I wonder whose idea it was to sneak in a provision that covers long guns, when the bill is about concealed carry of handguns.
If they had written "handgun" instead of "firearm" then it would have made more sense.
Smells really fishy.
Sadly, a lot of supposedly liberty loving "conservatives" are neo-con/libbies in conservative's clothing. A lot of them are not friendly to the "gun crowd" or other liberty-oriented folk, but they do just enough to look like they're on your side, so you'll continue to vote for them. Some bank on the R in front of their name, while being flagrantly opposed to most conservative/republican/libertarian values. They're RINOs of the first order. Its an amazing feat that the folks behind this bill pulled it off, especially given the way the last attempt to get Constitutional carry ended.
The "compromise" crowd gave in to the largely liberal batch of police chiefs, democrats, and those who don't know squat about firearms, or carrying firearms, or who blatantly lie to further a disarmament agenda. But at least the bill passed, and its easier to make tweaks to existing law, than it is to try to get something so "radical" as this passed.
This was a big step - now the focus can turn to fine tuning it to err on the side of liberty again. The restrictions on places you can carry here are frustrating, to say the least. There is no good reason to prohibit lawful carry on school properties, into bars or restaurants, or government meetings. These are not places that typically see shootouts and otherwise law abiding people just popping off. So that can be the battle in the next round.