I would agree with you except for one pesky little fact.apvonkanel wrote:Honestly, objecting to this bill due to "carve outs" for certain people seems like opposing open carry for LTC because it isn't constitutional carry. Every one of us with an LTC benefits from a "carve out", yet none of us are opposed having one. Everyone that had a CHL benefited from a carve out, then the liberty of the carve out was expanded with no prosecution for accidental reveals, and even more with open-carry.
Removing all restrictions at once just isn't going to happen. Be realistic here. John Q. Public needs to be baby-stepped, otherwise the backlash will put us even further from the goal. Whittling away at the restrictions is feasible, especially if it's supported across the board. If you whittle enough, you end up with nothing. In this case, the "nothing" would be everyone being able to carry in all public spaces. I don't think this bill goes far enough as an end-game, but it's definitely a step in the process.
Carve outs that have been given to attorneys, judges, ect. have not eventually been granted to us "less than equal" LTC holders. If there were carve outs that later led to expanded general rights, then I would be on board with this form of incrementalism.
That being said, I support emergency responders being given a carve out while they are on duty. They can be responding to some pretty dicey situations with no warning. As a former Paramedic, I can say there have been several calls where it would have been prudent to be armed.