The current law only applies to intentional failure to conceal, which puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. It don't get any better than that, unless they completely remove the requirement to conceal. IMO, that would be the real value of open carry.Heartland Patriot wrote:I think that the CHL system is adequate, but there are obvious issues...I read about a forum member who had a run in with some LEOs based upon his weapon being spotted DESPITE being okay to have where he was AND being concealed. The accidental/incidental exposure issue probably limits more folks than anything else; simply fear of discovery (and yes, I know, CONCEALED IS CONCEALED). I think if they could simply add a phrase like this "A reasonable effort to comply with the intent of concealment of the handgun shall be a defense to prosecution." would go a long way to addressing the problem and hopefully limit problems to those who just ignored the laws and basically let it hang out there. Then the heat has to be on them to prove you DIDN'T make a reasonable effort to comply, that is, innocent until PROVEN guilty. Yes, other things need fixing/adding like the parking lot issue, but a cleanup of the language would be really nice. A tiered system is simply overkill and unnecessary.
If an unscrupulous LEO decides to arrest you, it doesn't much matter to him what the charge is.