Pelletier had a permit, so the legality of his caring the weapon, concealed or unconcealed, is not at issue. Rice is commenting on his judgment, not his (nonexistent) status as a criminal, since his actions were entirely legal. Rice also explains why he took issue with the holster type, and for the most part, I agree with him. Please see my post #30, above.
"Pelletier had a permit, so the legality of his caring the weapon, concealed or unconcealed, is not at issue."
So why is Mr Rice so hung up on the holster type and the fact that Pelletier had the gun anyway?
Open carry is legal, period.
"Rice is commenting on his judgment, not his (nonexistent) status as a criminal,"
So why is Mr Rice mentioning the holster type?
And since when is open carry being legal bad judgement?
"and for the most part, I agree with him."
Oh, I see.
Thank you kindly.
“open-carry is not a bright idea,” Rice said. “You are a target. If someone comes in with criminal intent, the first thing he is going to do is neutralize any person with a weapon who can hurt him.”
Evidently he hasn't heard of high profile deterrence.
If one person is vcerrying openly, how many are carrying concealed?