HB3098 Constitutional Carry

[Poke78]

Saw that on facebook earlier today along with blood in the streets comments. Just seconds ago I browsed over the bill and noticed that the phrase while "no crime is being committed" (or something close to it) is included several times.

Thanks for taking that deep dive into the legislative language, haven't taken the time to do it myself. Good detail to know, might keep some otherwise level heads from exploding when exposed to hyperbole.

 

[Rod Snell]

Keep your eyes open. A similar bill in KY had a last minute poison pill amendment slipped in to increase the penalty for going into posted businesses, and it would not surprise for it to be tried here by the Chamber of Commerce lobby.

Regarding the NRA, you are correct that it is not really involved in either state with day-to-day changes in these bills, which are being well handled by state residents.
Ironically, there is another thread going where the NRA is being bashed for not stopping the KY amendment.
The NRA at the moment has its hands full with congress, and the Obama edicts.
Time to pull up the big boy pants and quit ignorant bashing and complaining about what we can handle just fine right here in Oklahoma. The problems we desperately need help with come from Washington, DC. Have you considered what it would be like if all we had to deal with were Oklahoma gun laws and not the flood of idiotic edicts out of Washington?? Just like 1967, the last year gun owners were free.

 

[gerhard1]

The hyperbole addicts just can't help themselves: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/0...-abusers-open-carry-guns-because-jesus-video/

Aren't domestic abusers already precluded from firearms possession? The quoted article states that they are not.

House Bill 3098, authored by state Rep. Jeff Coody (R-Insane), that carrying a firearm is a right guaranteed by both the Constitution and God. According to Coody and the bill’s co-authors, Bible-believing Christians have a right to defend themselves. Coody says that the Second Amendment is the most important thin in the Bill of Rights, which can not be infringed upon - even, of course, if someone beats his entire family with a crowbar.

This statement is garbage.

 

[gerhard1]

Wouldn't an SDA license still be needed for carry in a school zone?

I repeat the question: wouldn't an SDA license still be needed for carry in a school zone?

 

[Poke78]

Aren't domestic abusers already precluded from firearms possession? The quoted article states that they are not.

This statement is garbage.

It's my understanding this may be a gray area as conviction of domestic abuse is a misdemeanor, not a felony. However, the proposed legislation does have language that you may not open carry while committing a crime and it is a crime to violate a domestic abuse protective order.

I told you hyperbole was the only rhetorical tool that writer had.

 

[bigfug]

I repeat the question: wouldn't an SDA license still be needed for carry in a school zone?

No, all the legalities concerning open carry would be the same, just without the permit. So no permit needed, unless entering upon school property. A permit still would not be needed as long as it was for picking up or dropping off. If the vehicle were left unattended, the firearm would have to be unloaded and stored, and it would fall under the guise of transporting/storing a firearm. If the firearm were locked out of view, loaded, in an unattended vehicle, it would be a concealed weapon, and a permit would be required, just as it is now.

 

[Dave70968]

It's my understanding this may be a gray area as conviction of domestic abuse is a misdemeanor, not a felony. However, the proposed legislation does have language that you may not open carry while committing a crime and it is a crime to violate a domestic abuse protective order.

I told you hyperbole was the only rhetorical tool that writer had.

It's not gray at all:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien-
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that-
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 (Emphasis added.)

Look at section 8, too--it doesn't even take a conviction, just a restraining order.

 

[gerhard1]

It's not gray at all:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 (Emphasis added.)

Look at section 8, too--it doesn't even take a conviction, just a restraining order.

So, it seems like I was correct. The statement is garbage.

 

[Poke78]

It's not gray at all:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 (Emphasis added.)

Look at section 8, too--it doesn't even take a conviction, just a restraining order.

OK, glad to have the details. Domestic violence is clearly addressed in Federal law so it seems some similar language in the proposed state law would go far in reducing the hyperbole...maybe.

 

[gerhard1]

I differentiate between hyperbole (a wild exaggeration not intended literally) and a misstatement of fact. A misstatement is what we have in the portion that I quoted. The question then becomes one of whether the misstatement was an honest mistake on his part or a deliberate lie. That is a judgment that I can't make. Either way, his credibility should be damaged.