HB2522: Open Carry

[pak-40]

.....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!!

NUFF said!

 

[MLR]

You do NOT want to introduce the notion of "Home Rule" Cities here. OKC and Tulsa would take that and run like hell with it. Look at states like Pennsylvania, where Philly has to routinely be taken to court to respect state preemption.

I agree with you on principle. But, on the other side of this is that to do otherwise is allowing OKC and Tulsa to decide what the rest of the citizens outside of those cities are allowed to do. Maybe doing it in steps is the way to go. Allowing home rule for the two major cities would get our foot in the door.

Michael

 

[mons meg]

Well, LENS just alreted me that SB1733 just got an amendment filed by Jeff Hickman this morning. Looks like the House is trying to re-insert some of the good provisions of the "old" HB2522 into SB1733, e.g. OC on private property, no disordelty conduct charge permitted, ties OC to the SDA, and a nice amendment which reads thus:

The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand.

Full text:

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/c...TS/House/SB1733 FULLPCS1 JEFF HICKMAN-GRS.DOC

So, This may be the start of the next phase, I'll refer to it as The House Strikes Back. There's more changes to 1733 than I listed here, haven't had time to go through it line by line.

 

[tRidiot]

I agree with you on principle. But, on the other side of this is that to do otherwise is allowing OKC and Tulsa to decide what the rest of the citizens outside of those cities are allowed to do. Maybe doing it in steps is the way to go. Allowing home rule for the two major cities would get our foot in the door.

Michael

However, this could also lead to precedent for OKC and Tulsa adopting similar "exemptions" for other laws. What if they decided not to only ban open carry, but concealed carry as well? What other things might change?

 

[hrdware]

To piggy back on mons meg:

In a surprising turn of events, (yeah right) the house public safety committee has filed a committee sub for SB1733. The committee sub deletes all the text from SB1733 and replaces it with the amended and engrossed text from the version of HB2522 that passed out of the house. See, the house can do the same as the senate.

Now, I see no problem with the house PSC and the full house passing SB1733 and sending it back to the full senate to approve the amendments. Now the question is what happens with HB2522. It is possible that a conference committee could be called to try and merge the 2 bills, but I think if the full senate kills the current version of HB2522, then accepts the changes to SB1733, we will be in good shape.

 

[hrdware]

While I do favor State preemption on most laws I might consider doing like a few other States do in that they allow Major Cities to opt out on Open Carry. If for instance the Two major cities in Oklahoma were the only stumbling block in allowing the citizens in the rest of the State to exercise their freedom would it be wrong to compromise? So long as it was written to make it mandatory that those Cities had to issue a warning first before an actual ticket that would protect those not aware of this special exception allowed to those Cities.

Michael

Colorado has this. OC is legal in Colorado except in Denver and any property owned by the city of Denver, and they do own property outside the county. I also find it interesting that it is illegal to carry a firearm in any public conveyance in CO, including elevators and escalators.

 

[tRidiot]

To piggy back on mons meg:

In a surprising turn of events, (yeah right) the house public safety committee has filed a committee sub for SB1733. The committee sub deletes all the text from SB1733 and replaces it with the amended and engrossed text from the version of HB2522 that passed out of the house. See, the house can do the same as the senate.

Now, I see no problem with the house PSC and the full house passing SB1733 and sending it back to the full senate to approve the amendments. Now the question is what happens with HB2522. It is possible that a conference committee could be called to try and merge the 2 bills, but I think if the full senate kills the current version of HB2522, then accepts the changes to SB1733, we will be in good shape.

This is exactly the kind of BS politics that is going to keep this from passing.

Godd$#@ imbecilic elected officials.

 

[hrdware]

This is exactly the kind of BS politics that is going to keep this from passing.

Godd$#@ imbecilic elected officials.

eh?? What do you think will stop this from passing?

 

[pak-40]

eh?? What do you think will stop this from passing?

What happend this morning is actually a good thing. The house bill, after Sen Russells changes, would not pass in this political climate right now. Which the new changes to SB1733, we have a pretty decent bill that stands a decent chance of going "all the way".

 

[hrdware]

What happend this morning is actually a good thing. The house bill, after Sen Russells changes, would not pass in this political climate right now. Which the new changes to SB1733, we have a pretty decent bill that stands a decent chance of going "all the way".

Agreed