Oklahoma Voters could decide fate of "Open Carry" gun law

KillShot

KillShot

Well-Known Fanatic
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
665
Location
Tulsa, Ok
The voters of Oklahoma could soon get the chance to decide the fate of the "Open Carry" law in Oklahoma after the passage of House Bill 1796 in which the House Public Safety Committee unanimously approved on Wednesday.

Read About It - KJRH Channel 2 - Tulsa
 
Register to hide this ad
In a way, I kind of wish this wasn't going to a vote of the people. There are so many sheeple and so much mis-information out there this could fail and, if it does, that will be used by the anti-gun campaign as propaganda.
 
PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE

Please read the text of this bill. It is not just a bill to allow open carry. IT IS A BILL TO CREATE A HANDGUN LICENSE! Is that what you want.

Remember, before the government can control something, they first have to make it illegal.

Pay attention when you vote


Here is an example of a global change that is made throughout the SDA:

"a person possessing a valid [deleted]concealed[deleted] handgun license pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act"
 
I'm all for open carry. My only concern is how many numbskulls will be running around thinking they're Rooster Cogburn. I like Seeklander's statement on the training. I think there should be some sort of class/training/test one must complete before you open carry. Maybe even just a little like the hunter saftey program we have to take to hunt. I know it's not totally pro 2nd Amendment. But there are just to many people out there that don't take firearm safety to heart.
 
Here is the part that bothers me the most. If the proposed revised language to the SDA would have been in the original SDA back in 96(?) we would have all thrown a fit but now all of a sudden its a good thing because "we get to open carry" [yeah, with a license]
 
Licenses and permits are just another way of saying essentially "let's ask our benevolent government for permission". Just fork over some cash (if you're not poor and have the funds), your fingerprints and other biometrics and there ya go... you now can say the 2A isn't being infringed upon by the state of Oklahoma.

If a person wants to be intellectually honest, permits and licenses are an infringement. Oddly enough, they weren't required by any state when the 2A was ratified. So what changed? Jim Crow laws as a means of keeping new "freemen" from having firearms and threatening white folk with their freedom.
 
I'm going to carry my 2011 open gun in a ghost holster. Even a smart criminal would be scared of one of those space guns.
 
I had a lot of thoughts going through my head at varying speeds and trajectories so I tried to place them all in a coherent order. Click Here for my blog on the topic of Open Carry and HB1796

BC
 
I don't know why I have to have permission from anybody to take advantage of the 2nd ammendment rights I have.

My brain is a little fuzzy about the exact year, but I believe it was 1976 when Okla did away with the open carry we had back in the day.
I don't remember if it was a vote of the people, or a legislative issue. I'll have to do a little research and get back to this thread.

Nobody walked down the street with a hog leg strapped on their hip when it was legal. I don't believe 99.99% of the people in this day and time will either. You will always have the wanna-be bad asses though. :angry:
 
While I support open carry I do not like the way it is spelled out. I do not see myself taking advantage of open carry but I think we should have open carry.
 
Well if open carry passes, I think I am gonna carry my grandpa's old 2nd Gen PeaceMaker in a quickdraw rig.
 
In today's world I doubt we ever get any law written the way it should be without ten different crappy other items from other agendas attached so I'm voting yes because we may not ever get the opportunity to do so. Personally I won't open carry but I don't want to have to worry about someone seeing my gun print and then call the police on me. I don't care if I have to get a license I think most people should have to take a TDSA or USSA class before they can carry so a license stops the lazy unserious ones. Heck if it were up to me I'd issue a license to reproduce. I will also say that I think our oversized wastefull government agencies are not as efficient as they should or could be in issuing and enforcing permits and licenses which leads to a lot of waste and general BS.
 
Jesse Tischauser said:
In today's world I doubt we ever get any law written the way it should be without ten different crappy other items from other agendas attached so I'm voting yes because we may not ever get the opportunity to do so. Personally I won't open carry but I don't want to have to worry about someone seeing my gun print and then call the police on me. I don't care if I have to get a license I think most people should have to take a TDSA or USSA class before they can carry so a license stops the lazy unserious ones. Heck if it were up to me I'd issue a license to reproduce. I will also say that I think our oversized wastefull government agencies are not as efficient as they should or could be in issuing and enforcing permits and licenses which leads to a lot of waste and general BS.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with the first part of your post.

Since you're okay with a licensing requirement, you may want to reread the 2A and see where a license and training are mentioned. And ask yourself which founding father would have sought a permit or license from his state government to bear arms.

And finally you end by saying .gov is wasteful with regards to enforcing permits and licenses. But you're okay with them adding a license to a natural right...
 
DutchWrangler said:
I'll agree with the first part of your post.
Click to expand...
I am glad we can agree on that. :singing:

DutchWrangler said:
Since you're okay with a licensing requirement, you may want to reread the 2A and see where a license and training are mentioned. And ask yourself which founding father would have sought a permit or license from his state government to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Our founding fathers would never have said anything about permits for guns but them where the good ole days when people had a much greater need for defending not only themselves from criminals but the country as well from foreign attacks and they where hunters and gatherers. So their firearms were a necessity in daily life for most people. Today firearms get used much more for sport than for the necessity to eat or to actually defend one's life. So the founding fathers meaning argument is very easy for the opposition to use against our 2A rights from my perspective. Unfortunately our founding fathers are not here today to tell us how their ideals and beliefs would be interpreted in todays society. So instead we get to argue about it on forums. :great:

DutchWrangler said:
And finally you end by saying .gov is wasteful with regards to enforcing permits and licenses. But you're okay with them adding a license to a natural right...
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong . I would much rather not have to get a license personally but I am not against someone needing a permit to carry. There are a bunch of people out there that need to learn how to use their pistols before they should be allowed to carry them concealed or in the open. Heck I think they should require training or need to pass a simple shooting test to purchase a pistol in the first place. I see guys at matches and ranges all the time that can't operate their own gun correctly. How is having a gun they can't load going to help them defend their life? A good bluff maybe???

I know that a permit or required training goes against the 2A right we all have but people also have a right to be safe from an AD in walmart. So you have to address the safety conerns with anyone being allowed to carry a gun they may not be able to use properly. I would much rather the permit require a training class along with the do this, don't do that class that is currently required.

Unfortunately the chances of us getting free carry anytime soon are slim. We gun owners have to prove to the naysayers that we can responsibly carry OPEN before they would even draft a bill to have free carry.

So give us a permit to carry now and then lets go fight to get rid of the permits for those of us that can prove that we can carry a gun in public without being a danger to ourselves and those around us.
 
Jesse Tischauser said:
Unfortunately the chances of us getting free carry anytime soon are slim. We gun owners have to prove to the naysayers that we can responsibly carry OPEN before they would even draft a bill to have free carry.

So give us a permit to carry now and then lets go fight to get rid of the permits for those of us that can prove that we can carry a gun in public without being a danger to ourselves and those around us.
Click to expand...

This is a sound principle on the surface, except we know from experience that when .gov takes over something it is much harder to ever get it back than if we fought to reject the action in the first place. Of course my logic is kind of flawed because we ALREADY have the permit
 
Jesse, the right to bear arms has everything to do with ensuring one's personal defense and KEEPING the government in fear of WE the People.

Dates on a calendar may have changed... but the inclination for tyranny never has nor will ever abate.

Either one stands behind the 2A with 100% agreement or one waffles on it by "conceding" to those in .gov that permits and licenses "make sense" and ensure "safety".

We already have the legislation for free carry. It's called 'natural law" ... it's reaffirmed by the 2A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Random media

IMG_0132.JPG
Sistema Colt (1927) - 001.JPG
1911bb.jpg
nighthawk.JPG
20210223_144148.jpg
06A117B3-6A9C-4C3A-BC0A-04DC73D83BBA.jpeg
20240622_193548.jpg
Back
Top