IMO there are only 3 bills that deal with open carry this session.
SB1092 - I think this is the best open carry bill we have this session. It would allow Open Carry after you get a safety card from an NRA instructor or a CWL instructor. The card states that you know how to safely handle a firearm and understand the OK laws. No class requirement or anything, just obtain a safety card.
HB2522 - this is the second choice on the list. It turns the CWL into a firearm license and would allow open or concealed carry. Still have to go through the class and everything.
HB2332 - The most useless thing around if you live in an urban area. This would allow you to open carry anywhere on your own private property. If this passes I can feel safe mowing my lawn as long as I don't step into the street while turning around.
I think Senator Russell will have to jump through some hoops again this year to get SB1092 out of the senate, but if he can get it to the floor, it should pass. If this makes it to the House, I think it will die in the House PSC. The House PSC seems determined it should be linked to the CWL. Last year they wanted officers to be able to stop you and check your permit without RAS of a crime.
HB2522 will probably pass the House PSC, but it will be up to house leadership if they want to bring it up this year. I think they caught a bunch of crap about not letting it on the floor last session. From what I recall, the speaker of the house (Kris Steele) was putting a lot of pressure on other house members to not sign the discharge petition to get it to the floor. Once it gets to the Senate, it would have to come out of the Senate PSC to get a vote and unless the Senate PSC chair has changed his mind, it will probably die. If it makes it to the floor, I think it will pass.
If HB2332 passes, there will still be to much confusion in the law for me to feel comfortable open carrying. This bill adds an item under the When you can carry section of the law that says, For any legitimate purpose on the private property of the person. This language doesn't differ to much from the next item that reads, For any other legitimate purpose not in violation of the Firearms Act of 1971. The problem is legitimate is not defined. If Self-Defense is legitimate on my private property, why would it not be legitimate under the Firearms Act of 1971, and if that's the case, it would already be legal, but we know it isn't due to (bad) case law.
The house did it's interim study over the summer and of the 4 speakers, 2 were concerned about fixing the CC laws, 1 was in favor of OC, and the last, and one that took up the most time, talked about both but personally was more in favor of fixing CC laws so spent more time talking about that.
Rep Tibbs is term limited in the house after this session so if nothing happens this session, hopefully she will be replaced by someone who is friendlier to the 2A than she is. She really got irritated last year when someone accused her of being an anti.