NRA/ORA stand on open carry?

[Michael Brown]

Does this "learned" professor realize that open carry is already there in 43 states in the Union? And it hasn't "endangered concealed carry" in any of those? So where does he or any one else get the theory OC will endanger CC, when the data clearly says otherwise.
Never trust folks with an agenda to be neutral or tell you the truth.

My understanding is that he is on our side. He has some foundation for his beliefs regardless of whether or not they're the same.

One of this forum's greatest weaknesses is that despite all the libertarian talk, there is a pretty deep intolerance for any idea, no matter how well thought or reasoned, that doesn't jive with what the folks here want.

Sometimes it's a good idea to just try to get along.

Michael Brown

 

[Jefpainthorse]

M Brown ... I'd think that many who comment here don't understand that open carry areas have "manners".

Checking your iron... Or locking it up when the host asks is just good manners in a polite armed society....

 

[abajaj11]

My understanding is that he is on our side. He has some foundation for his beliefs regardless of whether or not they're the same.

One of this forum's greatest weaknesses is that despite all the libertarian talk, there is a pretty deep intolerance for any idea, no matter how well thought or reasoned, that doesn't jive with what the folks here want.

Sometimes it's a good idea to just try to get along.

Michael Brown

I've edited my post to remove the last line: I may have stepped over the line by implying that folks with different viewpoints were lying, when that was not my intention at all for anyone here.

I am just tired of the mainstream media quoting authorities who have clear agendas and a little bit frustrated at our politicians here in OK.

People are welcome to their beliefs of course. It;s only when they start making predictions from their beliefs that the data becomes meaningful.

My point though, is that OC has not caused harm in 43 other states, and hence there is no basis for a plausible theory that it will cause harm in OK. Beliefs aside, I can't see how anyone can predict it will cause harm here.
I'd be interested to learn the foundation for this belief that OC will cause some harm here in OK.

 

[crazy8]

.

My point though, is that OC has not caused harm in 43 other states, and hence there is no basis for a plausible theory that it will cause harm in OK. Beliefs aside, I can't see how anyone can predict it will cause harm here.
I'd be interested to learn the foundation for this belief that OC will cause some harm here in OK.

"Mr Gambini,that was a well thought out lucid pertinant objection,Objection Over rulled"

 

[PFXD 45]

I cannot elaborate on a statement that is not mine. If you look at my post it is the statement of a Stanford law professor.

As I said in my post, I do not believe open carry will affect concealed carry laws in Oklahoma; I believe it will cause businesses to start posting no firearm signs on their property.

Michael Brown

Though yes Sir your correct on this to a point, you also have to understand that majority of business owners make policy on economy factors as well.

Economy bad means they might be more flexible on their policy, economy good well you can pretty much forget taken you weapon into there. Until the guy down the street lets the OC CCW come into their businesses and is taking way their revenue.

I think it boils down to simple economics. Not a lot of it out there right now.

 

[Michael Brown]

Though yes Sir your correct on this to a point, you also have to understand that majority of business owners make policy on economy factors as well.

This is why I hold the position that I do.

WE are the minority i.e. those of us who carry guns. We do not constitute a terribly large voting block.

Gun OWNERS constitute an enormous voting block, but few of them have carry permits and even fewer intend to open carry.

In the higher populated areas I believe the number of soccer moms who are shocked at open carry (but are blissfully ignorant of concealed carry) outnumbers the folks who will open carry.

I think many folks who live in rural areas probably discount this factor where open carry would be far less objectionable to the populace and individuals who choose to open carry could have an economic impact on a business.

However as our last presidential election showed us, those folks don't constitute very many of the total voting population.

I believe this is why our legislators felt perfectly comfortable flip-flopping on this issue, since the folks who want it are loud, but not numerous.

I think that a number of companies won't do a thing i.e. Wal-Mart or Starbucks who sensibly choose their policies based on local law.

Michael Brown

 

[crazy8]

From the atricle quoting Stanford law professor Robert Weisberg: "He says the NRA is uncomfortable with the permissiveness of the open carry movement and may worry it could endanger laws that protect carrying concealed weapons."

I believe this to be a very valid concern.

I don't know that it would do anything in terms of state-wide legislative concerns, I believe it would result in more businesses posting their premises as no-gun zones.

Michael Brown

I cannot elaborate on a statement that is not mine. If you look at my post it is the statement of a Stanford law professor.

As I said in my post, I do not believe open carry will affect concealed carry laws in Oklahoma; I believe it will cause businesses to start posting no firearm signs on their property.

Michael Brown

This is why I hold the position that I do.

WE are the minority i.e. those of us who carry guns. We do not constitute a terribly large voting block.

Gun OWNERS constitute an enormous voting block, but few of them have carry permits and even fewer intend to open carry.

In the higher populated areas I believe the number of soccer moms who are shocked at open carry (but are blissfully ignorant of concealed carry) outnumbers the folks who will open carry.

I think many folks who live in rural areas probably discount this factor where open carry would be far less objectionable to the populace and individuals who choose to open carry could have an economic impact on a business.

However as our last presidential election showed us, those folks don't constitute very many of the total voting population.

I believe this is why our legislators felt perfectly comfortable flip-flopping on this issue, since the folks who want it are loud, but not numerous.

I think that a number of companies won't do a thing i.e. Wal-Mart or Starbucks who sensibly choose their policies based on local law.

Michael Brown

Which one is it?

 

[Michael Brown]

Which one is it?

I don't own a business so I don't get to make that decision.

I believe some won't care, I believe some will. My post said that I believe it will cause more businesses to start posting no gun signs.

If two businesses do, then that statement is accurate, although I believe the number will be higher.

That said, I don't quite see the need for the sarcasm in your response.

I don't see any inconsistency in those quotes.

What I do see in your post, despite all the talk of "freedom", is an intolerance for the opinion of someone else who has thought the issue through.

I am not a politician and don't have any heartburn about open carry either way.

I simply think it will have unintended repercussions that many who are calling for open carry and those who intend to utilize it have not considered.

Nothing more.

Michael Brown

 

[Glocktogo]

Which one is it?

A little of both. Large companies will most likely follow the money. The easy way to everyones money is to follow the law and let the legislature take the heat.

Smaller businesses with upper management that works more closely with the public may opt to follow their beliefs, regardless of how misguided they may be.

I don't think it would be that big an issue one way or the other. As has been stated, 43 other states have open carry of some sort and it hasn't led to chaos in the streets or the wholesale barring of weapons in businesses. But the sky is falling chicken littles like the NRA can wring their hands on this one and still feel good about themselves. Whatever...

 

[PFXD 45]

The first part I think we have to get taken care of is getting people elected that will vote it in. My understanding of it, Voted on in Senate, Voted on in House, vetoed by Henry, (why he is in there is beyond me). Then sent back to the House to veto his veto, and did not pass the veto vote, correct me if I am wrong on this fact.

It will come back into the House and Senate again I am sure. This time my prayer is we have a real statesman in the Gov office that will sign it into law (Brogdon).

By the way anyone know the stance of the other firearm laws that were voted on and passed by the way, from the House and Senate, but vetoed by Henry. Did the NRA and the ORA take some sort of a stand on them. Or were they silent?