Currently existing snippet of 790 said:
The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.
I don't see the problem. This is almost the exact language that is in the Ky. CC law and I've never heard of anybody (LEO or judge) attempting to extend this to OC in the 15 years we have had CC. Even if they "try" to extend it to OC, it's black letter law, it means what it says. Any LEO who would try to twist this to mean OC requires you to carry a license would twist any wording to arrest you. No one has mentioned it because no one thinks it would be completely turned on its head. I think your worries are unfounded.
Let us not get ahead of ourselves.
I'm actually covering multiple subjects here.
This is actually a part of the CURRENT law. It DOES NOT allow OC.
However, if the proposed OC Bill DOES pass as written, it WOULD NOT remove the word "concealed" from the CURRENT law that I quoted above.
It CURRENTLY provides for a Demand of ID and Permit for CC. If passed DOES NOT provide Authority to demand ID and Permit for OC. This section remains intact, and ID/Permit demand authority would exist only for CC.
Of course, that is exactly as it should be. Just like Driving a Car does not give RAS to pull over anyone and 'check them out to see if they're allowed to drive.' The Officer must have RAS of a Crime, they can't fish for RAS. Well, not legally anyway...
What I'm looking at is the most likely modes of failure that could exist, and how we can be prepared for them on Day 1.
If this Bill passes as written, and the above quoted section of existing law is not reworded:
1) It makes the Statute stand up to current findings that merely having a gun is not RAS. The Statute will not have to be challenged to pass 4th Amendment muster. The Statute is in compliance with settled law.
2) An Officer who demands ID and Permit under Color of Law from an OCer with no RAS or PC of a crime, would have breached the 4th. Since this is a matter of settled law, said Officer would be open to a 1983/42 suit.
If that one little word gets removed then the new Statute would provide that ID and Permit can be demanded of OCers, there is going to be a big mess, and the Officer and Prosecutor will have Qualified Immunity. The law will end up being changed
back to it's form in the proposed Bill to account for currently settled law at the expense of some poor Citizen who didn't do anything wrong. Said Citizen not being able to recoup any losses due to Qualified Immunity of a Statute created in defiance of settled law. Or worse; if said citizen cannot afford a defense from such predation (me).
Lets pray it passes as written. One word changes, and it'll be a disaster.