a crowded area by carrying it without a proper holster.

**A proper holster/case covers the trigger/triggerguard and makes it totally impossible to fire the gun until it is removed from the holster/case.​
 
Holsterless carry is a bad idea, and when it endangers others it goes beyond that to reckless. You claim carelessness rather than recklessness. We do not need a statute to establish the difference. We need only to look at the cause of the action that put lives at risk. You say that carrying a 'safe action' pistol stuck in your pants is normal because some do it, and it is not specifically prohibited. I say that when you carry a weapon in a reckless manner you assume the risks that go with it.

I once went rabbit hunting with a guy who carried a semi auto shotgun through fields and woods all day without using his safety. At the end of the day, I noticed that long before he shot he had his finger on the trigger and he did not disengage the safety before shooting. When I asked about it, he told me he wanted to be ready to shoot and he never used the safety. What he learned from this opportunity was hunting or shooting with me was no longer an option. It was careless on my part to hunt with someone who did not follow the rules. It was reckless on his part not to. We don't need a law or lawyer to know the difference.
 
Well, K_Mac, I guess the sergeant will have to hope he draws a jury with at least one person who doesn't see things as you do. I would say his odds are not too bad.
 
MLeake, it is hard for me to imagine this will come to trial and I think you know that. It is also hard for me to imagine that anyone on a jury could find our Sergeant's actions anything but negligent.

I have beat this horse long enough, any more might be considered recklessness.:D Peace.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top