Can anyone explain to me why it is so hard to pass a bill that would read similar to:
Anyone in the State of Oklahoma 18 years old or older, who may legally possess a handgun, may carry said handgun in a way that is openly visible to the public, except (where it tis illegal to do so, i.e. bars, government offices, professional sporting events, etc.).
Anyone who carries a handgun concealed from view must comply with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act.
Anyone in the State of Oklahoma 18 years old or older, who may legally possess a handgun, may carry said handgun in a way that is openly visible to the public, except (where it tis illegal to do so, i.e. bars, government offices, professional sporting events, etc.).
Anyone who carries a handgun concealed from view must comply with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act.
^^^^^^^^^^ this^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well that sucks! I'd gladly trade second amendment day for open carry. Oh well I'd still rather go concealed 95% of the time anyway but dang I was hoping it would pass.
Because that is plain, easily understood English, and therefore completely illegible to highly educated politicians and judges.
In all seriousness. Some of the language is necissary to close small loopholes in interpretation that could be exploited but I'd say a majority is tradition and showmanship. After all they are congressmen and so they must sound high-falutin.
Since our house of reps possibilities are shot, I need to learn more about SB129, from what I'm reading it appears to have started life as a bill allowing the use of supressors for hunting on private property, which should be legal everywhere if lawmakers had any sense, but all that got tossed and was replaced with wording allowing wholly or partially open carry to anyone over 18 that can legally own a handgun, and applying the same locational restrictions as apply to concealed carry permit holders. Am I correct?
Is this an accepted practice? Just tossing the entire content of a bill and swapping in something else? Why not just introduce a new bill? Is the language about suppressors on private property then shunted to the round file?
My trackers show that it was engrossed to the house. And has been refered to the public safety commitee. Does that mean tibbs can shut it down?
Sorry for asking so Many questions but you guys seem in the know.
That was the biggest joke of the day. They pass a holiday to honor a supreme court descision that defines the individual right to bear arms, but when the actuall bill addressing said right comes up they hemm and haw blatantly ignoring that current Oklahoma law is in violation of that exact decision and the very amendment they named it after.
Every day I am reminded just how many truly incompetent people there are in the world.
And the best part is, the second amendment isn't even in hard to understand-ese. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." now since the supreme court, in that decision, recognized the RKBA as an individual right, not just applying to a militia, then by law that means the second amendment is to be interpreted thus- "the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For anybody that doesn't own Mr. Webster's book, the definition of infringed is:
1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc.)
2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass
Note that second part, "encroach" so, applying that, and the fact that the Second amendment doesnt have an "except for any arms that the government doesnt think they should have," clause at the end, and the SA can be read thus: "the right of the individual to keep any arms, and bear them in any way he should wish, shall not be trespassed or encroached upon in any way."
Now, why someone can't explain that to the people who swore to supposedly uphold such laws, or how any honest person could refute such explanation, I cant easily fathom. But then I never can understand women either.
Last edited:
Yes and that (insert colorful word of choice) probably will.
Theres an interesting angle...
