Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Oklahoma HB1059 - SDA Amendment
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Werewolf" data-source="post: 2094566" data-attributes="member: 239"><p>Lawyers and politicians and especially judges have a bad habit of twisting and interpreting laws to mean what ever they want them to mean. My GOD! They've taken a simple phrase like "shall not be infringed" and turned it into 20,000+ laws that don't work to do anything but infringe and now they're going to make even more.</p><p></p><p>In the current SDA parks, recration areas etc are specifically exempted. Why is that? Probably because the authors of the SDA wanted to make sure that some governmental entity orsome person thru civil action didn't try to make them a prohibited place based on the prohibited places listed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Guess what. There are two parks adjcent to and directly connected to the Del City library, a prohibited place. So that makes the little park outside the library and trosper park which is adjacent by way of a purposefully built asphalt trail from the library to it prohibited places. I can connect the dots and interpret the way the new SDA may be interpreted and so can anyone else - especially anyone else that doesn't like guns. All they have to do is convince a judge that's what the law means and - that's what the law will mean. How many LEOs might want to interpret it the same way?</p><p></p><p>People that don't like guns and don't think they should be in a citizen's hands or anywhere near them or anyone else will do what ever is necessary to get their way.</p><p></p><p>McCullough has either submitted a poorly worded piece of legislation or he has an agenda.</p><p></p><p>Why did he specifically remove the parks exemption?</p><p></p><p><strong>WHY???</strong></p><p></p><p>What is to be gained by removing it? </p><p></p><p>Why not leave the exemption in and remove all doubt that parks, recreation areas etc are OK places to carry.</p><p></p><p>That one exercise that purposely removes the exemption has the appearance of being just another political trick so McCullough can tell his anti buddies or those in his district - see - I removed parks as an exemption to prohibited places - either that or he's stupid - and I certainly don't think he's stupid.</p><p></p><p>He's pulled the wool over your eyes. Which is really a shame because OKOCA is gaining a voice in Oklahoma - don't throw it away by trying to cover for a stupidly crafted piece of legislation or worse yet one crafted for reasons you either refuse to acknowledge or have been fooled into believing that which is a lie.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 2094566, member: 239"] Lawyers and politicians and especially judges have a bad habit of twisting and interpreting laws to mean what ever they want them to mean. My GOD! They've taken a simple phrase like "shall not be infringed" and turned it into 20,000+ laws that don't work to do anything but infringe and now they're going to make even more. In the current SDA parks, recration areas etc are specifically exempted. Why is that? Probably because the authors of the SDA wanted to make sure that some governmental entity orsome person thru civil action didn't try to make them a prohibited place based on the prohibited places listed. Guess what. There are two parks adjcent to and directly connected to the Del City library, a prohibited place. So that makes the little park outside the library and trosper park which is adjacent by way of a purposefully built asphalt trail from the library to it prohibited places. I can connect the dots and interpret the way the new SDA may be interpreted and so can anyone else - especially anyone else that doesn't like guns. All they have to do is convince a judge that's what the law means and - that's what the law will mean. How many LEOs might want to interpret it the same way? People that don't like guns and don't think they should be in a citizen's hands or anywhere near them or anyone else will do what ever is necessary to get their way. McCullough has either submitted a poorly worded piece of legislation or he has an agenda. Why did he specifically remove the parks exemption? [B]WHY???[/B] What is to be gained by removing it? Why not leave the exemption in and remove all doubt that parks, recreation areas etc are OK places to carry. That one exercise that purposely removes the exemption has the appearance of being just another political trick so McCullough can tell his anti buddies or those in his district - see - I removed parks as an exemption to prohibited places - either that or he's stupid - and I certainly don't think he's stupid. He's pulled the wool over your eyes. Which is really a shame because OKOCA is gaining a voice in Oklahoma - don't throw it away by trying to cover for a stupidly crafted piece of legislation or worse yet one crafted for reasons you either refuse to acknowledge or have been fooled into believing that which is a lie. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Oklahoma HB1059 - SDA Amendment
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom