Do these Chicken Littlettes actually read what they write and then compare that to existing law before they post their objection? (76-10-523(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e)"If their weapon isn't secured safely," she said, "It's just one of those incidents where I think the risk of something going wrong or someone deliberately using it in a bad way is higher than any change of it preventing any sort of crime."
Do ya think semantics would, as the law is currently written, keep a OCer out of the slammer? It does specifically state that concealing a gat is bad.(4)(a) A person who boards a bus with a concealed dangerous weapon or firearm upon his person or effects is guilty of a third degree felony being a low-down dirty rotten snake in the grass, that a CCer is and will be compelled, under penalty of law, to openly carry the dangerous weapon or firearm. The penalty for failure to OC is buying three boxes (minimum of 12 doughnuts) of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts and delivering them to the nearest LEA facility. The guilty will be provided a reasonable amount of time to acquire and deliver the doughnuts, under police escort.
(4)(b) The prohibition of Subsection (4)(a) does not apply to:
(i) individuals listed in Subsections 76-10-523(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e);
(ii) a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon; or
(iii) persons in possession of weapons or firearms with the consent of the owner of the bus or the owner's agent, or the lessee or bailee of the bus.
(iV) folks who are OCing.