• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Iwb oc

GuidoZ

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
192
Location
Skagit County, WA

I 2nd that one. I was wearing it just today - surprisingly comfortable and allows complete concealment if you so desire. You can tuck your shirt in between the clips and everything else, so all that is showing is the clips. (See pics below.) Both the CrossBreed and the Comp-Tac work great, and are nearly identical in function. I've heard the CrossBreed is very comfortable, but I personally didn't like the emblems on it, so I went with the Minotaur. Works great, LOVE the ability to get separate Kydex bodies for different guns, allowing you to not have to buy a bunch of holsters just to carry different weapons. It's fine comfort wise as well. Many that have the CrossBreed speak about a special cut ("Combat Cut" - it's even offered as a factory mod if you so desire) that reduces the amount of leather, making it less comfortable, but easier to draw. The Comp-Tac looks almost identical to the CrossBreed, post-mod.

Here's a few pictures of mine, taken seconds ago. Current body is for the HG listed in my sig:

front.jpg back.jpg top.jpg

I frequently wear khaki cargos, so I got the clips that match. You can pick from a number of colors for both the clips and the leather. You can also splurge and get the clips that don't go over the belt at all ("C" I believe, while these are "J" clips.) :cool:

::EDIT:: Forgot to mention, you can easily adjust the cant and such for your personal preference. Just make sure you order the correct body side (left/right)!

--
Peace. ~G
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I agree, but this isn't how our legal system is supposed to be based. If the law isn't clear the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the civilian. We need to force our public servants to start thinking this way again.

I am not going to live in fear of what some rogue cop or prosecutor is going to charge or think.

1 - when there is doubt about what the law means, the proper thing to do is look at what the courts have previously decided it means. That's "case law" for the one or two who never heard the term before. There is no "If the law isn't clear the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the civilian" in the legal system, just what the law says plus what the courts say the law says. (BTW - when in court you are called a defendant, not a civilian. :>) )

2 - If we are going to force our everybody towards any specific way of thinking, might I suggest that we start with eliminating the completely false notion of "civilian" vs. "any-other-category-you-want-to-claim-to-be"? Unless you are in the military, you are a civilian. Cops are merely folks we have hired to enforce the laws for us so we can spend more time doing other stuff, and legislators are folks we have hired to write laws and set taxes because we are too lazy to do much except complain about what they have done to us. Cops are marginally easier to get fired when their behavior becomes intolerablly illegal.

Please pick up your certificates on the way out. This lecture qualifies for three (3) of the four (4) credits you need to fulfill your Knowledge of Civics class requirement.

stay safe.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
1 - when there is doubt about what the law means, the proper thing to do is look at what the courts have previously decided it means. That's "case law" for the one or two who never heard the term before. There is no "If the law isn't clear the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the civilian" in the legal system, just what the law says plus what the courts say the law says. (BTW - when in court you are called a defendant, not a civilian. :>) )

2 - If we are going to force our everybody towards any specific way of thinking, might I suggest that we start with eliminating the completely false notion of "civilian" vs. "any-other-category-you-want-to-claim-to-be"? Unless you are in the military, you are a civilian. Cops are merely folks we have hired to enforce the laws for us so we can spend more time doing other stuff, and legislators are folks we have hired to write laws and set taxes because we are too lazy to do much except complain about what they have done to us. Cops are marginally easier to get fired when their behavior becomes intolerablly illegal.

Please pick up your certificates on the way out. This lecture qualifies for three (3) of the four (4) credits you need to fulfill your Knowledge of Civics class requirement.

stay safe.

Good post Skid and I agree with the definition of civilian you provide, and use it sarcastically, to make a point in certain scenarios. Unfortunately we seem to have many in "authority" who feel differently.

There are plenty of case law I don't trust either. Our legal system is supposed to be clear and concise. It is supposed to restrict the government over the governed. Sayings like "ignorance is no excuse" is very very bad, ignorance is an excuse. Allowing police and prosecutors and judges to stretch laws to cover innocent actions of other "civilians" is very anti liberty and immoral. When in doubt the "perp" shouldn't even be brought to court.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
There is no "If the law isn't clear the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the civilian" in the legal system, just what the law says plus what the courts say the law says.

Did you possibly overlook this:
Rule of Lenity
In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987); See, e.g., Muscarello v. U.S., 524 U.S. 125 (1998) (declining to apply the rule of lenity); Evans v. U.S., 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting); Scarborough v. U.S., 431 U.S. 563 (1977) (Stewart, J., dissenting); See United States v. Santos (2008).

It may be true that there is no "law" but when it comes to how a Judge or Court resolved an ambiguity in law there certainly is a "Rule".
 
Top