qcpunk,
I still do not understand how you feel that a shirt covering a firearm changes anything at all. How is a law abiding citizen who is allowed to carry a gun with a shirt over it, without a license, any more dangerous than a law abiding citizen who is allowed to carry that exact same gun, in the exact same places, with a shirt tucked in behind it?
If we are talking about law abiding citizens and not criminals, what difference does a shirt covering the gun make to cause it to be any more dangerous? There are only a few things that are accomplished by requiring a license to conceal carry, when open carry is a free option:
1. It brings revenue to the state.
2. It keeps CCW training instructors in business.
3. It prevents law abiding citizens from exercising the choice to conceal carry if they want too, without having to pay for the privilege.
4. It provides a minor add-on charge to another criminal act - IE, the criminal who possesses a concealed firearm during the commission of another crime.
I still do not understand how you feel that a shirt covering a firearm changes anything at all. How is a law abiding citizen who is allowed to carry a gun with a shirt over it, without a license, any more dangerous than a law abiding citizen who is allowed to carry that exact same gun, in the exact same places, with a shirt tucked in behind it?
If we are talking about law abiding citizens and not criminals, what difference does a shirt covering the gun make to cause it to be any more dangerous? There are only a few things that are accomplished by requiring a license to conceal carry, when open carry is a free option:
1. It brings revenue to the state.
2. It keeps CCW training instructors in business.
3. It prevents law abiding citizens from exercising the choice to conceal carry if they want too, without having to pay for the privilege.
4. It provides a minor add-on charge to another criminal act - IE, the criminal who possesses a concealed firearm during the commission of another crime.