Open Carry Law Set to Pass

[kevinpate]

... lock people up who kill for any reason other than self defense.

Most do get locked up if they are located and sufficient evidence exists. Some do not, either due to a lack of evidence against them or it wasn't an intentional killing. One well known example, the officer who shot at a snake, missed, and a boy was killed. His punishment did not involve prison time. Nor would prison time have been appropriate in that circumstance, irrespective of it being an officer involved shooting. Had it been Dan Dunderhead, local teen, the same result would have been appropriate.

[Of Sound Mind]

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.

That may be true, but it still can identify those who ought not to be licensed and at least make the process of them "legally" carrying a gun a little more difficult.

In the same way you have to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, including advanced licenses with greater requirements for more complex motor vehicles, there is no good reason, in my opinion, NOT to require licensing in order to legally carry a firearm, concealed or unconcealed. The basic education of what the law is, what's allowable within the law and what's not, the (very) basics of safe handling of gun, and the (very generous and far too liberal) minimum shooting requirements is not unreasonable. In fact, as I stated above, I think the training needs to be a bit more comprehensive and the testing requirements quite a bit more stringent.

In the same way I don't want unlicensed, untrained drivers operating a motor vehicle on the same roads I travel, I don't want unlicensed, untrained armed citizens walking the streets with me. Are there people who will go around the system and illegally possess and carry a firearm (without going through a background check)? No doubt. But the same is true about some drivers, including those who do not have a valid drivers license or car insurance — I've been screwed over by those drivers before, costing me a pretty penny.

I strongly support the right to be able to carry a firearm and have the opportunity to protect myself and my family; I equally support the requirement for licensing associated with that.

[hrdware]

That may be true, but it still can identify those who ought not to be licensed and at least make the process of them "legally" carrying a gun a little more difficult.

If they can't pass the background check for a license, more than likely they shouldn't have a firearm in the first place. Thus making them a criminal already.

In the same way you have to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, including advanced licenses with greater requirements for more complex motor vehicles, there is no good reason, in my opinion, NOT to require licensing in order to legally carry a firearm, concealed or unconcealed. The basic education of what the law is, what's allowable within the law and what's not, the (very) basics of safe handling of gun, and the (very generous and far too liberal) minimum shooting requirements is not unreasonable. In fact, as I stated above, I think the training needs to be a bit more comprehensive and the testing requirements quite a bit more stringent.

In the same way I don't want unlicensed, untrained drivers operating a motor vehicle on the same roads I travel, I don't want unlicensed, untrained armed citizens walking the streets with me. Are there people who will go around the system and illegally possess and carry a firearm (without going through a background check)? No doubt. But the same is true about some drivers, including those who do not have a valid drivers license or car insurance — I've been screwed over by those drivers before, costing me a pretty penny.

I strongly support the right to be able to carry a firearm and have the opportunity to protect myself and my family; I equally support the requirement for licensing associated with that.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Bearing arms is a right, driving is a privilege. Rights are not supposed to be licensed. There are consequences for making bad decisions while exercising your rights. We don't require people to get licensed to make sure they don't say stupid things. As it stands now, Oklahoma is saying only those who can afford to get the permit are allowed to carry a firearm to self defense. Do you think people at 15th and South Central shouldn't be able to defend themselves walking down the street? How about NW 15th and Western? Why is it only those who can afford the license get to exercise their God given, Constitutional right?

[Roadhawg]

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.

I agree

[Larry OKC]

...In the same way you have to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, including advanced licenses with greater requirements for more complex motor vehicles, there is no good reason, in my opinion, NOT to require licensing in order to legally carry a firearm, concealed or unconcealed. ...

I strongly support the right to be able to carry a firearm and have the opportunity to protect myself and my family; I equally support the requirement for licensing associated with that.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Is requiring licensing/permits/training etc considered "infringement"? Although I could see that some of that may be implied with the "well regulated militia" phrase. That said, is there a constitutional right to drive a motor vehicle, or is that just a privilege granted by the state that can be revoked if conditions are not met?

[hrdware]

Is requiring licensing/permits/training etc considered "infringement"? Although I could see that some of that may be implied with the "well regulated militia" phrase. That said, is there a constitutional right to drive a motor vehicle, or is that just a privilege granted by the state that can be revoked if conditions are not met?

Yes, requiring licensing/permits/training is infringement. Otherwise it would have read, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms with license/permit/training, shall not be infringed."

[onthestrip]

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.

Im not saying it isnt something that cant get you in trouble, because I believe you when you say it will but has it ever happened? Because this is really the only legitmate reason to want open carry over just concealed carry. Just in the same way you supporters claim that there are 25 other states with open carry and they dont have problems, Im going to say that we have no problems with only allowing concealed. There is no worthwhile reason to allow open carry, and you wont convince me otherwise.

I hope this spurs every business owner to ban weapons inside their place of business.

[onthestrip]

Yes, requiring licensing/permits/training is infringement. Otherwise it would have read, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms with license/permit/training, shall not be infringed."

Ya well that was also written when muzzle loaders were the only guns around, wasnt meant for semi automatic glocks that can hold 30 rounds.

[MadMonk]

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 grant you that there is a fear element in wanting to carry, but its the fear is of not being able to do enough to defend myself and my family against an attacker that motivates me to do all I can to try to be prepared for any eventuality. Its the same sort of fear that motivates me to have a storm shelter and wear seat belts while in a car.

What makes no sense is that your fear is irrationally levied against those who are on your side - law-abiding people who have, at minimum, gone through a background check and training in order to get their license to carry.

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

Its also not necessary to limit a citizen's right to carry openly and this adjustment to the law remedies that. I've said it before and I still maintain that, while I don't intend to carry openly, its makes me feel a whole lot better that I can carry without fear of getting arrested and fined for "imprinting" or accidentally revealing my gun. I haven't heard of it happening personally, but the opportunity was there for it to happen according to the law. Now that worry is gone.

[Of Sound Mind]

And here the chasm grows even more... you certainly represent a significantly more hardline view of gun rights than do I.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

From your vantage point, I'm sure you see it that way.

Bearing arms is a right, driving is a privilege.

Whereas, I find that to be a distinction without a difference. Who made that distinction? The government? Why should driving be any less of a right than bearing arms?

Rights are not supposed to be licensed.

I would agree in most cases, but does that apply universally? Is it possible to have a right, but exercising elements of those rights can be regulated via licensing?

The First Amendment gives us the Free Exercise Clause giving us freedom of religion. Yet there can be regulations and restrictions to that right (look at the Supreme Court's case history on this issue). The First Amendment also recognizes and grants us our right to freedom of speech, and yet there are limitations with this right as well — the "harm principle" or the "offense principle" (pornography, hate speech, etc.). More to the point, we have the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, but are there not sometimes regulations and licensing that can apply — securing a permit (a.k.a. "license") to occupy a public space or to have a demonstration parade, etc.?

We are certainly granted rights, but without regulation or limitation... ever?

Do we have the fundamental right to exercise our trade? In some cases, to practice the trade for which a person is most skilled, a license is required. Is that right or wrong? Is there a societal interest in regulating this right (or ability) to legally practice our trade?

There are consequences for making bad decisions while exercising your rights.

Generally that's true. However, government's interest and society's interests come into play in balancing your rights as they may adversely impact others' rights, specially their life and liberty, when people's bad decisions have more serious consequences. I would argue that the government has a well-grounded, rational interest in regulating (by way of licensing) those who wish to exercise their right to bear arms by way of carrying a loaded weapon with them concealed or unconcealed IN THE SAME WAY that the government has a well-grounded, rational interest in regulating (by way of licensing) drivers who are driving a potentially deadly weapon.

We don't require people to get licensed to make sure they don't say stupid things.

Generally that's true. However, as I pointed out above, the government does place restrictions on these rights, especially when the pose a threat of harm to others.

As it stands now, Oklahoma is saying only those who can afford to get the permit are allowed to carry
a firearm to self defense. Do you think people at 15th and South Central shouldn't be able to defend themselves walking down the street? How about NW 15th and Western?

The same can be said for other things... once again, like driving. And with a state like Oklahoma where everything is so spread out and mass transit is barely a viable option in most cases, a car and the freedom to drive legally becomes a virtual necessity. There's a fee to get a driver's license. There's a fee for registration of a vehicle. There's a financial burden to obtaining minimum insurance coverage.

Why is it only those who can afford the license get to exercise their God given, Constitutional right?

A right enumerated in the Constitution? Generally, by way of the Bill of Rights, yes. Without any regulation, I'm not so sure. Other constitutional rights have been judged to have limitations by our courts. There has, and has for a long time, been some form of infringement of the government on our rights — the TSA being the most glaring one of late. But the government's role, even as imperfectly as it's been exercised, is to balance the unfettered exercise of individual rights with its practical implications for society as a whole. And under that principle, I am supportive of limited regulation and restrictions, primarily in form of licensing.

Some people cannot responsibly exercise their rights without causing harm to others who also enjoy the fundamental right of life and liberty. Exercising my right to freedom of speech by yelling "fire" (or some other panic-strickening threat) in a crowded public place would not be considered responsible or reasonable; our courts, our government and our society have recognized that unfettered, irresponsible and/or reckless expression of our rights can cause great harm to others in some instances. Bearing arms, by way of carrying a loaded firearm, concealed or unconcealed, is a right that should have some parameters that helps protect the public as a whole while still allowing responsible, law-abiding citizens to continue to exercise that right.

Lastly, God-given right? That one I cannot concede. Please show me, if you are a Bible-believing Christian, what passages of Scripture would explicitly or implicitly enumerate this specific right to bear arms?

[FRISKY]

I hope this spurs every business owner to ban weapons inside their place of business.

Really? So if the business is robbed while your family is there...the only people with guns will be the criminals? That didn't work out so well for the folks dining at the Sirlon Stockade many years ago.

http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/1670074600

[hrdware]

Whereas, I find that to be a distinction without a difference. Who made that distinction? The government? Why should driving be any less of a right than bearing arms?

If you think it should be a right, the try and make it so. The founders could have included this in the constitution, but they didn't.

I would agree in most cases, but does that apply universally? Is it possible to have a right, but exercising elements of those rights can be regulated via licensing?

The First Amendment gives us the Free Exercise Clause giving us freedom of religion. Yet there can be regulations and restrictions to that right (look at the Supreme Court's case history on this issue). The First Amendment also recognizes and grants us our right to freedom of speech, and yet there are limitations with this right as well — the "harm principle" or the "offense principle" (pornography, hate speech, etc.). More to the point, we have the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, but are there not sometimes regulations and licensing that can apply — securing a permit (a.k.a. "license") to occupy a public space or to have a demonstration parade, etc.?

You still have freedom of speech even with the harm principle and offense principle. If I am not around those who will be offended then is it really offensive? Yes, a permit/license is required for public assembly but not private. Using public lands is different than exercising an individual right. Also the permit allows the government to make sure roads are blocked, traffic cones are put up, what ever needs to be done prior to the assembly for the safety of those exercising their right.

We are certainly granted rights, but without regulation or limitation... ever?

Do we have the fundamental right to exercise our trade? In some cases, to practice the trade for which a person is most skilled, a license is required. Is that right or wrong? Is there a societal interest in regulating this right (or ability) to legally practice our trade?

You have a fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not to work in whatever field you want.

Generally that's true. However, government's interest and society's interests come into play in balancing your rights as they may adversely impact others' rights, specially their life and liberty, when people's bad decisions have more serious consequences. I would argue that the government has a well-grounded, rational interest in regulating (by way of licensing) those who wish to exercise their right to bear arms by way of carrying a loaded weapon with them concealed or unconcealed IN THE SAME WAY that the government has a well-grounded, rational interest in regulating (by way of licensing) drivers who are driving a potentially deadly weapon.

I agree that a role of government is public safety. Tell me, how is a holstered firearm a problem in public safety? It isn't, therefore the government should not tell me how I should be able to carry my firearm, or require that I be trained to some minimalistic government standard. Again, you see driving and bearing arms as the same thing, I do not.

Generally that's true. However, as I pointed out above, the government does place restrictions on these rights, especially when the pose a threat of harm to others.

More to the point, the government imposes penalties when someone gets hurt from the actions. Same with firearms, there are penalties for the actions.

The same can be said for other things... once again, like driving. And with a state like Oklahoma where everything is so spread out and mass transit is barely a viable option in most cases, a car and the freedom to drive legally becomes a virtual necessity. There's a fee to get a driver's license. There's a fee for registration of a vehicle. There's a financial burden to obtaining minimum insurance coverage.

But it is not required that someone have a car. People work from home, they live with others who drive, it happens.

A right enumerated in the Constitution? Generally, by way of the Bill of Rights, yes. Without any regulation, I'm not so sure. Other constitutional rights have been judged to have limitations by our courts. There has, and has for a long time, been some form of infringement of the government on our rights — the TSA being the most glaring one of late. But the government's role, even as imperfectly as it's been exercised, is to balance the unfettered exercise of individual rights with its practical implications for society as a whole. And under that principle, I am supportive of limited regulation and restrictions, primarily in form of licensing.

You are comparing a federal agency to a state requirement. It would be different if the feds had a federal policy for training but they don't. The federal law (Constitution) says, "...shall not be infringed."

Some people cannot responsibly exercise their rights without causing harm to others who also enjoy the fundamental right of life and liberty. Exercising my right to freedom of speech by yelling "fire" (or some other panic-strickening threat) in a crowded public place would not be considered responsible or reasonable; our courts, our government and our society have recognized that unfettered, irresponsible and/or reckless expression of our rights can cause great harm to others in some instances. Bearing arms, by way of carrying a loaded firearm, concealed or unconcealed, is a right that should have some parameters that helps protect the public as a whole while still allowing responsible, law-abiding citizens to continue to exercise that right.

No, I don't believe so. Freedom of speech is to bearing arms as yelling fire in a crowded theater is to brandishing a firearm. The firearm in a holster does nothing wrong, waiving it around is the irresponsible/reckless part that could cause harm to others and there are penalties for that.

Lastly, God-given right? That one I cannot concede. Please show me, if you are a Bible-believing Christian, what passages of Scripture would explicitly or implicitly enumerate this specific right to bear arms?

I should have been clearer. God-given right to self-defense. Self-defense can and does include anything from a rock, my car keys, and the firearm I carry.

[onthestrip]

Bearing arms is a right, driving is a privilege. Rights are not supposed to be licensed. There are consequences for making bad decisions while exercising your rights.

Well now in Oklahoma you have to be licensed to practice your right to vote. Which, by the way, was brought to us by the gun loving republican right.

[Of Sound Mind]

Just in the same way you supporters claim that there are 25 other states with open carry and they dont have problems, Im going to say that we have no problems with only allowing concealed. There is no worthwhile reason to allow open carry, and you wont convince me otherwise.

But, if open carry has not been a problem in the 25 other states where it's allowed, then why would there be a problem with it here? What's the worthwhile reason to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens from being able to carry either concealed or unconcealed when there's no historical evidence to demonstrate an adverse impact to the population, and, in fact, the historical record would indicate the contrary?

I hope this spurs every business owner to ban weapons inside their place of business.

Many business owners and managers who have banned weapons inside their places of business, particularly retail business, have reversed course when enough licensed, law-abiding citizens politely informed them by email or snail mail that they would be moving their patronage to a more friendly company/business who respected and permitted licensed, law-abiding citizens to exercise their state-granted right to protect themselves accordingly. In fact, some Oklahoma Wal-Mart stores whose managers had put up "gun-buster" signs on their entrances subsequently removed those signs when complaints/comments were sent to local management or corporate headquarters, whose official policy is not to ban or restrict lawfully carried weapons into their establishments.

[Of Sound Mind]

hrdware, I understand where you are coming from and what your position is. I simply don't agree in total with your position. I'll leave it at that rather than continuing to belabor the nuances of our differences and return my focus on the less logically, rationally and reasonable articulated arguments from those trying to deny a right to their fellow law-abiding citizen based on ignorance and fear rather than any facts or historical record that would back up their position.

[Double Edge]

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?

You've said that a couple of times now quoting me. Here's another:

explosion of violence, chaos and lawlessness

Please provide a cite.

[Of Sound Mind]

You've said that a couple of times now quoting me. Here's another:



Please provide a cite.

First, I wasn't quoting you, directly or indirectly — Where were the quote marks? I was characterizing (and continue to characterize) your commentary with that description.

Second, even if I was quoting you, why should I go to the effort of providing "cites" when you haven't provided any reasonable foundation to your musings nor have you answered direct questions challenging your assertions?

[Double Edge]

First, I wasn't quoting you, directly or indirectly — Where were the quote marks? I was characterizing (and continue to characterize) your commentary with that description.

Second, even if I was quoting you, why should I go to the effort of providing "cites" when you haven't provided any reasonable foundation to your musings nor have you answered direct questions challenging your assertions?

You have repeatedly attributed to me a position that I have not taken. Even remotely.

doomsday, apocalyptic prognostications

explosion of violence, chaos and lawlessness

Please cite the post(s) where you think I have taken that position.

[BBatesokc]

Im not saying it isnt something that cant get you in trouble, because I believe you when you say it will but has it ever happened? Because this is really the only legitmate reason to want open carry over just concealed carry. Just in the same way you supporters claim that there are 25 other states with open carry and they dont have problems, Im going to say that we have no problems with only allowing concealed. There is no worthwhile reason to allow open carry, and you wont convince me otherwise.

I hope this spurs every business owner to ban weapons inside their place of business.

I agree with the reasoning that open carry now covers people who accidentally expose their weapon while carrying. However, as stated before, that is not my only reason to support it. I cannot reasonably conceal and carry while jogging or bike riding and this now allows me to be armed.

Fortunately, I don't have to concern myself with convincing anyone or arguing my side - because we won and contrasting views are a mute point now.

[ljbab728]

Many business owners and managers who have banned weapons inside their places of business, particularly retail business, have reversed course when enough licensed, law-abiding citizens politely informed them by email or snail mail that they would be moving their patronage to a more friendly company/business who respected and permitted licensed, law-abiding citizens to exercise their state-granted right to protect themselves accordingly. In fact, some Oklahoma Wal-Mart stores whose managers had put up "gun-buster" signs on their entrances subsequently removed those signs when complaints/comments were sent to local management or corporate headquarters, whose official policy is not to ban or restrict lawfully carried weapons into their establishments.

You may be correct about that but it works both ways. If I enter any business and observe anyone openly carrying I will leave immediately without asking questions and never return.

[hrdware]

hrdware, I understand where you are coming from and what your position is. I simply don't agree in total with your position. I'll leave it at that rather than continuing to belabor the nuances of our differences and return my focus on the less logically, rationally and reasonable articulated arguments from those trying to deny a right to their fellow law-abiding citizen based on ignorance and fear rather than any facts or historical record that would back up their position.

Funny thing....after my last post to you, I was considering another in which I was going to say I think we should agree to disagree on those points....lol.

[hrdware]

You may be correct about that but it works both ways. If I enter any business and observe anyone openly carrying I will leave immediately without asking questions and never return.

I have a better solution for you, only patronize those stores with the no firearms signs in the window, then you won't have to worry about seeing a firearm on a law abiding citizen.

[Roadhawg]

Which Oklahoma Wal-Mart stores have done that?

[hrdware]

Which Oklahoma Wal-Mart stores have done that?

All of them. 17 years ago, Wal-Marts were all plastered with gun buster signs. They have all come down (that I am aware of). Wal-Mart corporate policy is to follow state law (for any state) and not prohibit people from exercising their rights. Home Depot, Lowes, and Target all have the same policy. Babies R Us and Toys R Us both have a no firearm policy.

[Roadhawg]

All of them. 17 years ago, Wal-Marts were all plastered with gun buster signs. They have all come down (that I am aware of). Wal-Mart corporate policy is to follow state law (for any state) and not prohibit people from exercising their rights. Home Depot, Lowes, and Target all have the same policy. Babies R Us and Toys R Us both have a no firearm policy.

Didn't realize it was that long ago, when I read the post I thought it was more recent. I think Wal-Mart does have a policy of visible weapons so not sure how the new OC law will affect that.

OK that was fast.... Wal-Mart allows the Open carry of HandGuns in their Retail Establishments, consistent to applicable State Law wherein the State that the Wal-Mart is found.