Channel 8 -- Tulsa City Council trying to ban legal gun carry in city parks?

[bigfug]

TITLE 21 § 1289.24 FIREARM REGULATION – STATE PREEMPTION

No municipality or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance, or regulation
concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession,
carrying, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use
taxes, or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies.

D. When a person’s rights pursuant to the protection of the preemption provisions of this section have been
violated, the person shall have the right to bring a civil action against the persons, municipality, and political
subdivision jointly and severally for injunctive relief or monetary damages or both.

Glocktogo is 100% correct.

 

[tweetr]

This illustrates my point from an earlier thread. Do not accept the false premise that constitutional rights are nullified when children are present. The presence of children, on the contrary, makes it more crucial, not less, that citizens not be prevented from arming themselves.

Consider the question from the practical perspective as well. Exactly where are children not present? This, I think, is the actual reason that the other side seizes on the presence of children as an excuse to push the anti-Second-Amendment agenda.

 

[bigfug]

TITLE 21 § 1289.24 FIREARM REGULATION – STATE PREEMPTION

No municipality or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance, or regulation
concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession,
carrying, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use
taxes, or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies.

D. When a person’s rights pursuant to the protection of the preemption provisions of this section have been
violated, the person shall have the right to bring a civil action against the persons, municipality, and political
subdivision jointly and severally for injunctive relief or monetary damages or both.

Glocktogo is 100% correct.

 

[Keyser328]

The comments are golden. Check out this A+ sarcasm:

I too am appalled. We the people should have no right at all to protect ourselves or our children against those attempting to harm us. If we are attacked in a park or anywhere for that matter, we need to remember that criminals have rights and protecting ourselves against such fine human beings should deem us terrorists. Those Republicans and the NRA in support of self defense, that's just crazy talk. Freedom is highly overrated and never in history has anyone ever needed to use lethal force to protect innocent lives.

 

[WessonOil]

The flip side is that unless the CCW holder was in the immediate area it wouldn't make a difference. CCW holders are not LEO or John Rambo and parks are big. I can say I don't know a single CCW who is going to run toward the gun fire or engage the threat from a distance.

In some instances I do see a CCW holder "helping" like a diner, gas station, bank scenario. A city park isn't one of them.

The other thing working against the hopes of a CCW hero is OK's "you and yours" approach to CCW liability/authorization of use of force.

I'm not sure I'm following you on this.

Are you saying that CCW holders aren't likely to be at a park and that parks are too big?

I spend a lot of time at parks with kids and grandkids, and I'd certainly be wanting to protect the life of my family and others.

I carry an 18 round capacity M&P Pro, have 30+ years experiance with a handgun, and rank towards the top consistently in IPSC competition, with a number of LEO and military ranking below me.

I may not be Rambo, but I'd be more of a threat to a shooter than the guy sitting next to me with nothing.

Does that make sense?

 

[BIG_MIKE2005]

This illustrates my point from an earlier thread. Do not accept the false premise that constitutional rights are nullified when children are present. The presence of children, on the contrary, makes it more crucial, not less, that citizens not be prevented from arming themselves.

Consider the question from the practical perspective as well. Exactly where are children not present? This, I think, is the actual reason that the other side seizes on the presence of children as an excuse to push the anti-Second-Amendment agenda.

This^^^

 

[Glocktogo]

This illustrates my point from an earlier thread. Do not accept the false premise that constitutional rights are nullified when children are present. The presence of children, on the contrary, makes it more crucial, not less, that citizens not be prevented from arming themselves.

Consider the question from the practical perspective as well. Exactly where are children not present? This, I think, is the actual reason that the other side seizes on the presence of children as an excuse to push the anti-Second-Amendment agenda.

A perfect response would be "If you deny me the right to defend my children in a public park, my kids are not going to be there."

 

[Quick_Draw_McGraw]

Here is the email I will be sending to my city council rep

Mr. Bynum,

I recently saw the Channel 8 segment in which you communicated your anti safety, and anti 2nd amendment remarks.

As a citizen of your district, and a user of the park system I find your insistence in creating a less secure environment for myself and other citizens troublesome. Gun free zones only provide assurances of safety and security to criminals by allowing them to know they will be able to conduct whatever acts of evil they wish without the threat of encountering a victim who is properly armed to defend themselves.

Citizens who have a conceal carry permit have gone through two levels of scrutiny before being granted the right to carry a weapon in a public place. First a federal background check, and secondly an additional background check by OSBI. They also must participate in an educational safety training session to receive their permit. It appears though that you only support criminals who could potentially inflict assault, robbery, rape and murder to have any sort of advantages in confrontations.

I want you to know that you have turned me into a single issue voter, and should you decide to run for city council again or any other elected office I will not only not be voting for you again, I will be donating my time and money to your competitor.

Sincerely,

 

[Quick_Draw_McGraw]

For Tulsa residents you can find your city council district by using this tool. http://www.tulsacouncil.org/district-finder/district-finder-2012.aspx (be warned it's slow)

 

[tweetr]

A perfect response would be "If you deny me the right to defend my children in a public park, my kids are not going to be there."

Quite true, but that does not satisfy the Constitutional objection.