Oklahoma Bills Introducted

[owassopilot]

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."

I have edited my statement. Please read it again. I didn't read his correctly before I posted.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I have edited my statement. Please read it again. I didn't read his correctly before I posted.

Now that I've actually read that bill (I'm currently about to start the House bills, just finished all of the Senate bills), I'm on the fence about it. It's a move of the line in the right direction, but not enough to even begin to satisfy me. My earlier statement about being a new shadow for my Representative and Senator about that bill was based on your opening post.

 

[owassopilot]

Now that I've actually read that bill (I'm currently about to start the House bills, just finished all of the Senate bills), I'm on the fence about it. It's a move of the line in the right direction, but not enough to even begin to satisfy me. My earlier statement about being a new shadow for my Representative and Senator about that bill was based on your opening post.

Yea, I would agree...it doesn't move the line far enough. But it gets the discussion started.

 

[Werewolf]

I don't think there is enough political will power right now to pass full open carry without a permit, (Known as constitutional carry) nor do I think they will remove government buildings and meetings from the list of prohibited places. I could be wrong, but allowing citizens to carry weapons in a court house, city hall, or school board meeting will not sit well with judges and mayors, unless they were to add language that gives the option to allow or not in individual buildings, such as it is right now with private businesses. If you remove the current restrictions, then unlike a private business that can just ask you to leave, the law could be interpreted to require all government buildings in Oklahoma to allow both open and concealed carry.

A society whose governing officials fear the citizens is a free society. A society where they don't is a tryanny.

This has become more and more true as each decade since the founding of our nation has passed. The rate at which it is becoming more true is rapidly increasing.

 

[Dale00]

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...

Once again we have asked the government to do something they should not be doing (Public safety = protect us) and as a result we have lost our rights. I'm sure Ms. Tibbs righteously believes she knows what is best for our safety and thinks she is protecting us by restricting our gun rights.

When we ask government to be our parents, instead of taking it upon ourselves to do something at the local level, we lose our rights. I wonder if we shouldn't be working to reduce the scope of the public safety committee's mission?

 

[owassopilot]

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.

I wanted to respond to this, but felt the thread needed to slow down a bit. Veggie, I can see your points and understand you view things as a realist. But I think you missed mine altogether. My point was actually pretty simple. Some historical things are happening, both in Oklahoma, and the U.S. The point in mentioning having Gov. Fallin was not intended to create a battle of the sexes...let's get past that. It was intented to point out this has never occured before. There is something to be said about that, and I personally think it's a good thing. The fact that both chambers are Replublican is only to point out that it has NEVER happened before in Oklahoma. EVER! It's a very historical thing.

From a national standpoint, the Nov elections were amazing. It was mentioned many times over how historical it was and the amount of seats Republicans took over in the house in a single election has NEVER been done before.

At the end of the day, my post really had little to do with details of who votes how, but rather the bigger picture of what is going on. When you see these types of things happening, there is something big on the way. The special interest groups, including the NRA, played very little role in what happened. What happened, I believe, is the beginning of the people retaking rights from the goverment that we have lost. Yes, it will be a long process, and I'm sure we'll experience setbacks. But don't ever doubt that the people have the power, and when we get angry enough, things can change for the better. This IS a battle worth fighting, from a big picture standpoint.

Now, at the end of the year, you could very well be right about all the proposed laws changing the SDA, but I would like to think that this momentum experienced recently has the chance to grow, and I'm convinced if enough people make their voice heard on this issue, our representatives will listen. I think these last elections got their attention. You have the right to be a realist, but I have the right to be an optimist. We can sit here and complain all we want about our country and how our rights are being taken away...and they are. But let's be honest...we still have the best country in the world. No government anywhere on the planet will ever be perfect, but you don't find many governements where you have peaceful transfer of power and the ability for the people to get our goverment's attention in a peaceful way, such as what happened in November.

*steps off soap box*

 

[Jam Master Jay]

I'm not so certain that HB 1796 is a good thing. I'd bet on it getting voted down handily by a vote of the people. I would much prefer to see an open carry bill voted on by the legislature and put before the governor where it has a real chance of getting passed.

I've been reading some of the online reader comments and letters to the editor lately about proposed open carry legislation and there are a bunch of vehement idiots out there who will do everything they can to stop it.

 

[Nik]

I'm not so certain that HB 1796 is a good thing. I'd bet on it getting voted down handily by a vote of the people. I would much prefer to see an open carry bill voted on by the legislature and put before the governor where it has a real chance of getting passed.

I've been reading some of the online reader comments and letters to the editor lately about proposed open carry legislation and there are a bunch of vehement idiots out there who will do everything they can to stop it.

I agree.

Open Carry has a very good chance of making through the legislature and gov's signature.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I see HB 1913 as a trapping device. Get "caught" with a roach in your ash tray and lose your CHL for ten years? Sounds like something Bill Citty might have produced. This is not good. It also raises a misdemeanor to the level of a felony for a ten year period.

Woody

EDITED TO ADD:

Just to clarify, this bill REMOVES the current preclusion, it does not ADD a preclusion.

In that case, [size=+1]NEVER MIND![/size]

 

[Silveravnt]

I'd like to see elementary schools removed from the list of prohibited places. It's hassle when I pick up my child.