Open Carry Law Set to Pass

[Double Edge]

Not everyone. In the 17 years Oklahoma has had concealed carry, around 170000 permits issued and 160 revocations in that time frame. Also in that same 17 years we have not one single case of a bad shooting under the SDA law.

That's pretty damn close to perfect in my book.

We aren't talking about concealed carry. What stats do you have for people who are going to be affected and change their behavior due to open carry ... chilling effects on environments and interactions, fear of harm, etc.

[SoonerBoy18]

As a 17 year old who was born and raised on southside I can tell you your fears should be non-existant. I can understand why you have the misperception that you are walking straight into your grave by going to OCCC with this bill passed but with all due respect, it's ignorant of you to be any more worried now than you were in the first place. If I were you I would be more worried about getting involved with the gangs than I would be about someone shooting me because I'm wearing a hoodie.

I have been there a few times, yeah it seems not too bad, but lots of people tell me to reconsider going to school down there.

[onthestrip]

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.

Please point to specifics why allowing open carry is necessary.

Fact is its not, there is no reason to allow open carry when you can easily get a concealed carry license. If you want a gun on your hip that bad then become a cop.

[Of Sound Mind]

Please point to specifics why allowing open carry is necessary.

Fact is its not, there is no reason to allow open carry when you can easily get a concealed carry license. If you want a gun on your hip that bad then become a cop.

Is it necessary? No. But should all freedoms or rights be "necessary" in order to be granted them? Are all the things we are presently free to do or having been granted rights to do "necessary" — driving a motor vehicle (which incidentally results in exponentially more deaths in Oklahoma each year than gun-related deaths), boating, fishing, hunting, gambling (from the lottery to casinos), purchasing liquor by the drink (something not allowed everywhere), etc.?

As others have already pointed out previously, not everyone who has a handgun permit will fully exercise their right to openly carry with their handgun fully exposed. Most, like me, prefer not to draw attention to the fact that they are in possession of a firearm — both because we don't necessarily want the bad guys to know and because of others' discomfort or fears around guns. However, with the way the law was previously written, the risk of negative repercussions from an accidental exposure or from "printing" (others possibly recognizing the silhouette of a weapon beneath your clothes) was overly burdensome for legally licensed and legally carrying law-abiding citizens. With this Open Carry amendment, legally licensed and legally carrying law-abiding citizens no longer have to fear losing their license or other penalties for this reason. Additionally, as another poster noted, more options are now available for legally licensed, legally carrying law-abiding citizens to securely, comfortably and conveniently carry their legal handguns — most of whom will continue to carry at least mostly if not entirely concealed (except for possible "printing" to the discerning eye).

Again, as has been repeatedly highlighted, we heard all the horror stories about what would happen if concealed carry passed 17 years ago. What dire consequences did we see come to fruition? Was concealed carry "necessary"? No. But it did grant those who wanted to exercise that right and freedom to arm themselves legally, responsibly and safely to have the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones in the most extreme of circumstances.

If I'm uncomfortable around some drivers (who are in control of something ever bit as deadly as any handgun and many of whom exercise even less responsibility or careful attention while operating than the vast majority of legally licensed, legally carrying law-abiding armed citizens), should I deny them the right or freedom to drive? If I'm uncomfortable with the idea of gambling, should I deny others the right to exercise their freedom to engage in that activity? If I'm uncomfortable with the idea of hunting or fishing for sport because I think it's cruel to animals, should I deny others the right to exercise their freedom to engage in those activities?

If "necessary" or others' comfort with the idea should be the standard, that's a society I don't want to be a part of.

Again, rather than enumerating all the reasons why this right or freedom is "necessary," let's just examine the record of other states who granted this right or permit the freedom to openly carry — "necessary" or not — and determine whether those rights or freedoms have proven to be troublesome or disastrous: Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Alaska, North Carolina, Nevada, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington.

[hrdware]

We aren't talking about concealed carry. What stats do you have for people who are going to be affected and change their behavior due to open carry ... chilling effects on environments and interactions, fear of harm, etc.

I can not be responsible for another persons behavior due to me exercising my rights in a law abiding way. Most people won't even notice the open carry person because they aren't looking for people to be carrying a firearm.

[Double Edge]

I can not be responsible for another persons behavior due to me exercising my rights in a law abiding way. Most people won't even notice the open carry person because they aren't looking for people to be carrying a firearm.

You could be responsible for what you have introduced into society, open carry, but you have chosen to support changing the law, hiding behind that and forcing others to conform to your behavior or distance themselves from what you have created instead. It's their problem now, you betcha. You won, they lost and all that is remaining is for them to use their rights, tell you what they think of your behavior, or not, and try to protect themselves physically and emotionally from the aftermath.

[Of Sound Mind]

You could be responsible for what you have introduced into society, open carry, but you have chosen to support changing the law, hiding behind that and forcing others to conform to your behavior or distance themselves from what you have created instead. It's their problem now, you betcha. You won, they lost and all that is remaining is for them to use their rights, tell you what they think of your behavior, or not, and try to protect themselves physically and emotionally from the aftermath.

The same can be said for a lot of things within our society… like pro-life vs pro-choice... pro-defense vs pro-pacifism... pro gay marriage vs pro traditional marriage... pro drug-free vs pro drug-legalization...

And you continue to hide behind your doomsday, apocalyptic prognostications while never addressing the question asked more than once: What's been the historical record of all those other states who have preceded Oklahoma in granting the right or permitting the freedom to openly carry — Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Alaska, North Carolina, Nevada, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington?

[hrdware]

You could be responsible for what you have introduced into society, open carry, but you have chosen to support changing the law, hiding behind that and forcing others to conform to your behavior or distance themselves from what you have created instead. It's their problem now, you betcha. You won, they lost and all that is remaining is for them to use their rights, tell you what they think of your behavior, or not, and try to protect themselves physically and emotionally from the aftermath.

I work with a guy who can't stand mushrooms. I don't mean he doesn't like the taste of them, I mean he can't even stand the sight of mushrooms. Does that mean I should not eat a mushroom patty melt because of his sensitivity to mushrooms? If I don't like red shirts, should I throw a temper tantrum because people wear red shirts?

If you don't like people being able to exercise their right, then don't look for firearms on people who aren't in uniform and if you should happen to see one, turn and walk the other way.

[MadMonk]

Lots of fear mongering in this thread today. Fortunately, my right to carry a weapon is not dependent on your ability to control an irrational fear.

[Of Sound Mind]

The fascinating thing is that the fear mongering completely ignores the body of historical evidence to the contrary. That's just willful ignorance and/or unreasonable intransigence. It certainly demonstrates that at least one side of this debate no longer is (or may never has been) logical, rational, reasoned that is worthy of thoughtful consideration by anyone on the other side.

[TaoMaas]

Lots of fear mongering in this thread today. Fortunately, my right to carry a weapon is not dependent on your ability to control an irrational fear.

Why do you need to carry a weapon if not fear? Spontaneous target practice? I have no problem with guns, but I do have a problem with this law. To me, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. However, our state definitely has problems that DO exist and need the attention of our legislature, so I don't think too highly of them for wasting time on something like this. Unless they believe we already have too many jobs in the state and too much money in our accounts so there's no need to worry about our future. Do you think they believe that?

[onthestrip]

Lots of fear mongering in this thread today. Fortunately, my right to carry a weapon is not dependent on your ability to control an irrational fear.

To me its not so much about fear mongering but more of it being unnecessary. You could have carried before, just concealed, which is perfectly fine. Out of site out of mind for me. Just don't see the purpose of needing to carry openly. And please don't say it's because your concealed gun might be seen and you could be charged. I haven't heard of that happening in Oklahoma ever

[BBatesokc]

Why do you need to carry a weapon if not fear? Spontaneous target practice? I have no problem with guns, but I do have a problem with this law. To me, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. However, our state definitely has problems that DO exist and need the attention of our legislature, so I don't think too highly of them for wasting time on something like this. Unless they believe we already have too many jobs in the state and too much money in our accounts so there's no need to worry about our future. Do you think they believe that?

I will be open carrying when I jog with my wife both in my neighborhood, downtown (which we hope to call home with the year) and along the river. I will also open carry when hiking in areas where it is legal to do so. This not out of fear, this is out of the reality that bad things do happen and they can often be avoided if one is prepared.

However I do not now, never have and most likely will not carry at all when going about my usual routine.

[hrdware]

Why do you need to carry a weapon if not fear? Spontaneous target practice? I have no problem with guns, but I do have a problem with this law. To me, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. However, our state definitely has problems that DO exist and need the attention of our legislature, so I don't think too highly of them for wasting time on something like this. Unless they believe we already have too many jobs in the state and too much money in our accounts so there's no need to worry about our future. Do you think they believe that?

Do you understand the legislative process at all? This isn't 100 members of the House of Reps sitting around all the time talking about the issues. They have committees with 8 or 10 people on each committee. Those committees come up with recommendations to present to the full House. I'm not sure how you expect the public safety committee to figure out how to save money...that's a job for the budget committee.

[TaoMaas]

I'm not sure how you expect the public safety committee to figure out how to save money...that's a job for the budget committee.

I expect them to save money by not wasting our time with recommendations we don't need and which only serve as a distraction.

[hrdware]

I expect them to save money by not wasting our time with recommendations we don't need and which only serve as a distraction.

So we are going to sit around and pay them to do nothing?

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is not something we need (or some people want). This is almost a right restored.

If you feel the bill is a bad bill, argue it with fact not just I don't like it. Next session contact your legislator and ask them to run bills you think would serve the state better.

[BBatesokc]

And please don't say it's because your concealed gun might be seen and you could be charged. I haven't heard of that happening in Oklahoma ever

Why? Because if you've never heard it, then it couldn't possibly have ever of happened. Fact is, its illegal so you can be arrested and fined for it. Not to mention, lose your C&C license. Care to put any money on it? If so, I'll dig into the public records to see if anyone in Oklahoma has ever been charged with exposing their weapon in violation of the C&C law.

Have you ever heard of anyone being charged with "Seduction of an unmarried female"? Well, a person in Oklahoma was recently convicted of it (but, if you've never heard about it, then it probably didn't happen).

[kevinpate]

...

there is no reason to allow open carry when you can easily get a concealed carry license. If you want a gun on your hip that bad then become a cop.

Actually, and I'm wondering if some are missing this point, when Nov. 1 comes, it won't be a matter of just open carry if you choose or get a permit and carry concealed.

Both open carry and concealed carry rely on a person completing the exact same requirements for a permit.

After the permit is in place, the permit holder can elect to conceal all the time, open carry all the time, or switch around as s/he elects.

I'm not a huge proponent of the law, but the notion of non-carrying folks like myself are somehow more safe if only concealed carry exists is simply not supportable by any evidence in other states which have permitted open carry. I likewise don't truly see the alleged chilling effect. Someone will watch what they say or do because they see a firearm on a hip. Let's be real a moment, Just because someone doesn't see firearms on 12 other hips in the room doesn't mean there are not 12 other firearms present in addition to the one that is visible. The concern really doesn't hold much logic.

I anticipate firearm blindness will set in a few weeks after Nov. 1. Just like folks don't read every ad in the paper or the computer screen, they will get to a point where they won't really notice a firearm on a hip, much like most folks do not scan rooms trying to discern if someone has a firearm concealed in or under a jacket or shirt or skirt.

[TaoMaas]

So we are going to sit around and pay them to do nothing?

Seriously? This is all they have to do? If they didn't pass unneeded laws there'd be no use for them? In that case, hell yeah! Send 'em all home and save the state some money, how about? Are you all for less government?

This is almost a right restored.

That's about the lamest excuse I've heard for this. You ought to just let BBates handle this for you. He has much better reasons. lol

[hrdware]

Seriously? This is all they have to do? If they didn't pass unneeded laws there'd be no use for them? In that case, hell yeah! Send 'em all home and save the state some money, how about? Are you all for less government?




That's about the lamest excuse I've heard for this. You ought to just let BBates handle this for you. He has much better reasons. lol

Yes I am for less government. And by that same token, the government should not have taken the open carry right away from Oklahomans back in 1971. This legislature and governor went part way to removing the government and restoring that right. In order to make it complete they need to remove the permit all together.

[Of Sound Mind]

You ought to just let BBates handle this for you. He has much better reasons. lol

And who's going to handle it for you that can provide to convince proponents/advocates of this measure on what it's necessary to restrict this right? So far you've presented nothing so far that comes close other than "it's a waste of our legislature's time" (in your opinion, of course).

[Of Sound Mind]

In order to make it complete they need to remove the permit all together.

This is where you and I part ways. I strongly support a licensing requirement, including required educational classes and background checks. And after seeing some of the people who go through the SDA classes, I think the educational requirements need to be enhanced... or at least the standards for passage increased.

[oneforone]

In Oklahoma your 1000 times more likely to be killed by someone driving a car than by someone carrying an open/concealed weapon.

[hrdware]

This is where you and I part ways. I strongly support a licensing requirement, including required educational classes and background checks. And after seeing some of the people who go through the SDA classes, I think the educational requirements need to be enhanced... or at least the standards for passage increased.

The only reason background checks are there are to make people feel good. Lets make sure we don't give a criminal a permit to carry a gun. Everyone feels like they accomplished something when the reality is the criminal will carry a gun and disregard the law.

[oneforone]

The only reason background checks are there are to make people feel good. Lets make sure we don't give a criminal a permit to carry a gun. Everyone feels like they accomplished something when the reality is the criminal will carry a gun and disregard the law.

The background check in not comprehensive either. It only looks for certain things. It does not stop the sell or trade of a gun from one person to another. If only people only new how many guns are out there flying under government radars they would realize any gun control effort is useless. The only way to curb gun violence is to educate and lock people up who kill for any reason other than self defense.