Proposed bill would revoke need for carry permit in Oklahoma

Burk Cornelius

Regular guy
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
13,073
Location
Edmond/OKC
Now we're talking, although I don't care for them referring to Piers Morgan. Why give the english douchebag the satisfaction.

http://www.wireshots.com/archives/7441

(c) wireshots.com

A State Senator has filed legislation that he says would ‘reaffirm Oklahomans’ Second Amendment rights’ by not requiring law-abiding citizens to obtain a gun license.

State Sen. Nathan Dahm filed Senate Bill 1473, or what he calls the “Piers Morgan Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Without Infringement Act”.

The bill proposes to allow citizens over the age of 18 to open carry loaded or unloaded guns without a license for hunting and target shooting. The bill would also cover military or law enforcement functions; for practice or performance for entertainment purposes; or for lawful self-defense purposes.

“The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and yet when we require our citizens to jump through hoops, pay fees and undergo a process that presumes they’re guilty of something until proven otherwise, their rights are being infringed upon,” Dahm said in a press release. “Senate Bill 1473 simply says Oklahomans can carry firearms in all the places currently allowed by law, but they will no longer be required to obtain a license to do so.”

If the bill passes, gun-free zones like schools and government facilities would still be off-limits.

After learning of the act, Piers morgan tweeted “unbelievable” followed by an invitation to Dahm to come on his show to debate the act: “Hi Senator [twitter]NathanDahm[/twitter] â€" come on my show and debate your new ‘Piers Morgan Act’. If you have the guts.”

(c) wireshots.com
 
Register to hide this ad
Agreed that it's time to get this passed once and for all. I particularly liked the spirit of Dahm's comments to the effect that the application/background check/finger printing process pre-supposes guilt. I would have rather he stated something to the effect that the mere possession of a firearm does not pre-suppose criminality. That, in my mind, is what is really at the heart of constitutional carry: If you're a prohibited person and are caught carrying a gun you get an extra charge. If you're a normal walking around person who's not prohibited under an already exsiting law, then you're as gold as the goose and have a nice day, please.

Apparently, Dahm will be on his show via satellite on Monday night. I'm sure that was a fantastic idea.
 
How would this effect concealed carry? Would there still be requirement for license?

Personally, I'm still on the fence when it comes to open carry. I would prefer concealed carry, if I was so inclined to carry at all. To me open carry creates a target for the crazies. I also don't mind the licensing thing.
 
I am not sure how I feel about this. First of all this allows for anyone 18 and over to carry but under Oklahoma you have to be 21 to possess a handgun. To me after reading the law I see a lot of idiots walking around with shotguns and rifles now. Also I do not mind the background check and application process in the least because I helps me know that when I see someone with a firearm I can be confident the state has done its best to prove this person is not a threat. Without that process anyone will now be able to carry.
 
StealthESW said:
How would this effect concealed carry? Would there still be requirement for license?

Personally, I'm still on the fence when it comes to open carry. I would prefer concealed carry, if I was so inclined to carry at all. To me open carry creates a target for the crazies. I also don't mind the licensing thing.
what we are talking about here is a concept called "Consitutional Carry". In a nut shell... own and carry any firearm as you please, when you please and how you please.

Pretty much what Arizona, Alaska and New Hampshire have done for eons. This proposed law allows you to act as a free Citizen as far as your USCON Amendment 2 rights go.

The man sums it up (and the ACLU of all folks agrees)... in essence a "Self defense Permit" is a tax that limits ones abilty to protect oneself. It's prejudicial.

I really wish some of you folks would learn that this is not about your preference to carry open or closed. It's not a matter of tactical advantage. It's not an argument about becoming the "first one shot" in a robbery or such. It's about your basic unalienable rights- given by our Creator- and defined by law at the time our Federal Government was born.
 
Josh Beauchamp said:
I am not sure how I feel about this. First of all this allows for anyone 18 and over to carry but under Oklahoma you have to be 21 to possess a handgun. To me after reading the law I see a lot of idiots walking around with shotguns and rifles now. Also I do not mind the background check and application process in the least because I helps me know that when I see someone with a firearm I can be confident the state has done its best to prove this person is not a threat. Without that process anyone will now be able to carry.
Time for a reality check. Take a ride over to Phoenix AZ and get back with me. In states that allow Consitutional Carry, we see no evidence of crimes increasing, just cause the law is what it is. Real Criminals will aways be criminals.

Fix the law...the ass clown who's making a "statmeny"oes away. You simply don't see many open guns in states that allow it... and those that need to make a "statement" have no reason to continue acting like ass hats. The cops get on board, bad guys get a lot more cautious as the odds are "everyone is armed' and crime goes down.

Permits are simply a revenue source... and if your politics change... registration of guns or people (as any CW or SDA law does) are the first step to confiscation if the Government become tyranical.


In fact- we were one procedural twist from getting a similar bill passed when we got open carry modified in the SDA last time.

It may bother some of you that some of us are adamant about this kind of thing. YOU are a SPECIAL INTEREST group if you want to keep a gun for any reason... when they take one they will eventually take em all.
 
Josh Beauchamp said:
I am not sure how I feel about this. First of all this allows for anyone 18 and over to carry but under Oklahoma you have to be 21 to possess a handgun. To me after reading the law I see a lot of idiots walking around with shotguns and rifles now. Also I do not mind the background check and application process in the least because I helps me know that when I see someone with a firearm I can be confident the state has done its best to prove this person is not a threat. Without that process anyone will now be able to carry.
US Citizens 18 years of age can legally possess handguns (in free states). They can legally purchase them from other individuals of their own state (seconary market / private sales). Must be 21 to purchase from an FFL.

Indiana allows 18 year olds to recieve their state CCW permit.
 
Jeff you need you need to back off the rhetoric a bit. I may be part of a "special interest group" but my opinion is no less valid and it is people who have attacked me and my opinions on constitutional carry who have led to me having those opinions.
 
I'm a constitutional carry person.

My government decided I was old enough and mature enough to carry a M16 into combat at 18 years old when I got drafted, although the same people decided I wasn't old enough to vote.

I celebrated my 21st birthday in a muddy fox hole filling out my absentee ballot giving those younger than me the ability to vote for those that put us there.

Bring it on.

I certainly hope our legislator has done his homework as its hard to debate an anti who's entire offense is "why do you feel the need to have a gun in the first place"

Ted Nugent put the POS Morgan in his place, but very few others have had much success. I've watched several of these interviews with Morgan.
 
Josh Beauchamp said:
Jeff you need you need to back off the rhetoric a bit. I may be part of a "special interest group" but my opinion is no less valid and it is people who have attacked me and my opinions on constitutional carry who have led to me having those opinions.
Sorry if that hit a nerve. If the "rhetoric" is a problem just remember many of us have sworn an oath to protect your right to express an opinion.
 
It's unfathomable to me when "people who support guns" go with the half hearted approach. #1 I'm not worried about a "crazy" with a gun because I always have mine. Always. #2 give the anti gun crowd an inch and they take a mile. Please have the nerve to tell that is not true.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
All joking aside, I'm going to see what happens with this one. I have no problem with removing the infringment part of 2A laws. I think like everyone else here I would just like to know as much about it as possible, and have an oppertunity to ask questions.

I will say that Peirs Morgans name could have stayed out of it. What does that wanker have to do with it anyway, he's a Britt.
 
It's about time we get rid of all the laws on guns. We have constitutional right to carry and own whatever kind we want. Next they need to get rid of
the ATF's ability to tell us what kind of gun we can have or can't have. I don't care if someone wants to strap 2 fully automatic Thompson submachine
guns on their hips and waltz down mainstreet. Who cares? It's their right and as long as their law abiding what difference does it make? Criminals don't obey
laws, never have and never will. Law abiding types aren't the problem anyway. :yes:
 
Jeff I sworn that same oath that many other before and after me did. Just for me I am not and probably won't ever be fully behind constitutional carry. I live in a town that is routinely ranked among the most violent communities in the country. So yeah if I have to a little work to prove to the state I should be able to carry a gun so be it. I had to pass the same background checks and provide the same fingerprints when I joined the Army, again when I got my commission and had to get a security clearance, and again when I got my current job. It also gives me a little piece of mind when I am out with my loved ones that the person who just walked past me OCing that glock went through the same process. If that makes me a bad America and not a real supporter of The Constitution the so be it.
 
Podman said:
I don't care if someone wants to strap 2 fully automatic Thompson submachine
guns on their hips and waltz down mainstreet. Who cares? It's their right and as long as their law abiding what difference does it make? Criminals don't obey
laws, never have and never will :yes:
Because right now there is no way to tell if some one is law abiding or not. You want constitutional carry fine but add the stipulation that you have to provide identification to law enforcement when asked for it.
 
Josh Beauchamp said:
Because right now there is no way to tell if some one is law abiding or not. You want constitutional carry fine but add the stipulation that you have to provide identification to law enforcement when asked for it.
Not trying to bash you Josh but there will never be a time when we can tell if someone is law abiding or not. Now, if we open carry we could be asked to produce a license to do so. The same is true for concealed carry, but if it is concealed how are they going to know to ask for a license? I'm not likely to carry open but if someone gets a peek at my concealed I am not in violation.
I think the root of the the law is that all the people who now obey the laws are not on the same playing field as those who don't. Lot's of people carry guns who are not allowed to, they don't pay fees to prove they are law abiding and if caught will likely get a slap on the wrist from the courts. Now if people who don't have a license to carry and are other wise law abiding if caught will face penalties.
I am not opposed to complying with a law but why should I when I know that the people we should be worried about don't ever give a elephant dung about any laws.
 
I don't currently see any flashing signs above anyone's head saying that they have a permit when they are open carrying. And as far as living in a violent area well I guess more gun laws sure helped chicago. Go stand next to Obama and fienskank and be one of the X number of gun owners who support "common sense gun laws" those sure sound nice.
 
Back
Top