http://newsok.com/article/3655490

I'm trying to think of a reason this would be a good idea. With the Ersland case still fresh on people's minds regarding the misuse of the make my day law, what kind of psychos would make use of this new law?

It basically comes down to First Amendment v. Second Amendment. Will people feel free to express their views publicly when someone is brandishing a weapon in their presence? And by the way, I'm also a pretty good shot. This isn't just a political issue, its also about ideals.

+1

I can't figure out why anyone would want everyone to know they are carrying a gun.
For one thing, it might be too big of a temptation for someone else to try to grab or steal the gun.
For another it removes the element of surprise.
(P.S. At this point in my life, I don't even own a pistol.
Would the open carry law apply to shotguns?)

Pancho was a bandit boy
His horse was fast as polished steel
Wore his gun outside his pants
For all the honest world to feel
Pancho met his match you know
On the deserts down in Mexico
Nobody heard his dying words
That's the way it goes
~Townes Van Zandt
"Pancho and Lefty"

+1

Did you just +1 yourself? Or did someone's post get deleted?

+1
(i wondered that 2 =)

HB 2522, as amended and passed by the House, can be viewed at any of the following (all go to the same location):

http://preview.tinyurl.com/HB2522

http://tinyurl.com/HB2522
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2011-12%20ENGR/hB/HB2522%20ENGR.DOC

I self-bumped so people would see the thread from the main page.

I'm trying to think of a reason this would be a good idea.

Might speed up the Wal-Mart lines

Might speed up the Wal-Mart lines

Haha, this made me laugh after seeing your other thread.

I self-bumped so people would see the thread from the main page.

LOL, oh, okay.

I can't figure out why anyone would want everyone to know they are carrying a gun.
...
Would the open carry law apply to shotguns?)


(a) because it's a far more economical way to compensate than purchasing a shiny new sports car?

(b) Haven't read it through, but I don't think it does. Having gifted or otherwise disposed of all long guns many many moons back I haven't paid much attention to the requirements on rifles and shotguns.

So the whole reason I joined this site was due to this thread. A friend of mine told me about it so I figured I come on by and debunk some of the myths associated with open carry.


I'm trying to think of a reason this would be a good idea. With the Ersland case still fresh on people's minds regarding the misuse of the make my day law, what kind of psychos would make use of this new law?

First, the open carry of firearms would be tied to the current concealed carry permit (SDA permit). While the Ersland case may be fresh on people's minds, it has nothing to do with the SDA permit and should not be considered when talking about open carry.

As to why it's a good idea, there are a few I can think of:
Open Carry has proven to be a crime deterrent. There have been instances where the bad guy has left a potential target area after seeing someone who has been openly carrying. The most notable is a foiled Waffle House robbery in Kennesaw GA (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-atlanta/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw)

The open carry provision helps out Law Abiding Citizens who currently conceal carry but the wind here in OK blows their coat up, or they reach for something on the top shelf at the store and their cover garment rides up to high.

The psychos that would take advantage of this new law are those of us who are law abiding citizens and carry concealed with our permit now. I guess since I choose to protect myself and my family instead of depending on the police (who I have a large amount of respect for) makes my thought process a bit different than the norm.


It basically comes down to First Amendment v. Second Amendment. Will people feel free to express their views publicly when someone is brandishing a weapon in their presence? And by the way, I'm also a pretty good shot. This isn't just a political issue, its also about ideals.

Who is it you think will be brandishing? Brandish means to shake or wave. No law abiding citizen will be doing that. The simple presence of a firearm does not make a crime. And this is purely a political issue. The US constitution provides us the right to keep and bear arms and that right, "shall not be infringed." Unfortunately the Oklahoma government made carrying a loaded firearm openly illegal years ago, thus infringing upon our rights. Now they are just correcting that over site. Personally I don't think this goes far enough to restore rights, but small steps.


I can't figure out why anyone would want everyone to know they are carrying a gun.

See above, it's a deterrent. And it is our constitutional right.


For one thing, it might be too big of a temptation for someone else to try to grab or steal the gun. For another it removes the element of surprise.

Gun grabs don't happen to the law abiding citizen. Gun grabs happen to police officers who are already involved in a confrontation. Bad guys don't want to get shot, they know that using a firearm is a last line of defense for an officer, but not for a law abiding citizen.

As for the surprise issue, that's why the criminals hide their guns, so they can surprise you with them when you least expect it. Oh, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that the criminal does not have a permit to carry concealed either. Again, open carry is a deterrent and without getting into a huge tactical debate over OC vs CC, OC allows for faster draw time in most cases.


(P.S. At this point in my life, I don't even own a pistol.
Would the open carry law apply to shotguns?)

No, the law specifies pistols carried in a belt or shoulder holster.

The same arguments are being made now as 17 years ago when the state first passed concealed carry...it's going to be the wild west....gunfights in the streets....bloodshed everywhere. It didn't happen 17 years ago and it won't happen if this bill passes either.

42 Other states have some form of open carry, some of those have no permit required open carry and they have none of the issues people would have you believe will happen here.

I just dont understand this. We dont have to pass this to show our support for the 2nd ammendment, as some say. Getting a gun in OK is very easy as it is, and if you want to secretly carry it, you can with a permit. Why is it necessary that people need to carry it openly? Just seems ridiculous.

I just dont understand this. We dont have to pass this to show our support for the 2nd ammendment, as some say. Getting a gun in OK is very easy as it is, and if you want to secretly carry it, you can with a permit. Why is it necessary that people need to carry it openly? Just seems ridiculous.

Actually we do need to pass this to support the 2A. The 2nd grants us the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. It does not say keep and bear concealed arms. Several years ago (like in the 70's) the legislature regulated the bearing of firearms practically out of existence and this bill simply restores some rights to law abiding citizens. I would have liked to see a constitutional carry bill pass but that would to much of a change for Oklahoma.

I just dont understand this. We dont have to pass this to show our support for the 2nd ammendment, as some say. Getting a gun in OK is very easy as it is, and if you want to secretly carry it, you can with a permit. Why is it necessary that people need to carry it openly? Just seems ridiculous.

why should we not be able to? honest ?

Keep in mind similar measures were intoduced in 2010 and 2011. One never made it to the Governer and the other was vetoed and not overridden.


Why is it necessary that people need to carry it openly? I don't think you'll see many, if any people openly carrying. I carry most of the time. I have a very good conceal rig and wear shirts a size or two too big. I'm for the new law just because it eliminates the possibility of someone, somehow seeing my firearm and calling the police. If they somehow see it then it isn't concealed. I would still conceal but I wouldn't have to worry about accidental exposure of the firearm. I would be just as happy if the current law added something about accidental exposure being acceptable if proper intent to conceal is there.


Would the open carry law apply to shotguns?
No. The new law would cover firearms currently allowed by the concealed carry law. This would mean handguns only.

There is a different governor this year, one much less likely to veto. So what you are saying is, because you don't want to talk to police if someone sees your gun, every person with the $50 and 8 hours it takes to take the class should be allowed to carry a gun in public view. All this just to keep from talking to police? What do you have to fear if your paperwork is legit?

There is a different governor this year, one much less likely to veto. So what you are saying is, because you don't want to talk to police if someone sees your gun, every person with the $50 and 8 hours it takes to take the class should be allowed to carry a gun in public view. All this just to keep from talking to police? What do you have to fear if your paperwork is legit?

Its not a matter of just "talking to police if someone see's your gun." If the gun is spotted you are in violation of the law and can be ticketed, arrested, and even lose your right to carry.

I personally don't care too much if people open carry - I just wish everyone who carried would be required to take CLEET phases 1-4 and carry additional insurance.

Its not a matter of just "talking to police if someone see's your gun." If the gun is spotted you are in violation of the law and can be ticketed, arrested, and even lose your right to carry.Exactly.

One of many reasons I don't carry. All I need is someone knowing I carry a gun to call police and say they spotted it while I was at WalMart and my day is officially ruined.

Better to have a gun carrier's day ruined than innocent blood shed. And if you don't believe there is a correlation, why did NYC's firearm ban result in a dramatic drop in the homicide rate? That just goes to show that violence increases with access to guns. This law will definitely have unmeasurable implications if it passes.

Better to have a gun carrier's day ruined than innocent blood shed. And if you don't believe there is a correlation, why did NYC's firearm ban result in a dramatic drop in the homicide rate? That just goes to show that violence increases with access to guns. This law will definitely have unmeasurable implications if it passes.

I'll file that under "the sky is falling." Considering virtually anyone who wants to carry can, I fail to see how open carry vs. concealed carry is going to dramatically increase homicide rates. Also, I've been in many open carry states and I have never actually seen anyone open carry in any of them.

There is also a huge difference between carry laws and a firearm ban.

I'll file that under "the sky is falling." Considering virtually anyone who wants to carry can, I fail to see how open carry vs. concealed carry is going to dramatically increase homicide rates. Also, I've been in many open carry states and I have never actually seen anyone open carry in any of them.

Same here. I understand they are pretty open about it in Arizona but I didn't see any of that when I visited so don't know if that is correct. Virginia is an open carry state - always has been - and I never saw a open carry in the ten years I lived there. Plenty of people had concealed carry permits (there are lots of military and former military) in the area but most people don't want to draw attention to the fact they are carrying if they can avoid it.

No the sky won't fall because this law passes. There will just be more early funerals and broken up families. And as I said before, the real effect is intimidation, not violence. And if no one carries openly in the open carry states, why take the risk of increased violence. The burden should be on the ones who want to carry guns.

why should we not be able to? honest ?

Because its not necessary, no where does it say you have a right to openly carry in public, and makes those that are nearby a person openly carrying feel uneasy

No the sky won't fall because this law passes. There will just be more early funerals and broken up families. And as I said before, the real effect is intimidation, not violence. And if no one carries openly in the open carry states, why take the risk of increased violence. The burden should be on the ones who want to carry guns.

Will there be 'some' (as in very few) instances of death because some loon who had no place carrying a gun does? Sure. Will there be a "dramatic increase (in) homicide rates" as you stated earlier - Absolutely not. Some people are killed by baseball bats, should we outlaw them too? Far more people are killed in this state by alcohol and cigarettes, did I miss your posts wanting those banned?

If we're going to allow guns to be carried, it matters little if there is a t-shirt over it. The mindset that caused the person to arm themselves in public is already there (i.e. Jerome Ersland). His gun was neither concealed on his body nor tethered to his hip and he is still a murderer in the eyes of the law.

Because its not necessary, no where does it say you have a right to openly carry in public, and makes those that are nearby a person openly carrying feel uneasy

Really? If things go bad, I'm more apt to stand very close to the guy with a gun handy.

I find it so bizarre in a state where people can hide their weapon you'd feel most afraid of the person who's letting you know they have one. I'm thinking knowing he's got a gun might actually make me put more thought into my own actions.

Better to have a gun carrier's day ruined than innocent blood shed. And if you don't believe there is a correlation, why did NYC's firearm ban result in a dramatic drop in the homicide rate? That just goes to show that violence increases with access to guns. This law will definitely have unmeasurable implications if it passes.

The homicide rate went down because law abiding citizens could no longer protect themselves by shooting the bad guys. You incorrectly equate a decline in the homicide rate with a drop in total crime.

That is the second time you've misquoted me. I said there was a decrease in homicides in NYC when they outlawed firearms, not that there would be a dramatic increase with this law. But there will probably be an increase.

About alcohol and cigarettes, I am in favor of taxing them more heavily, absolutely. But all societies recognize violent crime as the worst type. Guns cause that, not alcohol or cigs.

About Ersland, if you'll remember, he was presumed innocent. It was the surveillance video that got him convicted. There aren't surveillance cameras everywhere a shooting will take place.

That is the second time you've misquoted me. I said there was a decrease in homicides in NYC when they outlawed firearms, not that there would be a dramatic increase with this law. But there will probably be an increase.

About alcohol and cigarettes, I am in favor of taxing them more heavily, absolutely. But all societies recognize violent crime as the worst type. Guns cause that, not alcohol or cigs.

About Ersland, if you'll remember, he was presumed innocent. It was the surveillance video that got him convicted. There aren't surveillance cameras everywhere a shooting will take place.

I'm sorry, but saying guns cause violent crime is like saying a pencil causes spelling mistakes. People, no, criminals cause violent crime, not inanimate objects.

I said there was a decrease in homicides in NYC when they outlawed firearms, not that there would be a dramatic increase with this law. Not to speak for Brian, he does fine for himself, but saying one implies the other.

Also, if there is a correlation between the number of people legally carrying and the number of homicides then there shouldn't be an increase in homicides. We can already legally carry concealed. I think you be surprised at the number of people you pass every day that are carrying. You just don't know they're carrying.

I love it - so, I misquoted you, BUT.... that's what you meant to say. I should have made it more clear, I wasn't quoting you, per se, I was simply restating what it appeared you were saying. Which apparently you were.

So, how about if we just taxed gun carriers more since that makes any resulting deaths more palatable apparently.

Last time I checked, death was death.

Ummmm, everyone is presumed innocent in a court of law - even serial killers caught in the act. Actually, it was his actions that got him convicted. Just because his actions were caught on video doesn't make it the camera's fault.

I personally don't care too much if people open carry - I just wish everyone who carried would be required to take CLEET phases 1-4 and carry additional insurance.

We shouldn't need to get a permit or take any other course or carry additional insurance to exercise our 2nd amendment right. To do so amounts to a poll tax.

People Criminals cause violent crime, not inanimate objects.

Yes and people also decide verdicts for murder trials. And if ONE of those people doesn't think he's guilty, the defendant walks. That's why its better to try to prevent homicide than let people run around playing Wyatt Earp.

No the sky won't fall because this law passes. There will just be more early funerals and broken up families. And as I said before, the real effect is intimidation, not violence. And if no one carries openly in the open carry states, why take the risk of increased violence. The burden should be on the ones who want to carry guns.

Can you cite a source for your early funerals and broken families line? I doubt it therefore it is pure conjecture and speculation on your part. It doesn't happen elsewhere, why do you think other Oklahomans are less safe with firearms than people in other states. There are people who open carry in other states, just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't. The human eye and brain work very hard to show you what you want and expect to see. Most people don't know that open carriers are doing so unless it is pointed out to them. And what is this risk of increased violence? Are you planning on attacking those of us who will open carry?? If so the violence will be on your part not ours, don't project your fears and actions onto us.

Yes and people also decide verdicts for murder trials. And if ONE of those people doesn't think he's guilty, the defendant walks. That's why its better to try to prevent homicide than let people run around playing Wyatt Earp.

Nothing in this bill allows me to play cop. The only difference between today and the day the bill goes into effect will be that I can openly carry my firearm...how exactly does that make me Wyatt Earp and change my mental makeup??

don't project your fears and actions onto us.
You are the one afraid to go outside without a gun strapped to your body. I think I probably have fewer fears than you.
Nothing personal guys. Its been a good debate. Sure hope I don't "bump" into any of you!

You are the one afraid to go outside without a gun strapped to your body. I think I probably have fewer fears than you.
Nothing personal guys. Its been a good debate. Sure hope I don't "bump" into any of you!

I carry a knife everywhere I go... My Great-Grandfather carries a pistol everywhere he goes... Just because an individual has something to protect themselves incase it is ever needed does NOT mean they have a number of fears, I carry a knife more so out of habbit than anything else. If you ask me, I'm less afraid because I have something to use in my defense incase something does happen. You could have worded what you said differently, for sure, but I'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt.

as a weapon carrier i dont really see why we need open carry and i dont know any people with ccw who have ever mentioned wanting open carry....

seems like a typical law maker law - instead of solving actual problems (and doing real work) they give us new legislation for things we dont need and didnt ask for.

the only benefit is that i cant get in trouble if someone see's the outline of my weapon but i havent actually ever heard of anyone getting into trouble who wasnt looking for it.

as a weapon carrier i dont really see why we need open carry and i dont know any people with ccw who have ever mentioned wanting open carry....

seems like a typical law maker law - instead of solving actual problems (and doing real work) they give us new legislation for things we dont need and didnt ask for.

the only benefit is that i cant get in trouble if someone see's the outline of my weapon but i havent actually ever heard of anyone getting into trouble who wasnt looking for it.

Actually many people have asked for it and have supported it, not just law makers. I think the choice to open carry is exactly that, a choice. Some instances I will continue to conceal, in others I will choose to open it just depends on the situation. It will be nice to not have to buy my shirts a size or 2 larger than I need them since I will be able to OC. I won't have to worry about what kind of cover garment I will have to have in the middle of July.

As I have said, I would have liked it better for us to have gone to constitutional open carry and a permitted concealed carry like many other states already do but that would have been to much of a change for Oklahoma.

You are the one afraid to go outside without a gun strapped to your body. I think I probably have fewer fears than you.
Nothing personal guys. Its been a good debate. Sure hope I don't "bump" into any of you!

I frequently leave the house without a firearm. I would say I am unarmed more days than I am.

Not so much of a debate, I asked you to site sources and stop projecting fears (that you think us OCers would have) onto us and you up and leave saying your unfounded, fear mongering statements were a debate. I am more than willing to have a debate, but only if you are willing to cite your sources and stop using statements of fear.

The police open carry so why not the rest of the citizens?

No the sky won't fall because this law passes. There will just be more early funerals and broken up families. And as I said before, the real effect is intimidation, not violence. And if no one carries openly in the open carry states, why take the risk of increased violence. The burden should be on the ones who want to carry guns.
The ignorance and hysteria displayed here is more frightening than the prospect of open carry.

The ignorance and hysteria displayed here is more frightening than the prospect of open carry.

Though not a fan of open carry, I completely agree with you.

That is the second time you've misquoted me. I said there was a decrease in homicides in NYC when they outlawed firearms, not that there would be a dramatic increase with this law. But there will probably be an increase.

About alcohol and cigarettes, I am in favor of taxing them more heavily, absolutely. But all societies recognize violent crime as the worst type. Guns cause that, not alcohol or cigs.

About Ersland, if you'll remember, he was presumed innocent. It was the surveillance video that got him convicted. There aren't surveillance cameras everywhere a shooting will take place.
People cause is it, not guns. A gun is an amoral object. A person with preconceived bad intentions is going to obtain and conceal a gun no matter what. Look at most criminals in this country or drug cartels in Mexico. Do you honestly think they are not going to get a gun if they were completely outlawed? People like Jerome Ersland don't go out looking to cause trouble, and in fact would prefer not to get any, but when someone else wishing to force their will on someone else through means of force, perceived or actual, then people may result to defend themselves if necessary. Would it have made it any less of a crime if Ersland was murdered by the kid instead?

I'm sorry, but saying guns cause violent crime is like saying a pencil causes spelling mistakes. People, no, criminals cause violent crime, not inanimate objects.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner

People like Jerome Ersland don't go out looking to cause trouble, and in fact would prefer not to get any, but when someone else wishing to force their will on someone else through means of force, perceived or actual, then people may result to defend themselves if necessary

You are defending a convicted murderer. Enough said. Everyone who says there have been no problems with concealed carry are clearly overlooking Ersland. He specifically said
"That's what the Second Amendment and the state's concealed carry license are for."

On a different note, I've found that California is not a true open carry state. Open carry is only allowed in legally defined rural areas. That would be fine with me, if the rural people want to carry their guns into Wal-mart, thats one thing. But NYC and every California city have banned open carry. I believe OKC should strive to be more like those cities, and the rural people can do what they want.

I'm sorry, but saying guns cause violent crime is like saying a pencil causes spelling mistakes. People, no, criminals cause violent crime, not inanimate objects.

Still, it's hard to shoot someone if you're not carrying a gun.

LandRunOkie, fwiw, if memory serves right Ersland was not carrying a concealed weapon in the pharmacy. He fetched a handgun from under a counter, shot the one would be robber , chased the other and fired shots at the other outside the store. After reentering the store, he then fetched a second gun from under a counter or out of a closet/drawer/whereever and fired several shots into the still downed would be robber, killing him dead right there. It's that last bit which brought his charges and conviction.

There's now a separate law extending the home based make my day stand my ground permission to use deadly force in certain circumstances. Whether that would have aided Ersland had it been in effect is a separate Q based on the testimony and evidence presented, but it really wasn't a concealed carry issue at any point.

Still, it's hard to shoot someone if you're not carrying a gun.

That's a completely different topic.

Still, it's hard to shoot someone if you're not carrying a gun.

Any its even harder to defend one's life or that of loved one's from an armed or overpowering criminal if you're not carrying a gun.

Everyone who says there have been no problems with concealed carry are clearly overlooking Ersland.

And anyone who tries to draw parallels between the downside of open carry (or even concealed carry) and the Ersland case is simply showing how ignorant they are to the topic.

You are defending a convicted murderer. Enough said. Everyone who says there have been no problems with concealed carry are clearly overlooking Ersland. He specifically said

"That's what the Second Amendment and the state's concealed carry license are for."

On a different note, I've found that California is not a true open carry state. Open carry is only allowed in legally defined rural areas. That would be fine with me, if the rural people want to carry their guns into Wal-mart, thats one thing. But NYC and every California city have banned open carry. I believe OKC should strive to be more like those cities, and the rural people can do what they want.

Do you have a cite for what Ersland said? I'd like to read it in context.

Up until January 1 of this year, CA was an open carry state. A new law (that is now being challenged in court) removed the peoples right to open carry in incorporated areas.

Here are some crime stats from 2010 for you from www.disastercenter.com (http://www.disastercenter.com/)
Numbers in parenthesis are per 100,000 people


State Violent Crimes Murders Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault
NY 75997 (392.1) 866 (4.5) 2771 (14.3) 28473 (146.9) 43867 (226.4)
CA 164133 (440.6) 1809 (4.9) 8331 (22.4) 58116 (156) 95877 (257.4)
VT 815 (130.2) 7 (1.1) 132 (21.1) 74 (11.8) 602 (96.2)

What is interesting to note about this is you want us to be more like the forward thinking rights restricting states of NY and CA, however it is interesting to note that VT does not issue any kind of gun permit. If you are old enough and can legally own a gun in VT, you can carry it however you wish. The FBI has cited Vermont as the 2nd safest state in the union and these other 2 states come in around the mid 30s.

Any its even harder to defend one's life or that of loved one's from an armed or overpowering criminal if you're not carrying a gun.

^ This.

The opponents of this bill seem to believe that if this passes, then LAW ABIDING CITIZENS will be having gun fights in the streets. It's the criminals who are illegally carrying a firearm and doing other illegal things who are doing this. If the mere sight of my firearm in it's holster, you should turn around and walk the other way, and stop trying to tell me I'm being a bad person.

Do you have a cite for what Ersland said? I'd like to read it in context.

Never mind, I found it. The entire quote reads:

"I feel that [people have] a right to defend themselves at their home or at their work. People deserve to be safe and not be afraid of people [who] want to take money when they don't work for it," Ersland said in a May 22, 2009, interview with The Oklahoman. "That's what the Second Amendment and the state's concealed carry license are for,"

His guilt or innocence have nothing to do with open carry or concealed carry. Just wanted folks to see the entire quote, not just half of it.

If the mere sight of my firearm in it's holster, you should turn around and walk the other way, and stop trying to tell me I'm being a bad person.

I promise if I walk into any business and see someone openly carrying a firearm I will leave immediately without asking questions about anyone's intentions.

I promise if I walk into any business and see someone openly carrying a fireman I will leave immediately without asking questions about anyone's intentions.

Carrying fireman . . . carrying firearm . . .
what's the difference . . . i'm leaving immediately too.

(so ljb, are you, like, really Groucho in disguise? =)

Carrying fireman . . . carrying firearm . . .
what's the difference . . . i'm leaving immediately too.

(so ljb, are you, like, really Groucho in disguise? =)

LOL, you got me radical. Consider my post corrected.

Here's my 2 cents..... I have a CCW and have no plans of open carrying. To me advertising that you have a weapon will get you killed first you're caught in a robbery. If I'm caught in a situation like that I don't want the bad guys knowing I have a weapon. If you want to walk around like Marshal Dillon or Quick Draw McGraw that's up to you but personally I think open carry is a bad thing waiting to happen.