Open Carry OK HB1414

[dieseltech09]

First let me start with making the point that I am an avid hunter, NRA Member, and I do have my CCL and carry every where I go. I am for open carry. I dont agree that it should be unrestricted carry.
There has to be some kind of regulations. We dont need people walking around with with guns strapped to both legs like this is a John Wayne movie.




T

 

[tRidiot]

First let me start with making the point that I am an avid hunter, NRA Member, and I do have my CCL and carry every where I go. I am for open carry. I dont agree that it should be unrestricted carry.
There has to be some kind of regulations. We dont need people walking around with with guns strapped to both legs like this is a John Wayne movie.




T

Just curious why you feel this way?

There are a number of places in this country where people do exactly that... unrestricted open carry, holsters strapped to legs, etc. But seldom if ever do you hear of any problems originating from this method, except by people who are irrationally afraid of law-abiding citizens and make a fuss.

 

[dieseltech09]

i just dont feel that there is enough gun safety taught in the ccw class. I think anyone who is going to carry needs to have gone through a formal class on gun safety and be tested on their skills before
they openly carry a firearm.

 

[tRidiot]

i just dont feel that there is enough gun safety taught in the ccw class. I think anyone who is going to carry needs to have gone through a formal class on gun safety and be tested on their skills before
they openly carry a firearm.

I can't say I disagree with your desire to promote gun safety and competence at all. However, the Constitution did not put limits on who could carry and when... neither does the Bill of Rights. It does, however, restrict the States from infringing upon our rights, which, of course, hasn't stopped them from enacting laws that do exactly that.

Maybe we as a nation need to get back to our roots and such training won't be necessary. Unfortunately, I find that unlikely, as in this day and age of absentee parenting, broken homes, lack of morals or personal responsibility, such things as responsible gun ownership and use are the exception, not the rule.

 

[257wby]

I can't say I disagree with your desire to promote gun safety and competence at all. However, the Constitution did not put limits on who could carry and when... neither does the Bill of Rights. It does, however, restrict the States from infringing upon our rights, which, of course, hasn't stopped them from enacting laws that do exactly that.

Maybe we as a nation need to get back to our roots and such training won't be necessary. Unfortunately, I find that unlikely, as in this day and age of absentee parenting, broken homes, lack of morals or personal responsibility, such things as responsible gun ownership and use are the exception, not the rule.

+1 I think that there should be a test on the safety, because anyone who is licensed to carry a firearm should know how to properly use the firearm. I think that the class should be optional, but the test should be hard enough that you actually have to know you're stuff. 2nd I do wish the world was different. When I was growing up and I broke the rules, I got my butt busted and I think that's how it should be. There is a big difference in abuse, and a smack on the rear when well deserved. Oh and I remember in grade school if you got in trouble, you got a swat. Things are different now days, and look at crime rate, and early pregnancy. Please don't jump me for this, but there is a point in my writing. Respectfully

 

[abajaj11]

+1 I think that there should be a test on the safety, because anyone who is licensed to carry a firearm should know how to properly use the firearm. I think that the class should be optional, but the test should be hard enough that you actually have to know you're stuff. 2nd I do wish the world was different. When I was growing up and I broke the rules, I got my butt busted and I think that's how it should be. There is a big difference in abuse, and a smack on the rear when well deserved. Oh and I remember in grade school if you got in trouble, you got a swat. Things are different now days, and look at crime rate, and early pregnancy. Please don't jump me for this, but there is a point in my writing. Respectfully

Should we also get training on how to "speak" and "write" before we are allowed to exercise our first amendment rights?

 

[minman]

Should we also get training on how to "speak" and "write" before we are allowed to exercise our first amendment rights?

Well, when we slip up speaking and writing, at least someone doesn't get killed.

 

[257wby]

Should we also get training on how to "speak" and "write" before we are allowed to exercise our first amendment rights?

No, but hand a megaphone to a person who knows not how to operate it...No problem. Hand a gun to a person who doesn't know how to operate it and you have endangered that person and all the people around him. When you were young, did your father, mother, uncle, cousin, aunt or somebody show you how to handle a firearm before they handed it to you of course. You and I and many people do practice good gun safety, but someone who did not have somebody to show them gun safety could be S.O.L. This is why MY BELIEF is that a person should be tested on gun safety. For someone who has practiced safe gun handleing all their life, they will pass it and someone who knows nothing except don't pull the trigger will need to be educated before passing. This is just my belief. Respectfully

 

[abajaj11]

No, but hand a megaphone to a person who knows not how to operate it...No problem. Hand a gun to a person who doesn't know how to operate it and you have endangered that person and all the people around him. When you were young, did your father, mother, uncle, cousin, aunt or somebody show you how to handle a firearm before they handed it to you of course. You and I and many people do practice good gun safety, but someone who did not have somebody to show them gun safety could be S.O.L. This is why MY BELIEF is that a person should be tested on gun safety. For someone who has practiced safe gun handleing all their life, they will pass it and someone who knows nothing except don't pull the trigger will need to be educated before passing. This is just my belief. Respectfully

I see what you are saying, but in principle, God given rights should not have a litmus test. They should be exercised by all citizens unless they have been used to hurt others. One could hurt others by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, for instance. But the whole point of rights is that free people are trusted to be responsible to exercise them, and do not need a "license" of any sort. We are all trained on how to speak and write, by parents or others. We don't often see folks abusing that. Of course we should all be trained to use firearms as well. If all of society had forearms and we grew up with them, as many of us do here in OK, then we would be automatically trained in gun safety.
I'm simply against the government or some central authority defining what an "adequate level" of knowledge is in using firearms, before we are allowed to use them.
Nevertheless, firearms do pose a greater potential to harm than words (and also a greater potential to help when they are needed), so I am in favor of some sort of level of knowledge, but this level should be created by society, not by some government authority. These are just my beliefs, and I think most of us on this forum and indeed this country (I hope for our sakes) share them.

 

[257wby]

I see what you are saying, but in principle, God given rights should not have a litmus test. They should be exercised by all citizens unless they have been used to hurt others. One could hurt others by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, for instance. But the whole point of rights is that free people are trusted to be responsible to exercise them, and do not need a "license" of any sort. We are all trained on how to speak and write, by parents or others. We don't often see folks abusing that. Of course we should all be trained to use firearms as well. If all of society had forearms and we grew up with them, as many of us do here in OK, then we would be automatically trained in gun safety.
I'm simply against the government or some central authority defining what an "adequate level" of knowledge is in using firearms, before we are allowed to use them.
Nevertheless, firearms do pose a greater potential to harm than words (and also a greater potential to help when they are needed), so I am in favor of some sort of level of knowledge, but this level should be created by society, not by some government authority. These are just my beliefs, and I think most of us on this forum and indeed this country (I hope for our sakes) share them.

I think we both have the same beliefs. The only reason I think our government should have a part in it is 1. organizing all of our society to set such mandates would be close to impossible, but in a since this is what voting is. This is my we have representatives. They are there to "represent" us in a higher population. I do not believe that the government should set a level of knowledge that everyone must meet in order to posses a firearm, I believe (as I think most would) that society should set this level but in order to get our word spread through out the nation, we would have to go through our representatives. The second reason that I believe our government should be involved is to enforce the mandates that society has voted on. Respectfully