They just introduced a measure to make all TSA workers wear Dr. Seuss hats.
JK- no, I think they took a break and will come back at 1:00.
They just introduced a measure to make all TSA workers wear Dr. Seuss hats.
JK- no, I think they took a break and will come back at 1:00.
They just introduced a measure to make all TSA workers wear Dr. Seuss hats.
JK- no, I think they took a break and will come back at 1:00.
Nah, they'll never replace the asshats that they wear already.
you're not the only onedid the same thingNo telling how long I followed the original debate before I figured out I was an IDIOT
They just introduced a measure to make all TSA workers wear Dr. Seuss hats.
JK- no, I think they took a break and will come back at 1:00.
Nah, they'll never replace the asshats that they wear already.
Oh, you guys are funny! NOT!
Here is the response to an e-mail I sent to representative Dank:
Rep. Dank ask me to send this to you, and he would like you to read the whole thing.
Charlotte Maughan
Legislative Assistant
Rep. David Dank
Subject: HB3354 response...
Statement from Rep. David Dank…
Thank you for contacting me to express your views on HB3354, the recently passed bill that would permit the open carrying of handguns by individuals who are duly licensed for concealed carry. I voted against the bill for several reasons:
The state troopers association voiced their opposition, as did three of four law enforcement veterans who serve in the House.
None of the voices I trust on Second Amendment issues contacted me to express support for the bill, including Mike McCarville, a good friend who is perhaps our state’s foremost Second Amendment advocate. In addition, the National Rifle Association took no position on the open carry provisions in the bill.
It was very clear that this measure was simply a modification of the existing concealed carry law, which I strongly support, and that a no vote would not infringe on concealed carry rights.
In my view an open carry provision, since it would apply only to those already licensed for concealed carry, would have no appreciable impact on basic Second Amendment rights, whether it was implemented or not. I felt at the time of the vote that open carry was not good public policy, since it was redundant and merely added an element of controversy to what I believe should be a basic right. I was also informed that most, if not all, law enforcement advocates opposed the open carry measure. Prior to the vote I received no communications from constituents or involved groups supporting it. My only objection to the bill was based on a concern for public safety. I have always fully supported the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
Since the vote I have learned that the Fraternal Order of police, chambers of commerce and other interested parties have taken a neutral position on the bill. Those organizations do not see open carry as a public safety issue, which eased my initial concerns. In addition, there is another element of the bill which the NRA strongly supports that allows judges with permits to carry concealed weapons in their courthouses. I support this provision, and in the absence of any reasonable objections to the open carry provision by most law enforcement authorities, I have decided that if Governor Henry vetoes the bill, I would support an action to override that veto.
As you may know, I am a longtime member of both the NRA and the Oklahoma Rifle Association, its state affiliate. I have never opposed a valid Second Amendment measure. I am a co-author of the Firearms Freedom Act sponsored by Rep. John Enns, which recently passed the House. I am now convinced that the open carry provision is worthy of support. If the Governor signs the bill it will become law; if he vetoes it I will vote to override that veto.
Rep. Dank ask me to send this to you, and he would like you to read the whole thing.
Charlotte Maughan
Legislative Assistant
Rep. David Dank
Subject: HB3354 response...
Statement from Rep. David Dank…
Thank you for contacting me to express your views on HB3354, the recently passed bill that would permit the open carrying of handguns by individuals who are duly licensed for concealed carry. I voted against the bill for several reasons:
The state troopers association voiced their opposition, as did three of four law enforcement veterans who serve in the House.
None of the voices I trust on Second Amendment issues contacted me to express support for the bill, including Mike McCarville, a good friend who is perhaps our state’s foremost Second Amendment advocate. In addition, the National Rifle Association took no position on the open carry provisions in the bill.
It was very clear that this measure was simply a modification of the existing concealed carry law, which I strongly support, and that a no vote would not infringe on concealed carry rights.
In my view an open carry provision, since it would apply only to those already licensed for concealed carry, would have no appreciable impact on basic Second Amendment rights, whether it was implemented or not. I felt at the time of the vote that open carry was not good public policy, since it was redundant and merely added an element of controversy to what I believe should be a basic right. I was also informed that most, if not all, law enforcement advocates opposed the open carry measure. Prior to the vote I received no communications from constituents or involved groups supporting it. My only objection to the bill was based on a concern for public safety. I have always fully supported the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
Since the vote I have learned that the Fraternal Order of police, chambers of commerce and other interested parties have taken a neutral position on the bill. Those organizations do not see open carry as a public safety issue, which eased my initial concerns. In addition, there is another element of the bill which the NRA strongly supports that allows judges with permits to carry concealed weapons in their courthouses. I support this provision, and in the absence of any reasonable objections to the open carry provision by most law enforcement authorities, I have decided that if Governor Henry vetoes the bill, I would support an action to override that veto.
As you may know, I am a longtime member of both the NRA and the Oklahoma Rifle Association, its state affiliate. I have never opposed a valid Second Amendment measure. I am a co-author of the Firearms Freedom Act sponsored by Rep. John Enns, which recently passed the House. I am now convinced that the open carry provision is worthy of support. If the Governor signs the bill it will become law; if he vetoes it I will vote to override that veto.
Did the house pass it? A guy here at work just told me they did, but I don't see anyone here confirming his story.
edit: He said he heard it on KTOK
edit: He said he heard it on KTOK
Wow... looks like we have failed miserably.
That's a refreshing change of pace. His reasoning is valid and shows a willingness to rconsider his position, so long as he follows through as stated.
Similar threads
