Oklahoma Senate panel approves open-carry bill

[dieseltech09]

here we go again

 

[av8r115]

There has been a floor amendment filed for HB2522 by Rep McCullough. This amendment would require an open carried firearm to be carried in a belt holster "with a retention mechanism that is integral to the holster", and it also removes the language that would allow you to carry in a "scabbard or case" on your person.

What this means: You would not be able to open carry with a holster that uses friction as it's only means of retention.

I would encourage you to contact your representatives and ask them to vote "No" on the McCullough amendment to HB2522.

Thanks for posting this. I just sent an email to Rep. Christian.

 

[tRidiot]

Sent a solid email to Senator Ford, about to draft a similar one to Representative Sears.

 

[Dale00]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be regulated except ____________________________ (whatever our representatives feel best)

Perhaps they need a special office to test and certify retention holsters.

 

[abajaj11]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be regulated except ____________________________ (whatever our representatives feel best)

Perhaps they need a special office to test and certify retention holsters.

don't even joke about that because that WILL be coming next....and once they are established they will try to expand their authority like all good bureaucracies by conducting study after study on why CONCEALED carry is potentially even more dangerous, since the common idiots (people) carry in their (gasp) pockets, or in their waistbands. Yu dont think they will mandate holsters for conceal carry after that?

 

[NikatKimber]

I am drafting a letter to my representative now. Will post here when finished.

 

[NikatKimber]

Here is what I sent my representative.

Rep. Faught,

I would ask that you support HB 2522 that would allow open carry of a firearm for those with a permit. There are currently more than 40 other states that allow open carry in some form, and there has been little to none of the predicted bloodshed in those states. Also, the same “violence in the streets” predictions were made before the current concealed carry was instituted in Oklahoma; it has been more than a decade since, and there has been no widespread bloodshed due to concealed carry holders.

Finally, and more importantly, I believe this would be a step towards returning the rights protected by the second amendment to the United States Constitution. I would support, and would ultimately prefer, unlicensed Constitutional carry, but at this time I will take every step in the correct direction that is possible.

Furthermore, regarding the amendments made yesterday (3/5/12):

On floor amendment 1, by Rep. McCullough, I would encourage you to vote against this amendment, as it removes the freedom to carry in a case or scabbard designed to carry firearms, and adds vague language in regards to retention mechanisms. I would not support any language requiring state mandated retention mechanisms, but I specifically disagree with vague language that would allow interpretation to vary.

On floor amendment 2, by Rep. Bennett, I would also encourage you to vote against this amendment, as it gives preference to the specified military persons with regards to a basic right. Just as I would not support giving any government personnel, military, or any other group of people preference in free speech or any other right, it does not serve the rights of the people to grant military or ex-military easier access to the second amendment to bear arms. I would also not support giving them less restrictions, outside of official duty, on where they can carry.

On floor amendment 3, by Rep. Reynolds, I vehemently disagree with requiring fear of bodily harm to allow a citizen to carry. This is an extremely unreasonable restriction, and one that currently almost allows the USE of deadly force. Under current law, imminent fear of grievous injury or death allows deadly force; it would follow that if one is in “reasonable fear of bodily harm,” it is then too late to seek the help of a weapon to relieve that fear. Beyond which, who defines what is fear of bodily harm? This is again harmfully vague language that could allow restriction from rights at will by the enforcing body. Once again, I ask that you vote against this amendment.

On floor amendment 4, by Rep. Martin, I would ask that you vote for this amendment. It still requires notification at first opportunity, but allows the carry permit holder some discretion on the timing, rather than requiring notification at first contact. While such cases would be extreme, this was an issue in at least one dramatic case in another state where the officer ordered the permit holder to remain silent, but became irate when he was informed later in the contact.

On floor amendment 5, by Rep. Murphey, I would ask that you vote for this amendment. It allows more freedom to the citizen by adding the ability to use a shoulder holster in addition to a belt holster. However, I would prefer an amendment that replaces the words “a belt” with “any” thus allowing the permit holder to carry in any holster on any part of their body.

On floor amendment 6, by Rep. Cockroft, I would encourage you to support this amendment, as there is no reason to require the permit applicant to return to the Sherriff’s office again after the process is complete. This would also reduce the workload for the Sherriff’s office by removing the requirement to notify the applicant of receiving the license, and storage until the applicant retrieves it.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

 

[pak-40]

Here is what I sent my representative.

If this is not copyrighted....Im stealing it! Great letter.

 

[NikatKimber]

If this is not copyrighted....Im stealing it! Great letter.

Feel free, just do some editing please, I'd rather it not come across as a form letter if too many people use it word for word.

 

[Glocktogo]

Thaks Nikat!