I think it's more a question of priorities, They know Oklahoma in general is pretty solidly in their camp. They're time and efforts are needed in much more liberal, gun grabbing areas of the country. Doesn't make it much more palatable to us, but I'm sure they have allocale their resources were they are most needed.
I think it's more a question of priorities, They know Oklahoma in general is pretty solidly in their camp. They're time and efforts are needed in much more liberal, gun grabbing areas of the country. Doesn't make it much more palatable to us, but I'm sure they have allocale their resources were they are most needed.
HB1913 is mine 
I had a small drug charge when I was 18 and it has precluded me from getting a permit in my home state. I had to get a Florida non-resident in order to carry. I started this three years ago but they kept attaching it to bills that wer voted down. Hope it makes it this year! The 10 year perid is excessive, but I need to get it pased and work down the time later. One step at a time......
Just to clarify, thisbill REMOVES the current preclusion, it does not ADD a preclusion.
I had a small drug charge when I was 18 and it has precluded me from getting a permit in my home state. I had to get a Florida non-resident in order to carry. I started this three years ago but they kept attaching it to bills that wer voted down. Hope it makes it this year! The 10 year perid is excessive, but I need to get it pased and work down the time later. One step at a time......Just to clarify, thisbill REMOVES the current preclusion, it does not ADD a preclusion.
Easy, killer. Didn't mean to get your panties in a wad.
Just because he's got an "R" by his name doesn't mean a thing. Go look at his voting record.
Are gun owners not a "special interest group"? That term is so abused, almost as bad a "politically correct". People only use it to say that a politician doesn't agree with their views.
That's all fine and dandy in a utopia, but it's not that easy in the real world. That prohibition was put in the law specifically to attract professional sports to OKC and Tulsa. A lot of very influential people control or work to attract those tourist attractions.
It's like the bill for attracting a grand prix: good luck getting them to remove the "with populations of 300,000 or more" provision so that cities other than Oklahoma City or Tulsa could have sanctioned street races.
What's your point? Is she some how superior to a male governor?
Following her public speeches versus her voting record, she sure has a good history of contradicting herself and disregarding the Constitution.
By the way, have you ever tried to do an interview with her? Don't ask a question that wasn't submitted at least 24 hours in advance.
That's not as good a thing as one might think. There is no check on the agenda by another party.
Even then, didn't the Republicans campaign on lower taxes? Have you looked at the tax-related bills? Most of the proposed tax increases are coming from Republicans, while the boldest tax cuts are coming from Democrats.
"We the people" asked for an efficient government. We're going to regret it.
I've never said that we can't.
Too bad there was such overwhelming support by "2A Supporters" for the decisions in Heller and McDonald. If someone tells me that those decisions are victories and that they support the Second Amendment, then I know that they don't truly understand what they are fighting.
I don't sit on the sidelines. Far from it. I've got a lot of my own skin in the game. I am very politically involved, and certainly one of the ten or so people that actually contact my Representative and Senator, even though I don't agree with either of them on many issues, and I felt shut out by my Rep last year. I also keep in touch with Executive officials.
Why did I take a month-long break from blogging after the election? Part of it was that my brain was feeling fried from researching so many candidates and issues before making my endorsements. The other part was sitting back and gaining some perspective to decide if some of the letters, emails, and public comments I received (specifically about SQ755) were worth the fight.
That's fine and dandy in a utopia. But if you really believe that is the case with a single-party legislative and executive branch, you're going to get a rude awakening over the next two years.
I choose to pick my battles wisely. If you actually follow legislation, you'll see that usually at least four people file identical bills. Most of those will not make it out of committee, as a small group of individuals in the legislature controls what is heard on the floor in each chamber. Your legislator can say all he wants about his support or opposition to a bill that will never make it to the floor because he doesn't have to vote on it. Even then, most bills are introduced symbolically so that the legislator can go home and say "I introduced a bill to do such and such" even if they did no politicking for support by their fellow members.
Take, for example, open carry last year. There were numerous bills that were hung up because Sue Tibbs refused to hear them in committee. Then, late in the second session, she introduced her own bill that got railroaded onto the floor. Anybody who follows politics knew exactly what was happening. It became apparent that open carry or gun legislation might be a major issue in some districts, and a few people needed anything they could get to secure the last few votes. It was a given Brad Henry would veto it and the override would likely fail in the House.
I don't see many people complaining about the super-Obamacaresque bills on healthcare reform. But they also shouldn't complain about them, as there's a 95% chance those bills won't make it to the floor. Even if they did, they won't pass.
Look at who is running the committees this year. Once again, it's "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." In fact, Tibbs has NOTHING to lose this year and therefore no reason to let an open carry bill out of committee, even at the last minute. I'm pretty certain that our only real hope will be bypassing the committee, but I'm unsure of any previously successful efforts in doing so.
So no, I don't jump on the bandwagon when it's rosy. I'm generally one of the ones driving the bandwagons. But you have to know which battles are worth fighting. If you expend too much energy in a useless battle, you won't be able to fight the real ones.
HB1913 is mine This would REMOVE the current precluion for minor drug charges after 10 years. I want a permit in my home state but can not right now due to something minor that happened 35 years ago. I have had to go the Florida non-resident route in order to carry. I have been trying to get this passed for three years and I hope this is the year. It has been attached to bills in the past that did not make it but last year it did and received an overwhelming yea vote. It did not make it to final vote when the sesion ended because it was found to have an economic impact. It had to go back through and ran out of time. Some of you may remember me asking everyone last year to write their representatives. I will keep my fingers crossed.
Remember, this REMOVES a preclusion, it does not ADD a preclusion. Work the phones folks!
This would REMOVE the current precluion for minor drug charges after 10 years. I want a permit in my home state but can not right now due to something minor that happened 35 years ago. I have had to go the Florida non-resident route in order to carry. I have been trying to get this passed for three years and I hope this is the year. It has been attached to bills in the past that did not make it but last year it did and received an overwhelming yea vote. It did not make it to final vote when the sesion ended because it was found to have an economic impact. It had to go back through and ran out of time. Some of you may remember me asking everyone last year to write their representatives. I will keep my fingers crossed.Remember, this REMOVES a preclusion, it does not ADD a preclusion. Work the phones folks!
HB1913 is mine
Just to clarify, thisbill REMOVES the current preclusion, it does not ADD a preclusion.
Oh I get it. Duh. Then I am glad I supported it in my mail to my rep.
Tibbs is still the public safety committe chair. Last years passage of the bill by the house and senate was political theater to appease those of us who were very vocal to our reps and senators, I believe that it was widely known Henry would veto and then the override vote was a planned faiure. Unfortunately many of these won't even make it out of committee. I suspect our best bet of getting open carry will reside with the referendum bill this year.
That still has to make it to the floor first.
If it wasn't for the insane ballot access laws in Oklahoma, then an initiative petition would be a good bet. But we'd need some large supporters behind it, and I don't think the ORA has the guts or OK2A has the resources (from my outsider observations). You basically have to get a signature from 1 out of every 30 Oklahomans, and a petition drive like that is prohibitively expensive.
Like I said, Tibbs has nothing to lose. She's term limited this round.
1 in 30 is roughly the number of CCW holders in the state of Oklahoma and I doubt a petition would work based upon the number of CCW carriers who oppose open carry.
HB1913 is mine
Remember, this REMOVES a preclusion, it does not ADD a preclusion. Work the phones folks!
It ADDS this as a temporary preclusion. Under the current law, "Other Preclusions" paragraph, there are only 10 points. In HB1913, there are 11 points, which ADDS the preclusion for the misdemeanor drug conviction. And the 10 years starts from the completion of the sentence. The current law makes any drug conviction a permanent preclusion. At least there is an attempt to move the line a bit.
Check the text further up in the bill. It strikes the following phrase from 21 O.S. 1290.10(5)(e):
"any conviction relating to illegal drug use or possession"
And replaces it with the following phrase in 20 O.S. 1290.11(11):
"A misdemeanor conviction relating to illegal drug use or possession in this state or another state or pursuant to the United States Code. The preclusive period shall be ten (10) years from the date of the completion of the sentence."
Similar threads
