So this would be ok:johnferg69 wrote: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.
And this is not?:
I think the bill is fixable....
I ask myself... Am I willing to trade 30.06 clarity for OC?
I answer myself.... Possibly yes.
I am certainly worried that we'll see a lot more gunbuster signs initially.
But when business is down and there is no bloodshed, will the signs come down?
There is, IMHO, a LOT of value in the non-carrying public "seeing" guns carried by law abiding people. I don't think folks realize how many people in TX have a permit (1 in 50 or so)... I think it would go a LONG way to winning the battle of hearts and minds to let non-carrying folks see guns in public being carried by good people.
Does this outweigh the 30.06 problem with this bill? I can see the argument on both sides.. and fixing it would be ideal, but, OC does more good than just simply making my pants fit better.
Mark this as TBD for me. If JohnFerg69's comments reflect the actual opinion of the sponsor, maybe the issues can be fixed.?