Oklahoma Senate panel approves open-carry bill

[NikatKimber]

Thaks Nikat!

You're welcome!

Every once in a while, I put down the 'taters, get off the couch, and do something. Usually I just +1 other people's posts.

 

[oklacowboy]

NikatKimber, that is a very well wright en letter.

 

[okiebryan]

HB2522 got moved to tomorrow's calendar. This means there is more time for phone calls and emails!

 

[Mr.357Sig]

Good letter, NK. Thanks for standing up for our 2A rights.

 

[av8r115]

Great letter NikatKimber!

 

[dra1965]

Does anyone know when this goes for a full blown vote?

 

[okiebryan]

It's on the House calendar for Wednesday 3/7. It may or may nor be heard then. After passage in the house, it goes to the Senate to be assigned to a committee (most likely Public Safety, I'd guess).

If you are asking when it goes on a ballot for Oklahoma voters to decide, it doesn't. Once the House and Senate both pass the same bill with the title intact, it goes to the Governor for her signature or veto.

 

[tRidiot]

Grrr....

From my Rep, Earl Sears

Thank you for your note and your thoughts on this bill. I will be supporting this bill when it comes to the House floor. As for removing the holster part of this bill I don’t know what might happen with this idea. I understand your position but I don’t know if this part will be removed because members like the bill as it is written.



Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding this issue.



Earl Sears

My response:

Representative Sears,

I appreciate your personal reply to my letter and your continued support of our second amendment rights in the State of Oklahoma.

I'm not sure I understand your statement about Representative McCullough's amendment, however. It sounds as if you believe the majority of the House body is in favor of the entire bill, including this current amendment? I hope this is not true, I as I hope this particular amendment is struck from the Bill with prejudice.

I just cannot see the merit in further adding regulation to something which is so obviously a personal choice. Specifically-designed "retention holsters" are available from many manufacturers and are of varying quality and design. The State surely has no interest in obtaining, testing and evaluating all the different types on the market, nor of building an "acceptable list" of such products, yet with such vague language included to regulate such a hotly-debated issue, the need for clarity is paramount.

As it is written, I believe the amendment to leave the issue wide open for interpretation by any enforcement officer who comes in contact with a permit-holder lawfully carrying his weapon. Hundreds of designs and methods of retention are available on the free market, from simple straps to complicated internal locking mechanisms requiring coordinated actions on the part of the carrying individual to draw the weapon. Not all of these are readily discernible by simple outward observation. Is a law enforcement officer to ask an individual to step to the side so that he may adequately "test the retention capability" of his chosen holster?

In addition, many individuals manufacture their own holsters or carry rigs to suit their particular body type and/or clothing style and needs. Such a requirement would significantly reduce the ability of many people who prefer to use their own constructed holsters, as adding a retention device complicates the construction significantly. Thus, this then shifts the burden back to the consumer to purchase a specific holster often made for their individual carry weapon. If I often carry a different firearm due to different weather, season, clothing style, activity anticipated, etc., when I might have previously been able to use only one or two holsters, I might now be required to buy not just one holster with specifically-designed retention capabilities for each weapon, but potentially, several holsters for each weapon, each at a much greater cost than those without such retention systems.

I appreciate the need for retention training, but I believe it much more feasible and practical to simply incorporate a required additional segment into the current CCW training course detailing some of the retention systems available, basic techniques and advice from the instructors. This would ensure that every person who obtains a permit to carry a weapon in Oklahoma receives an agreed-upon minimum level of training in the subject area.

Once again... the irresponsibility of individuals such as Paul Roan who are screaming about "blood in the streets" and "the days of the Old West" have NOT been played out or proven in anything close to statistically significant numbers in other states which have no such similar requirement regarding their currently-enacted Open Carry statutes. Any attempt by the opponents of this measure to suggest otherwise is simply an act of diversion reflecting their own personal bias and belief that responsible, law-abiding Oklahomans still need a nanny to supervise the exercise of their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Thank you again for your time.

Sincerely,
XXXXX XXXXXXX

 

[tRidiot]

Maybe I'm a little overly concerned about the retention issue, but it really chaps my hide to think I will be severely limited in the types of "open carry" I would be allowed to utilize.

 

[oklacowboy]

Maybe I'm a little overly concerned about the retention issue, but it really chaps my hide to think I will be severely limited in the types of "open carry" I would be allowed to utilize.

Your not overly concerned, you got it dead RIGHT!!! Good job on the letter.