Proposed bill would revoke need for carry permit in Oklahoma

[JustSayWhen]

This is a lot of the problem with gun owners and pro 2A supporters, when someone has a different opinion that is a gun owner they get bashed for it. Hell it's a problem on both sides of the 2A argument. I am all for constitutional carry but Josh has a different opinion which is fine that is his right and he has clearly served to protect that right. A little bit of advice to the pro-constitutional carry supporters. When someone disagrees with you instead of jumping down their throats and trying to make them sound like idiots, have an educational conversation about the pros and cons of the situation. When you put someone down it makes you sound ignorant and forces someone on the fence not to agree with you. I am more inclined to listen and debate with someone who is respectful and knows their stuff than someone who is putting me down for my opinion. Just a thought... Now carry on, literally and figuratively. Lol.

 

[Squid]

I don't have enough time or desire to write out a full blown politically correct note on my tiny little keyboard phone. Bottom line is one side is rooted in "feelings" and the "well I think". While the other side is rooted in facts. Facts that anti 2A people try to bury and hide. if Josh or anyone else who served in the military can't handle a little elephant dung talkin and dish it right back out I would seriously have to call their service into question. America needs a little more John Wayne and a little less jack johnson.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

See ... "I can't tell if your law abiding or not" is a non sequitur in this discussion.

The fact is:
You really don't know if an OC is legal unless they produce said permit.
You really don't know who has a CC gun on unless they are stopped and checked for said gun

You or I or Andy and Barney don't really know who has what nor does it matter until an action takes place.

Charging for a gun permit, building permit, drivers permit or a dog tag is not a predictor of future performance. A vaccinated dog can get bat bitten the next week and chew up the postman the next day.

For a while I was ambivalent about gun permits as was proud of the fact that my past actions did not preclude me from any license or clearances I've held .... But at some logical level I knew those checks were not a measure of what I could do in the future.

30 years ago I really thought my government was generally looking out for me- even if it meant we would dispose of the odd dictator using nefarious means to do so. The last 6 or 7 years have me seeing that those means can be turned against us.

( maybe my skills are a little edgy... Our kitchen table discussions around an Irish American kitchen table were not for the faint of heart)

 

[Bob Sanders]

I have wrestled with the permit/training/background check thing for a while now. I think I would "feel" better if everyone is vetted before getting a gun. But at another level, I "know" it wouldn't deter a criminal or future criminal. Plus, I'm thinking, why should I have to pay for a class and then pay for a permit to hide my personal defense weapon when I can just strap it on? I do think FFL dealers should have a means to protect themselves though. Instant access database of felons, and perhaps mentally deficient, (who decides the latter is another subject for debate), to run names of properly identified buyers against, I think is better than a background check for law abiding citizens. There should be no indication why check is made, or record of the buyer. If you're not on the list, you get your gun, and the FFL is protected. As for carrying, I think if you're asked for ID, you should provide it. The police are tasked with enforcing laws, and I see no other way to ensure someone is in compliance. But by compliance, I mean not a convicted felon. The 2A should be all the permit one needs.

 

[StealthESW]

I can see this debate from both sides as well, for me this is what makes it hard to take a side on this. The fact that people are vetted with the current system does give some peice of mind, however, even good people can make mistakes. I do agree that it does seem unfair to have to pay for something that is a God given freedom. I think that the money collected goes to some important wildlife conservation programs. I wish there was some middle ground on this, I just don't see any.

I would like to get more information on this, could someone post a link to the proposed bill?

 

[Mitch Rapp]

All other debate aside, would there still be the option to obtain a license for out of state carry?

 

[Wall]

I think I would "feel" better if everyone is vetted before getting a gun.

The fact that people are vetted with the current system does give some peice of mind, however, even good people can make mistakes.

The problem with this is that the people you need to worry about aren't using "the system".
They're getting theirs from the "other system" (A.K.A. the street).

 

[WillR]

Here is another off topic question. People can do horrible damage with a computer. Should it be regulated to purchase one, or registered for a "fast" one?

 

[Wall]

Here is another off topic question. People can do horrible damage with a computer. Should it be regulated to purchase one, or registered for a "fast" one?

Will as smart assey as this is, it brings up a point that bothers me. In Bob's post above, he mentions the FFL needing this system as a means of protecting themselves from selling to "the wrong guy". Walmart doesn't ever need to protect themselves when some wacko kills someone with a butcher knife or a baseball bat. How about the local car dealer that sells a car to an alcoholic that gets drunk & runs someone over?

 

[WillR]

Will as smart assey as this is, it brings up a point that bothers me. In Bob's post above, he mentions the FFL needing this system as a means of protecting themselves from selling to "the wrong guy". Walmart doesn't ever need to protect themselves when some wacko kills someone with a butcher knife or a baseball bat. How about the local car dealer that sells a car to an alcoholic that gets drunk & runs someone over?

All good points.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

Begs a concept .... government cant equal personal responsibility.

 

[dennishoddy]

Just to be the devils advocate(don't kill me, I'm just the messenger)

Should we allow mentally adjudicated people total access to guns?

I know our gubberment is trying to go this direction, even with Veterans that have returned from war zones, and have visited a counselor to talk about their experiences and how it is having an effect on their lives.

It may not be anything more than a visit to see what they can do to cope with what they have seen and what they had to do as a soldier. They are now going to be labeled as unfit to own a firearm

If I'm reading right almost all returning vets from the current war zones are required to attend classes to re-introduce them to civilian life, and participation in those classes under proposed legislation would deny them 2nd amendment rights. If any of you are out here with a current return from the "zone", feel free to correct me.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

Dennis....right now on form 4473 you have to have been committed.

Imho ... what your talking about is wrong and an overreach

To bad we dont have an AG to stop this.... Eric Holders behind a lot of this elephant dung

 

[ChrisC]

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.

You have to be 21 to purchase a pistol. Not possess one.

Just thought I'd clarify in case someone hasn't.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Scott Hearn]

Some good points brought up in here. But I still have my long held opinion that all gun laws are unconstitutional. Every one of them, the actual verbiage is "shall not be infringed".

This discussion was held back in the 1700s and they gave us the 2A anyway. They also saw that we might need to change things and they gave us a way to do that too. That way is changing the Constitution. They made it hard but not impossible, we've just been doing it wrong all along, because passing laws isn't the right way. Change the 2A first, then pass laws that comply. Until they do that I ain't biting...

 

[dennishoddy]

Dennis....right now on form 4473 you have to have been committed.

Imho ... what your talking about is wrong and an overreach

To bad we dont have an AG to stop this.... Eric Holders behind a lot of this elephant dung

I don't disagree, but this is currently in discussion. Holder is just a mouthpiece for obummers agenda. Lets put the blame where it lies.

What I'm reporting is not an over reach. I'm a member of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign wars, and Vietnam Veterans.

Its in intense discussions at the Washington level.

 

[dennishoddy]

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 Without that process anyone will now be able to carry.

You have to be 21 to purchase a pistol. Not possess one.

Just thought I'd clarify in case someone hasn't.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

"First of all this allows for anyone 18 and over to carry but under Oklahoma you have to be 21 to possess a handgun"

Yet your same government says you can go to war with an M-16 and are mature enough to deploy mines, claymores, and any multitude of automatic weapons at the age of 18.

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"

So, the criminal that has a stolen gun is ok with you when you see them hanging one from their hip because you "assume" they are legal carry? They have been through the process right?

Just bringing up debate points. Not trying to get anybody angry.
"

 

[Jefpainthorse]

I don't disagree, but this is currently in discussion. Holder is just a mouthpiece for obummers agenda. Lets put the blame where it lies.

What I'm reporting is not an over reach. I'm a member of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign wars, and Vietnam Veterans.

Its in intense discussions at the Washington level.

Lol... sorry, english is strange language.....Icould not agree with you more

 

[rawhide1]

Rights do not require permission or a license. Rights do require responsibility. Regardless of what any laws states, my right to effectively protect me and mine still exists. If I exercise that right I have a responsibility to do it as effectively and as safely as possible. Permission accompanied by fees will not make me more or less responsible but can prevent me from exercising that right.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

Bingo.....i may have a right, i also have to be respectful of others and responsible

The last 20 years have added so much regulation to make things ironclad that common sense has been regulated out of existsnce

The GCA is all the gun law we need.... just enough to make interstate commerce work- after all, buying a gun by mail order could make things crazy