I'll stand by my statement that, in my opinion, only the chairman was supportive. In the Senate, due to the blocker bill, only a small # of senators can prevent the consideration of a bill. At least 1 said he's a CHL holder & doesn't understand why OC is useful.
Speaking of CHLers, you'd think that they would be in heavily in favor of licensed OC. My years of reading and posting on TexasCHLForum tell me that group has mixed feelings on the topic. What this means to me is that within the pro-2A community you don't have solidarity on the issue. Thus our clout is diminished making even a licensed OC bill more difficult to pass.
SA-TX
There is no CC vs. OC, there is liberty and freedom vs. privilege, status, and control. Some CC folks fall into both categories, and so, the
correct statement would be that some CC holders are not part of the pro-2A community. There are many members of OCT, for instance, who hold a CHL, including myself. To question why OC is useful is to not look at issues from the perspective of liberty, which is a problem. Address the true problem to fix the issue.
In my opinion, the sentiments of the NRA guy and the TSRA lady suggest that their ultimate agenda is not liberty, and in this particular case in the incarnation of open carry, but simply that their agenda and the agenda of open carry have aligned as a result of efforts not their own.
I'd be curious to know if the TSRA has ever lobbied for unlicensed concealed carry or tried to have a bill put forth to that effect. That could be another pretty sure tell.