This is completely inconsistent thinking. It seems like they took all of the ideas regarding open and concealed carry, put them in a bucket and splashed it on a canvas to come up with this bill.johnferg69 wrote:Just got off the phone with Lavenders office, spoke with a staffer named Bryan.
This is what I was told;
The 30.06 wording was removed because their is a question of the constitutionality of 2 different signs for carry even if its 2 different types of carry. If one type of carry is allowed it may be unconstitutional to stop another. This is something they what to clarify and fix as the bill progresses.
The "dual points of resistance" is in reportedly to help get backing from LE agencies. Bryan stated that this one complaint last session with the OC bill. LE is concerned about people who OC being unknowingly disarmed
The unintentional failure to conceal was left in because they want complete concealment or "dual points of resistance" OC. Not lackadaisical conceal carry. This is to help enforce the difference.
My question to Lavenders office would be, so you amend TPC 30.06 to allow OC, but then you put in a holster requirement to be able to OC that isn't there for CC? So effectively you are once again discriminating against one form of carry? Makes no sense.
I agree with Charles and others who have posted already. TPC 30.06 shall not be amended for the sake of OC!!!