This is a discussion on Anyone have this wallet holster? Ruger LCP within the Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by sdkidaho Why does everyone keep saying it's illegal? It says right on the page: "It is actually considered a modified grip, and ...
"The world is a dangerous place not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." ~Albert Einstein
I've got one of the pocket holsters (from pocketholsters.com) for my LCP and like it. Many friends of mine have it also. I tend to prefer an IWB for the LCP, but being in the back pocket is very concealable in all clothes and stays out of the way if I'm carrying a primary gun. Since the LCP is really a BUG, but highly concealable, it can go anywhere that's accessible.
Kimber CDP II Compact, SA XD SC40, Ruger LCP
Favorites: "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a soldier."
Admiral Gary Roughead, CNO: "I never, ever, want to see my sailors or Marines in a fair fight."
I don’t like the trigger exposed. I carry mine in a nemesis holster
I agree. That thing looks like a accident waiting to happen. I carry my LCP in a Don Hume pocket holster just like this one.
Give mecopocketholsters.com a glance -
His holsters are made by hand to order and are some of the best quality around!
I am only going to deal with the legality question and from here on there should be no question about it.
First, this type holster does not fall under the category of a "wallet holster" which is classifies the gun as AOW when it is added. There are several reasons why this is true, but the most important is that the holster does not attempt to conceal the fact that the item is a gun. This is true because the slide and muzzle are exposed.
Second, even if it were a holster that caused the gun to fall into the AOW category the cost to get the stamp for this type of weapon is $5.00. Get the stamp.
Third and finally. Here is a copy of the letter that was sent by ATF in 1976 defining a High Standard derringer in a wallet holster that looks like a real wallet and leaving no part of the firearm visible as AOW. If you read it carefully you will see that this holster does not fall under the criteria listed in the letter.NFA Owners Association :: View topic - 1976 letter on legality of wallet holster and High StandardDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, DC 20226
FEB 25 1976
The January 15, 1976, issue of the Shotgun News contains an
advertisement by you offering for sale a "Wallet-Holster" designed
specifically for concealing and firing a High-Standard derringer
pistol and other derringer pistols.
Section 179.11 of Part 179, Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations,
defines a pistol as follows: A weapon originally designed, made,
and intended to fire a small projectile (bullet) from one or more
barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an
integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and
(b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an
angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). The term
shall not include any gadget device, any gun altered or converted
to resemble a pistol, any gun that fires more than one shot,
without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger, or
any small portable gun such as: Nazi belt buckle pistol, glove
pistol, or a one-hand stock gun designed to fire fixed shotgun
Placing the High-Standard derringer in the "Wallet-Holster" negates
the use of the birdshead type stock which can no longer be gripped
by the hand in the conventional manner. The derringer thus becomes
a concealed gadget device in the same category as a can gun, a belt
buckle pistol, or a cigarette lighter gun, and is classified as
"any other weapon" in the amended National Firearms Act of 1968.
- 2 -
There is no violation of the National Firearms Act in the mere
possession of a derringer with a rifled bore, nor in making,
transferring, or receiving a "Wallet-Holster" designed to contain
the derringer. However, any person who might possess the installed
combination of the High-Standard derringer or any other derringer
designed to be carried and fired in the "Wallet Holster" would be
in possession of a "firearm" as defined in Section 5845(a)(5) of
the Act. Such a firearm is subject to the tax imposed under
Section 5821, and to the making provisions of Section 5822 of the
Act. Sections 5811 and 5812 on transfer taxes and transfer
provisions are also applicable. Publication 603 (Rev. 6-74) and
its 1975 Supplement, ATF P 5300.5, which contains the sections of
law mentioned above, are enclosed for your convenient reference.
We strongly recommend that you publish a warning sheet which
outlines the status of these commodities to accompany the sale of
each "Wallet-Holster." Such action on your part would be prudent
business practice. Please contact us or our nearest Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms Office is you have any questions concerning
the contents of this letter.
A. Atley Peterson
Acting Assistant Director
(Technical and Scientific Services)
Below are links to statements from two makers of this type of holster stating why they do not fall under the AOW provision. The first link even describes the steps taken to insure that the holster was not going to cause trouble for purchasers.
From here on feel free to discuss the merit or lack there of for this holster, but there needs to be no mention of whether the holster is legal. That question is settled. THE HOLSTER IS LEGAL.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein
I would not be caught dead with that holster in my pocket....just saying......
There are two types of people who carry concealed weapons...Responsible ones and Irresponsible ones...which are you...
I've never heard of an "illegal" holster?
Minimum government, maximum freedom.
NRA - Member
GOAL - Member
Comm2A - Member