Thread: Open Carry Law Set to Pass

Originally Posted by MadMonk

^^^^
Though, the same could be said about the driver of a car.

Likewise, the person who knows where to strike a firm blow, and is willing to do so.

Originally Posted by MadMonk

^^^^
Though, the same could be said about the driver of a car.

Except for design, purpose and intent. In other words, not really. I said it was the point of carrying a weapon and it is:

Anyone carrying a loaded weapon is a deadly threat with zero to a couple of seconds from potentially being an imminent deadly threat. That's the point in carrying.

Any one who drives a car with that point is a menace to society.

Shame you can't own up to the truth.

Originally Posted by kevinpate

Likewise, the person who knows where to strike a firm blow, and is willing to do so.

No reason whatsoever to carry a weapon then.

Interesting how the proponents do not want to own up to the nature and purpose of carrying a loaded gun.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

No reason whatsoever to carry a weapon then.

i don't carry a weapon .. (based one where i work) .. but i 100% support the right to do so ...

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Interesting how the proponents do not want to own up to the nature and purpose of carrying a loaded gun.

I think all of us who carry would own up if you kept to the context of the post. I am most definitely a threat to the life of anyone trying to do physical harm to me or my family. I am not any threat whatsoever to any officer of the law or anyone else that might be in the area.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Interesting how the proponents do not want to own up to the nature and purpose of carrying a loaded gun.

The reason I carry a loaded weapon is to protect my life and the lives of my family should I be faced with an imminent deadly threat. My intent is NOT to use it -- and I sincerely and desperately hope that I never have to. However, if someone else's life-threatening choices and actions force me to make that deadly decision, I will exercise my right to protect myself and my DUTY to protect my loved ones.

My fists will likely not be sufficient to stop an armed intruder or attacker. My kitchen knives will likely not be sufficient to stop an armed intruder or attacker. The police response -- as good as it may be -- may not be quick enough to be sufficient to stop an armed intruder or attacker. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

I have locks to help protect me and my family. I have an alarm to help protect me and my family. I have dogs to help protect me and my family. But none of those things can ultimately protect me from an armed intruder -- especially a desperate and/or drugged-up one -- the same way a loaded firearm can.

Do I want to use it in a deadly force situation? Absolutely not. But I also don't want to be defenseless, especially when the lives of my wife and daughters hang in the balance.

I have been a victim of an assault with a deadly weapon in my younger, pre-married, pre-fatherhood days. There was no help around, at least that could help me in time. I was helpless. My fists would likely have only made the problem worse. I was fortunate that it only resulted in a beating and a robbery and that THIS felon didn't see it necessary to take it any further. However, not all felons are so "kind" and "generous." I don't want to ever be in a situation where I have to depend on the bad guy's "good humor," "good mood," or general "good will" to survive.

If you don't want to carry a gun, fine. I respect that. But why would you deprive me of the ability to have at least a fighting chance to protect myself and my precious loved ones? That I cannot respect.

SB1733 was signed by the governor today and will take effect Nov 1, 2012.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

No reason whatsoever to carry a weapon then.

Oh, don't devolve into abject silliness. You're so much better than that. There is a time/place for hand combat. Like using a firearm, it is not appropriate in all circumstances.

I fully concede to having held significant concerns when concealed carry by permit was being debated for enactment here, and for a spell afterwards. I've since seen, as have we all, such concerns have proven to be unwarranted. We're ot the wild west. we're not seeing shootouts between angry permit carriers. We're not hearing of firearms being forcibly taken off rubes who had no business carrying then being used to commit crimes by others. In short, it turned out to be no big deal.

Upon signing of the act, the sole difference I can see in the law now and after signing is some folks who would otherwise wear a firearm concealed will now have the option to also wear their firearms in full view.

The sun still rises in the east. Firearm crime is unlikely to rise.As far as some hick with a complex packing heat, he probably was next to you in line at a store yesterday, but you simply did not see it.

If it is a real problem for someone, s/he can treat firearm friendly establishments the same way some non-smokers treat smoker friendly establishments. Spend one's money elsewhere and advise the owner why one chooses not to trade there.

FWIW, while I like firearms, I don't carry. Never have sought a permit. Likely never will. I've simply lost my concerns regarding those who do choose to carry.

What is the law on where one can and can't carry CCW? I know Federal and State buildings, banks, schools and bars but what else is off limits? Can a store owner simply put up a sign saying no weapons and is that legal?

Banks are not off limits. Banks are private businesses so unless they post, they are not off limits.

here is the list of prohibited places:

1. Any structure, building, or office space which is owned or leased by a city, town, county, state, or federal governmental authority for the purpose of conducting business with the public;

2. Any meeting of any city, town, county, state or federal officials, school board members, legislative members, or any other elected or appointed officials;

3. Any prison, jail, detention facility or any facility used to process, hold, or house arrested persons, prisoners or persons alleged delinquent or adjudicated delinquent;

4. Any elementary or secondary school;

5. Any sports arena during a professional sporting event;

6. Any place where pari-mutuel wagering is authorized by law; and

7. Any other place specifically prohibited by law.

To add to hrdware's post, you can find more detail information here, a link to the final version of the bill: http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf...1733 ENR.DOC.

To specifically answer your question about businesses, the new legislation does not change the original language in the most recent version of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act.

TITLE 21 § 1290.22 BUSINESS OWNER’S RIGHTS

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.

B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.

Thanks !!

As an 18 year old born and raised in a quiet small town who will be moving to the SW side of Oklahoma City to attend OCCC next fall, I couldnt be more upset with Mary Fallin than I am now. That side of Oklahoma City has too many dangerous people and now I'll be scared for my life coming out of my apartment just by having a hoodie on. Does she want more cases like Travon to come up? She just really ticked me off!

Originally Posted by SoonerBoy18

As an 18 year old born and raised in a quiet small town who will be moving to the SW side of Oklahoma City to attend OCCC next fall, I couldnt be more upset with Mary Fallin than I am now. That side of Oklahoma City has too many dangerous people and now I'll be scared for my life coming out of my apartment just by having a hoodie on. Does she want more cases like Travon to come up? She just really ticked me off!

What?? You should be afraid of the criminals not the law abiding citizen. The same people carrying concealed today will be the ones that will be able to carry openly on Nov 1. Just because you couldn't see their gun you wouldn't have been afraid of them?? That doesn't make much sense to me. Just don't go around threatening and attacking people and it won't be an issue for you.

Originally Posted by hrdware

What?? You should be afraid of the criminals not the law abiding citizen. The same people carrying concealed today will be the ones that will be able to carry openly on Nov 1. Just because you couldn't see their gun you wouldn't have been afraid of them?? That doesn't make much sense to me. Just don't go around threatening and attacking people and it won't be an issue for you.

Some people are going to take full advantage of this law.. Foolishly just wait and see.

Soonerboy, as you are 18, for the vast majority of your life it's a reasonable bet you have wandered around, hoodie or no hoodie, twixt and tween folks who were strapped, but who carried their handgun concealed from view.

As you just typed your worries today, it is also a fair bet no one has gunned you down and you're safe, sound and amongst the living. Why oh why if you've lived nearly all of your life walking around folks who may, or may not, have been wearing a sidearm, would you suddenly find a fear merely in actually knowing some of them definitely are.

Not to be mean toward your fear, but if it is going to exist, it's probably better to fret over folks who don't visibly because that group includes the lawful concealers and the unlawful concealers, the latter quite likely being more prone to mischief and mayhem.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-governor-...rticle/3675750



Gov. Mary Fallin signed into law Tuesday a measure that allows Oklahomans to openly carry handguns.


Article Gallery: Oklahoma governor signs open-carry bill into law
The measure, Senate Bill 1733, allows those who are licensed to carry a firearm under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act to openly carry a weapon or conceal it.
It also allows a property owner to openly carry a handgun on his or her land. No concealed carry permit would be required.
To receive a license under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, applicants must take a firearms safety and training course and submit to a background check by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors may not receive a handgun license.
The measure takes effect Nov. 1.
Oklahoma is the 25th state with either “permissive open carry” laws, or no permit required, or “licensed open carry,” which requires a permit. Oklahoma now joins Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii and Massachusetts as a “licensed open carry” state.
“As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and a gun owner myself, I'm happy to sign this bill into law and grant law-abiding citizens the ability to openly carry firearms,” Fallin said. “Senate Bill 1733 sends a strong message that Oklahoma values the rights of its citizens to defend themselves, their family and their property. It does so in a responsible way, by requiring those citizens who choose to ‘open carry' to undergo both firearms training and a background check.”

Originally Posted by kevinpate

Oh, don't devolve into abject silliness. You're so much better than that.

My thoughts exactly when you fired off the false equivalence I was responding to.

Now the bad guys know who to shoot first.

Sad day. This governor has done more to validate Oklahomas ignorance, racism and lack of progressive initiatives than any other that I can remember. Vigilante justice now sanctioned by the State. Predict she will pardon that pharmicist before long.

SoonerBoy18, Double Edge, et al.:

Please point to specific news accounts, law enforcement data and/or reputable studies and statistics quantifying the explosion of violence, chaos and lawlessness that has occurred in the following states that preceded Oklahoma as "licensed open carry" states: Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii and Massachusetts.

Great day for conceal carry holders, printing is no longer an issue and if you weapon becomes exposed you won't be charged with a misdemeanor.

Originally Posted by dcsooner

Sad day. This governor has done more to validate Oklahomas ignorance, racism and lack of progressive initiatives than any other that I can remember. Vigilante justice now sanctioned by the State. Predict she will pardon that pharmicist before long.

Do you hold the following states in such low disregard as well?

(As I pointed out earlier) Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii and Massachusetts, all of whom preceded Oklahoma as "licensed open carry" states.

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Alaska, North Carolina, Nevada, and Kentucky, which are "permissive open carry" states (which means the states have passed full preemption regarding all firearm laws; these states permit open carry to all law-abiding citizens without a criminal record without any special permit or firearms license).

Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, which are considered "open-carry-friendly" states.