LEO and open carry

[doctorjj]

We were not given the right, rights existed and do exist prior to and even in the absence of government. We have enumerated and codified certain rights and in the interest of avoiding anarchy we place and accept limits on these rights.

I have arrested SDA permit holders for violating the laws of the State of Oklahoma. Article 2, Section 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution, as poor a document as it is, mandates that the legislature may restrict the carrying of weapons. They can do so without violating the 2nd Amendment because we are "a well-regulated militia." The founding fathers wrote at length about weapons and the well-regulated wording meant to them properly trained, equipped, and prepared to defend and maintain a free state. The current open carry bills are filled with stupid and superfluous minutia and are a poor and feeble first step.

As I said, I hope some form of open carry passes but I fear the "in your face" attitude of many who support it will cause serious and negative repercusssions. Not wild shoot-outs in the street but very damaging attention to gun owners in general.

If you choose to legally open carry, I wish you the best and implore you to get more training. Anyone who says they have had plenty of training or enough training simply does not understand that you cannot ever have enough training. Be caeful, be safe, make wise decisions before you choose to carry openly.

Kopel makes some very valid points but his data is way too small a sample to be statistically valid and his comparison of police shootings to civilian involved shootings is simply two extremely different types of events. Most of what he wrote was related directly to six states that passed CONCEALED carry and what the initial impact of citizens carrying concealed. It is a really old study based on several very much older studies, many of which he admits used a flawed methodology.

I think you forgot that comma in the Second Amendment. The first phrase is simply there to identify why the right to bear arms is being protected. It goes on to say that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not the right of the militia to bear arms.

 

[okiebryan]

I think you forgot that comma in the Second Amendment. The first phrase is simply there to identify why the right to bear arms is being protected. It goes on to say that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not the right of the militia to bear arms.

+10,000,000,000,000

 

[abajaj11]

Well, I am a Leo (born in August), but not a LEO, but I'll give my opinion anyways.

I support OC, though I doubt I will OC very often. No point in going into reasons as this thread is regarding the support of OC and not the philosophies behind it.


I think this legislation is a piece of crap , just as I think the concealed carry legislation was a piece of crap. CC & OC should require no license, no fees, no classes, etc. Selling us our rights is BS.


Statistics, opinions, and laws shouldn't affect CC or OC, we're given the right to "bear arms" in the Bill of Rights and so obviously that should be the only law we need regarding OC, period.

Every curtailment of our right is not the same; there are shades of gray. For example, we don't have perfect freedom of speech in this country as well (for example threatening POTUS is an offense, crying "fire" in a theater is an offense) and so on. In China, they don't have freedom of speech either (limited access to Internet, Google, Facebook, and limited ability to post). But you'll agree we have far MORE rights to freedom of speech and expression than they have in China.
Similarly, while the current OC bills do not give us perfect Constitutional carry, they give us far more rights to our freedom to keep and bear arms, than the current concealment only laws in OK. They move us closer to the freer states, like Vermont & Wyoming.
One step at a time.

 

[reddog1]

Well why dont we just ban guns all together because its going to make the LEOs job harder.

There is always retirement?

 

[pak-40]

Well why dont we just ban guns all together because its going to make the LEOs job harder.

There is always retirement?

LOL!!! If I lived in BA, I would TOTALLY frequent your store!

 

[green_machine]

I vote reddog1 for president! don't forget to add in all motor vehicles. they too also make their jobs harder. between all the speeding and wrecks and what not. ok. that's the only 2 cents I'm chiming in to this conversation. lol

 

[BadgeBunny]

As a person who grew up in a LEO family member. Who still has many close friends in that occupation I agree with much of what you have said.
What we have to understand is that government was not formed to protect itself at the expense of the people. It is not the job of the people to make life easy for the government or those in it. The government was set up to protect and to make life easier for the citizens.

Many of our laws nowadays are set up to make prosecution of certain crimes easier. A far cry from the original intent where it was difficult to convict a person. When rights are taken away simply because keeping them it makes things more difficult for the government I believe we have gone to far.

Michael

You and I are on the same page. I do agree with everything you've posted here about the government.

Well why dont we just ban guns all together because its going to make the LEOs job harder.

There is always retirement?

I vote reddog1 for president! don't forget to add in all motor vehicles. they too also make their jobs harder. between all the speeding and wrecks and what not. ok. that's the only 2 cents I'm chiming in to this conversation. lol

Jeez, guys ... nothing like makin' a girl's point for her ...

 

[ExSniper]

I did not forget the comma in the Second Amendment, most here seem to think it was a period.

If you cannot have a civil discourse on the subject with people who support open carry how are you going to win over the majority who think all guns and gun owners are evil?

You know BB did not mean we should tailor laws to make LE easier, but this law as currently written may force us into "muzzle to muzzle" confrontations with honest but over-zealous gun-toters.

 

[MLR]

I did not forget the comma in the Second Amendment, most here seem to think it was a period.

If you cannot have a civil discourse on the subject with people who support open carry how are you going to win over the majority who think all guns and gun owners are evil?

You know BB did not mean would should tailor laws to make LE easier, but this law as currently written may force us into "muzzle to muzzle" confrontations with honest but over-zealous gun-toters.

Why would a person who presently carries concealed become more likely to become over zealous if he changed his way of carrying?

Michael

 

[doctorjj]

I did not forget the comma in the Second Amendment, most here seem to think it was a period.

If you cannot have a civil discourse on the subject with people who support open carry how are you going to win over the majority who think all guns and gun owners are evil?

You know BB did not mean would should tailor laws to make LE easier, but this law as currently written may

force us into "muzzle to muzzle" confrontations with honest but over-zealous gun-toters.

I didn't realize that pointing out your misunderstanding of the second amendment was being uncivil.