Constitutional Carry (SB 1212) on the OK House floor 4/23

[rawhide]

Candidates urging the Gov to sign 1212
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...idates-urge-fallin-to-sign-gun-law/ar-AAwXoHo

 

[Dave70968]

I don't think @Fyrtwuck was saying he was inherently qualified due to his service. If you look at the post he was quoting, he was merely relaying his actual experience in the AF. Like @SMS did in his post. I could be wrong, I just read it as "we did actually train with real firearms." As opposed to replicas mentioned in the post he quoted.

That said, I agree with your post 100%. Even LE is trained to carry a gun in a different manner than civvy carry. Although it is *more* relevant than .mil training.

Oh, I understand what he meant. I wasn't trying to refute him; I was trying to refute the argument that ".mil knows how to use guns, but civilians need special training." We're all on the same page here, I think...and I think we all agree that "rights" don't require permission slips.

 

[NikatKimber]

Oh, I understand what he meant. I wasn't trying to refute him; I was trying to refute the argument that ".mil knows how to use guns, but civilians need special training." We're all on the same page here, I think...and I think we all agree that "rights" don't require permission slips.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

During basic everyone had to qualify with the M-16.

Your career field does matter a difference During my time, everyone had to do yearly qualifications with the M-16. If you were in a “combat arms” category, qualifications were more frequent.

In my case, I started in the FD and only had to do yearly qualifications with the M-16. Later on I cross trained to the Security Police and things were different.

Twice a year on the M-16 and pistol and once a year on the M-60 and 203 grenade launcher. They sent us to Little Rock AFB one year and we got training on practice grenades and claymore mines. I was disappointed. I was ready to blow stuff up.

I don't see anything in there about pistols. I also don't see anything about the law of self-defense or about operation in a civilian environment, which is fundamentally different from a war zone.

Not that I don't think you're qualified, but that kind of training just isn't reflective of what the training "the rest of us" have to get is supposed to address. If "they've had training" is going to be the excuse, then the training needs to be meaningful with regard to the operational environment to be encountered.

I don't see anything in there about pistols. I also don't see anything about the law of self-defense or about operation in a civilian environment, which is fundamentally different from a war zone.

I mentioned pistol qualifications. The pistol was used more for gate duty or Military Police type functions. But, we had to be qualified on both. I think the reasoning behind allowing military to carry was due to the rash of shootings that occurred at recruiting offices.

 

[MacFromOK]

Any type of firearms training (rifle, pistol, rocket launcher, whatever) should at least teach you to keep said firearm pointed in a safe direction. That's the main thing in case of an AD (or even ND).

Just my two cents.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

did you press 2?

Yes I did. I also tried 1 a few times.

 

[264killer]

A media campaign could fix that like the smoking campaign

 

[DrewR]

The last little bit of optimism I have left says that given the publicity this has garnered we are most likely to see a signature late on a Friday afternoon when no one in the media is really paying attention. Similar to how the Feds conduct document dumps over holiday weekends.

 

[CHenry]

 

[Subsonic]

Probably would have had more support from the Governor if they hadn't attached it as an amendment to a different bill and passed it at 11pm shortly before they adjourned. Probably also doesn't help that they only allowed it to come to a vote because they wanted the author's vote on a different bill.