Oklahoma HB1059 - SDA Amendment

[okiebryan]

With regards to your comment about "his anti buddies or those in his district" in his district, have you looked at where his House district is? Not exactly a hotbed of liberals or hoplophobic sissies.

Remember that this Rep voted for and supports open carry.

 

[hrdware]

No it is not.

Did you even bother to read the legislation as submitted by McCullough? Seems not. Because that line along with all the other exemptions will be stricken from the SDA if McCullough's proposal passes.

Connect the dots. Parks and Recreation areas won't be exempt anymore. Put down the kool-aid McCullough is feeding you.

The line that will be stricken does not remove all of the other protected places. It still leaves in place the "any property adjacent to a prohibited place" as being specifically excluded from becoming a prohibited place.

Please explain how striking item 4 makes items 1, 2, and 3, automatically invalid.

State law is very clear. The state has preemption in firearms law, so unless there is a state statute that makes carrying in a park, recreation area, or fairgrounds illegal, it is perfectly legal, no matter how someone tries to twist it.

 

[Werewolf]

The line that will be stricken does not remove all of the other protected places. It still leaves in place the "any property adjacent to a prohibited place" as being specifically excluded from becoming a prohibited place.

Please explain how striking item 4 makes items 1, 2, and 3, automatically invalid.

State law is very clear. The state has preemption in firearms law, so unless there is a state statute that makes carrying in a park, recreation area, or fairgrounds illegal, it is perfectly legal, no matter how someone tries to twist it.

You are correct sir... and I apologize for my tone in previous posts. I misread the section and incorrectly believed that 1 thru 4 were stricken. Only 4 is. That said I still believe that stiking the exemption will open up a can of worms that will allow those opposed to carrying in parks and recreation areas to challenge them now as legal carry areas.

I still wonder why what is clear and removes all doubt that carry in those places is legal is being stricken. Why remove it?

 

[hrdware]

You are correct sir... and I apologize for my tone in previous posts. I misread the section and incorrectly believed that 1 thru 4 were stricken. Only 4 is. That said I still believe that stiking the exemption will open up a can of worms that will allow those opposed to carrying in parks and recreation areas to challenge them now as legal carry areas.

I still wonder why what is clear and removes all doubt that carry in those places is legal is being stricken. Why remove it?

I do agree that removing something that seems clear is pretty odd. I have seen other bills that have some very minor changes along with a single major change. I do not know if there is some kind of legislative rule about how much text has to be changed in a bill or not. That's about the only thing I can think of as to why this would be done. That being said, there is supposed to be a committee substitute to this bill today so we will have to wait and see how the language reads after that.

 

[NikatKimber]

Werewolf,

Have you contacted the author about it? I did, I'm not a constituent, and he responded very quickly and personally to me.

 

[hrdware]

This bill was removed from the agenda and did not have a hearing. When I find out more, I will post.

There is however a committee substitute for the bill.

Text of Substitute

This substitute does the following:
-removes the awkward wording about intentional showing of a concealed firearm.
-allow carry into city, state, local government buildings that did not provide both authorized security and metal detectors the public has to pass through
-removes government meetings from the prohibited places list
-would allow for leaving a concealed firearm in a locked vehicle on school property
-removes government parks, recreational areas, and fairgrounds from being exempt from prohibited places
-carrying onto school grounds after having been issued a license would result in a $250 fine (current penalty is $100 admin fee and permanent loss of license)
-would require businesses to post gun buster signs if they don't want firearms on the property
-clarifies that if you carry past a sign and are asked to leave and you don't, it is a $100 fine.

 

[Jack T.]

This bill was removed from the agenda and did not have a hearing. When I find out more, I will post.

There is however a committee substitute for the bill.

Text of Substitute

This substitute does the following:
-removes the awkward wording about intentional showing of a concealed firearm.
-allow carry into city, state, local government buildings that did not provide both authorized security and metal detectors the public has to pass through
-removes government meetings from the prohibited places list
-would allow for leaving a concealed firearm in a locked vehicle on school property
-removes government parks, recreational areas, and fairgrounds from being exempt from prohibited places
-carrying onto school grounds after having been issued a license would result in a $250 fine (current penalty is $100 admin fee and permanent loss of license)
-would require businesses to post gun buster signs if they don't want firearms on the property
-clarifies that if you carry past a sign and are asked to leave and you don't, it is a $100 fine.

Every one of those points are good in my book.

 

[hrdware]

Werewolf,

Have you contacted the author about it? I did, I'm not a constituent, and he responded very quickly and personally to me.

That said I still believe that striking the exemption will open up a can of worms that will allow those opposed to carrying in parks and recreation areas to challenge them now as legal carry areas.

I still wonder why what is clear and removes all doubt that carry in those places is legal is being stricken. Why remove it?

I sent an email to the author asking about removing parks and things from the prohibited places list. He said that was a drafting mistake. He pulled the bill from today's agenda to work on a couple of things. I would expect a different committee sub or some amendments to the current committee sub.

 

[tRidiot]

Progress... I like it.

We need to make sure the Rep McCullough is commended by many for his accessibility and willingness to work towards our rights. Sounds like he is currently on our side... we need to make sure we KEEP him there!

I am about to email him.

 

[tRidiot]

Ok, here's what I sent -

Dear Rep McCullough,

First of all, I want to thank you for a few things. As an active member of the firearms enthusiast community, I would like to express my appreciation for your efforts in helping secure and restore our rights as protected under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. I would also like to thank you explicitly for your accessibility in this matter. While I have not conversed with you directly up till now, I have been following this bill's progress closely via message board activity on OKshooters.com. I appreciate your responses to our members who have contacted you, even thought not directly located in your district. It means a lot to us as a community to have elected representatives who are not only actively working to protect and restore our rights, but are also receptive and responsive to our concerns. Thank you!

I want to encourage you to continue to work diligently towards those goals. We have too many who have been elected to public service who believe they have been put in place to "govern" rather than represent and protect the public... not from ourselves, but from government intrusion! We appreciate your attitude of accountability and openness in crafting legislation that is both clear in its language and specific in its scope.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time in the future if I can be of any assistance to you in your efforts at securing the freedoms guaranteed (not granted!) us by the Constitution. I believe the incremental erosion of those freedoms is the greatest threat to our great nation, and I applaud the efforts of you and your fellow representatives who are truly dedicated to protecting them!

Sincerely,

Hope that gets the point across and maybe we can spur some others to write their own reps and encourage them in a similar manner.