Many have asked this question of our AG and none have gotten an answer. It's not just the statute but also the the case law interpreting the statute that has caused the problem. A holstered firearm in plain view is not "concealed" by any rational definition yet according to our brilliant judicial minds it is.
To get this changed either the statute has to change to define aholstered firearm as not "concealed in part"or a court case has to redefine "concealed in part" Both are an uphill battle as evidenced by by Senate bill 2153 which would have removed the prohibition on permit holders from carrying in parks and would have allowed churches to decide for themselves whether or not to allow people to carry in church. SB21 53 passed the Senate by a vote of 48 to 3 and then died in theHouse Judiciary B Committee yesterday never allowing the full house to vote.
Your question is one we need to keep asking and get as many people as we can to ask. We also need to take a more active role in finding and supporting candidates who will work to honor the plain language of our constitution. I don't really see any other way outside of an arrest andcourt case where one man takes the risk for all and works through the appeal process with no guarantees since English grammar is obviously not high on the list of prerequisites for serving as a Supreme Court Justice here.