Since 166.250 generally prohibits concealed carry without a license
166.370 Prohibits carry in "public building" as defined in 166.360
166.370 specifically exempts CHL holders
THEN WHY do we have 166.380? If the person with the firearm presents a CHL then they are authorized to carry the weapon in/on the public building loaded or otherwise. If they do NOT have the CHL then they are not allowed to carry whether it's loaded or not.
So why have 166.390 when the extra handling of the weapon, by an officer who may be totally unfamiliar with it's operation,decreases safety?
Doesn't it make more sense to simply require that a CHL holder provide the CHL to an officer if in/on a public building and the officer requests it? No CHL equals violation, CHL in posession equals "have a nice day" without removing a loaded weapon from a holster by (I'm not taking it out, he is) an officer who may cause a discharge due to not being familiar with it's operation.
"The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
"Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.