We have office space on 27th, but I'm on the road alot
This morning's Tulsa World view of last week's legislative efforts:
'Open carry' measures advancing; one likely to be approved
By JANET PEARSON Associate Editor
Published: 3/20/2011 2:29 AM
Last Modified: 3/20/2011 5:38 AM
I don't know if state Sen. Steve Russell is a constitutional expert or not, but I know he's right when he says the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms "does not say it comes with a conceal-carry permit or training classes."
Nor does the Second Amendment say an American must first undergo a background check to acquire a gun, or that commercial sales of guns can be regulated, or that potentially dangerous people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
But those are all accepted provisions for owning guns in America today, even among most ardent activists on both sides of this divide. Why do almost all Americans accept some level of gun control? Because most of us accept that even our most important and cherished rights, like freedom of speech and gun ownership, are not absolute - that they come with limitations established by Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.
I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar myself, but I've read lots of articles and opinions of people who are, and it seems that just about everyone agrees that it's not whether we regulate gun ownership or not, it's the extent to which we regulate it. As one legal online service, Lawnix, put it in summarizing a recent major Supreme Court decision on the subject (District of Columbia v. Heller): "The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose."
Never-ending debate
So it's likely the debate over gun regulation will continue into the foreseeable future - maybe forever, given the fact we've been talking about the subject since the country was founded. But it's unlikely, given how debate has unfolded over the centuries, that gun ownership will ever become an absolute right free of any and all regulation - which, unbelievably, is the goal of some gun-rights advocates.
For the record, I count myself among the ranks of gun-rights advocates. I've even taken a concealed-carry training course (and yes, I passed). For that matter, most people around these parts probably support the right of people to lawfully own and use guns. Most people I know have no problem with others having guns in their homes, or even in their cars. Most people around here have no problem with hunting. And, given the fact that some gun control is reasonable and even necessary, most people probably don't have a big problem with that.
The only real issue, the continual debating demonstrates, is how much we regulate ownership.
'Open carry' advances
Which brings us to the current debate in Oklahoma. Several measures were introduced this year that would allow for so-called "open carry" of lawfully obtained weapons in Oklahoma.
House Bill 1796 would have allowed Oklahomans to vote on whether to allow residents with concealed-carry handgun permits to openly carry their weapons in a holster. But this measure was not brought up for a vote in the House, so unless it's somehow resurrected, it's dormant for this year.
This was the most reasonable of the three measures introduced this year, which likely is why it ended up dead. Speculation is that the proponents of gun rights felt it had too many restrictions and they're instead aiming for passage of a measure with fewer restrictions and quick approval with a stroke of the governor's pen.
Another bill, HB 1647, originally would have allowed anyone with a reasonable fear of bodily harm to openly carry a gun, but last week opponents managed to get an amendment attached that would allow open carry only if a protective order is being sought or has been granted. That effectively guts that bill, but its author hopes to have his original intent restored in the Senate.
Then there's Senate Bill 129 by Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, which has passed the Senate and is now in a House committee. It would have to return to the Senate for final passage if it passes the House.
Russell says the law would allow anyone 18 or older who is legally allowed to have a gun to openly carry it; no training or permitting would be necessary. The measure also would prohibit open carry in locations where guns already are banned, such as some private businesses and public facilities and college campuses.
Thankfully, Russell's measure would require that openly carried guns be contained in holsters. So at least we wouldn't have to worry about some guy's gun slipping through his waistband and down his pant leg.
This is kind of beside the point, but doesn't open carry present sartorial challenges? Maybe men wouldn't have much of a problem incorporating a holster into their ensemble, but we ladies will have to put some thought into it. Maybe some hip fashion designer can come up with some innovative new holsters in various hues that could dress up or dress down an outfit.
Russell said he's not aiming to "create a Wild West atmosphere," for which we're especially grateful. Experience in other states suggests that probably won't happen - things don't really change much, if at all, after open carry laws are passed. (Which makes one wonder why there's such a clamor for open carry, when it doesn't seem to change anything much.)
But let's be serious: Past court decisions have upheld such measures as background checks; prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill owning weapons; licensing requirements; bans on carrying weapons in sensitive places; the commercial sale of firearms; and the ownership of unusual or dangerous weapons. Concealed-carry and open carry obviously pass legal muster. Laws allowing and forbidding one aspect of gun-toting or another are, like it or not, permanent fixtures on the legal landscape.
The vast majority of U.S. states now allow some level of open carry. In fact, it's surprising that a gun-friendly state like Oklahoma is among the half-dozen left that have no law at all allowing any type of open carry.
So assuming Oklahoma does go open carry, do we really want an 18-year-old who might not even be responsible enough to operate a vehicle, who might be blotto on drugs or booze, who might be homicidally angry at his girlfriend, to be carrying a gun on his hip? Or would we rather end up with a measure that allows only trained, licensed, responsible adults to openly carry guns? It's not a difficult decision. Or it shouldn't be.
*************************
Besides burying the lead in the next to last paragraph (or at least a primary supporting fact), a fairly balanced article for the TW, except for the final paragraph. Of course, the comments following the article are certainly entertaining, especially as many of the writers can't be bothered with facts, logic, or reason.
'Open carry' measures advancing; one likely to be approved
By JANET PEARSON Associate Editor
Published: 3/20/2011 2:29 AM
Last Modified: 3/20/2011 5:38 AM
I don't know if state Sen. Steve Russell is a constitutional expert or not, but I know he's right when he says the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms "does not say it comes with a conceal-carry permit or training classes."
Nor does the Second Amendment say an American must first undergo a background check to acquire a gun, or that commercial sales of guns can be regulated, or that potentially dangerous people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
But those are all accepted provisions for owning guns in America today, even among most ardent activists on both sides of this divide. Why do almost all Americans accept some level of gun control? Because most of us accept that even our most important and cherished rights, like freedom of speech and gun ownership, are not absolute - that they come with limitations established by Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.
I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar myself, but I've read lots of articles and opinions of people who are, and it seems that just about everyone agrees that it's not whether we regulate gun ownership or not, it's the extent to which we regulate it. As one legal online service, Lawnix, put it in summarizing a recent major Supreme Court decision on the subject (District of Columbia v. Heller): "The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose."
Never-ending debate
So it's likely the debate over gun regulation will continue into the foreseeable future - maybe forever, given the fact we've been talking about the subject since the country was founded. But it's unlikely, given how debate has unfolded over the centuries, that gun ownership will ever become an absolute right free of any and all regulation - which, unbelievably, is the goal of some gun-rights advocates.
For the record, I count myself among the ranks of gun-rights advocates. I've even taken a concealed-carry training course (and yes, I passed). For that matter, most people around these parts probably support the right of people to lawfully own and use guns. Most people I know have no problem with others having guns in their homes, or even in their cars. Most people around here have no problem with hunting. And, given the fact that some gun control is reasonable and even necessary, most people probably don't have a big problem with that.
The only real issue, the continual debating demonstrates, is how much we regulate ownership.
'Open carry' advances
Which brings us to the current debate in Oklahoma. Several measures were introduced this year that would allow for so-called "open carry" of lawfully obtained weapons in Oklahoma.
House Bill 1796 would have allowed Oklahomans to vote on whether to allow residents with concealed-carry handgun permits to openly carry their weapons in a holster. But this measure was not brought up for a vote in the House, so unless it's somehow resurrected, it's dormant for this year.
This was the most reasonable of the three measures introduced this year, which likely is why it ended up dead. Speculation is that the proponents of gun rights felt it had too many restrictions and they're instead aiming for passage of a measure with fewer restrictions and quick approval with a stroke of the governor's pen.
Another bill, HB 1647, originally would have allowed anyone with a reasonable fear of bodily harm to openly carry a gun, but last week opponents managed to get an amendment attached that would allow open carry only if a protective order is being sought or has been granted. That effectively guts that bill, but its author hopes to have his original intent restored in the Senate.
Then there's Senate Bill 129 by Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, which has passed the Senate and is now in a House committee. It would have to return to the Senate for final passage if it passes the House.
Russell says the law would allow anyone 18 or older who is legally allowed to have a gun to openly carry it; no training or permitting would be necessary. The measure also would prohibit open carry in locations where guns already are banned, such as some private businesses and public facilities and college campuses.
Thankfully, Russell's measure would require that openly carried guns be contained in holsters. So at least we wouldn't have to worry about some guy's gun slipping through his waistband and down his pant leg.
This is kind of beside the point, but doesn't open carry present sartorial challenges? Maybe men wouldn't have much of a problem incorporating a holster into their ensemble, but we ladies will have to put some thought into it. Maybe some hip fashion designer can come up with some innovative new holsters in various hues that could dress up or dress down an outfit.
Russell said he's not aiming to "create a Wild West atmosphere," for which we're especially grateful. Experience in other states suggests that probably won't happen - things don't really change much, if at all, after open carry laws are passed. (Which makes one wonder why there's such a clamor for open carry, when it doesn't seem to change anything much.)
But let's be serious: Past court decisions have upheld such measures as background checks; prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill owning weapons; licensing requirements; bans on carrying weapons in sensitive places; the commercial sale of firearms; and the ownership of unusual or dangerous weapons. Concealed-carry and open carry obviously pass legal muster. Laws allowing and forbidding one aspect of gun-toting or another are, like it or not, permanent fixtures on the legal landscape.
The vast majority of U.S. states now allow some level of open carry. In fact, it's surprising that a gun-friendly state like Oklahoma is among the half-dozen left that have no law at all allowing any type of open carry.
So assuming Oklahoma does go open carry, do we really want an 18-year-old who might not even be responsible enough to operate a vehicle, who might be blotto on drugs or booze, who might be homicidally angry at his girlfriend, to be carrying a gun on his hip? Or would we rather end up with a measure that allows only trained, licensed, responsible adults to openly carry guns? It's not a difficult decision. Or it shouldn't be.
*************************
Besides burying the lead in the next to last paragraph (or at least a primary supporting fact), a fairly balanced article for the TW, except for the final paragraph. Of course, the comments following the article are certainly entertaining, especially as many of the writers can't be bothered with facts, logic, or reason.
Last edited:
I have to be honest, when I first read the quoted comment above I was highly affronted, not just because it pertains to my age group, but because it is a widely accepted form of hypocrisy that has infected our society.
Since I am 18, this hit close to home, so my response will understandably be impassioned.
There are several faults in the above quotation, foremost being that such limited thinking harms gun rights. The most egregious being only trained, licensed, responsible adults to openly carry guns, such a statement implies that the general public at large is not fit to carry guns, unless they have been properly deemed worthy of the most basic human right to defend oneself. According to the statement, it seems that they must undergo some process, (I assume run by the state or at least governed thereby), that allows them the privilege to carry openly (or closed). The problem is, power granted can be taken away, its not the governments jurisdiction to filter who is eligible to exercise their rights, because it is a fundamental right that transcends government law, every person should be able to defend themselves, it just so happens that that defense most often takes the form of a firearm. Limitations put upon that right openly suppress liberty. Oklahoma should really strive to adopt full 2nd Amendment gun rights similar to Alaska, instead of these meager bills.
do we really want an 18-year-old who might not even be responsible enough to operate a vehicle, who might be blotto on drugs or booze, who might be homicidally angry at his girlfriend, to be carrying a gun on his hip?
Whats infuriating is that such a statement makes zero sense, and contains many assumptions that have little credence. It seems to assume that all 18-year-olds are law breakers, do drugs, drink underage, have anger issues, and then they decide to carry guns. No person who acted like that should carry a gun, not because they are 18, but because they are lawless.
Furthermore I wasnt aware that only people of a certain age have the privilege of human rights. When one turns 21 do they somehow inherit maturity, and character, do they suddenly have a great sense of morality? Why is it that 18-year-olds can fight to defend their country, even die for it, but arent trusted to carry a gun until they turn 21? Why should it be 21? Whos to say that they are worthy at that age, perhaps we should make it 25, heck 35; maybe no citizen should even have the right to carry!
By putting arbitrary limitations on gun rights, you are oppressing lawful citizens; 18-year-olds have a right to own their guns, why cant they carry to protect themselves and their loved ones? After all, in the eyes of the law, they are adults.
The current open carry bill with its limited clause to allow open carry fits nicely within that line of thinking. In the most simplistic of terms, it just another example of the evil of positive law.
Chris Griffin
Since I am 18, this hit close to home, so my response will understandably be impassioned.
There are several faults in the above quotation, foremost being that such limited thinking harms gun rights. The most egregious being only trained, licensed, responsible adults to openly carry guns, such a statement implies that the general public at large is not fit to carry guns, unless they have been properly deemed worthy of the most basic human right to defend oneself. According to the statement, it seems that they must undergo some process, (I assume run by the state or at least governed thereby), that allows them the privilege to carry openly (or closed). The problem is, power granted can be taken away, its not the governments jurisdiction to filter who is eligible to exercise their rights, because it is a fundamental right that transcends government law, every person should be able to defend themselves, it just so happens that that defense most often takes the form of a firearm. Limitations put upon that right openly suppress liberty. Oklahoma should really strive to adopt full 2nd Amendment gun rights similar to Alaska, instead of these meager bills.
do we really want an 18-year-old who might not even be responsible enough to operate a vehicle, who might be blotto on drugs or booze, who might be homicidally angry at his girlfriend, to be carrying a gun on his hip?
Whats infuriating is that such a statement makes zero sense, and contains many assumptions that have little credence. It seems to assume that all 18-year-olds are law breakers, do drugs, drink underage, have anger issues, and then they decide to carry guns. No person who acted like that should carry a gun, not because they are 18, but because they are lawless.
Furthermore I wasnt aware that only people of a certain age have the privilege of human rights. When one turns 21 do they somehow inherit maturity, and character, do they suddenly have a great sense of morality? Why is it that 18-year-olds can fight to defend their country, even die for it, but arent trusted to carry a gun until they turn 21? Why should it be 21? Whos to say that they are worthy at that age, perhaps we should make it 25, heck 35; maybe no citizen should even have the right to carry!
By putting arbitrary limitations on gun rights, you are oppressing lawful citizens; 18-year-olds have a right to own their guns, why cant they carry to protect themselves and their loved ones? After all, in the eyes of the law, they are adults.
The current open carry bill with its limited clause to allow open carry fits nicely within that line of thinking. In the most simplistic of terms, it just another example of the evil of positive law.
Chris Griffin
That's one hell of a point, Chris Griffin. Well Played!!!
Griffin - Well written response; I'd encourage you to place it as a response to the editorial, either on-line or as a formal Letter to the Editor. Your position as a level-headed and logical 18yo would lend great credence to such a letter.
Absolutely! Contact the editor and publish this!
Mr. Griffon has an excellent point. The only problem is the Oklahoma education system is apparently so lousy that it students and former students are not worthy of human rights. I guess the educators know they are not turning out humans. They have the goal of producing inferior products.
Take the lifeforms in the Montana and Wyoming school system. Montana lifeforms are considered human at birth, hence no age limit on open carry. In Wyoming they are considered to be human at 14, open carry at 14. Also in these two states, the news is never able to carry a story like their imagination can produce in Oklahoma.
This is why the educators in Oklahoma are against the human right of self defense, they know their product is not human. They do not want humans.
Take the lifeforms in the Montana and Wyoming school system. Montana lifeforms are considered human at birth, hence no age limit on open carry. In Wyoming they are considered to be human at 14, open carry at 14. Also in these two states, the news is never able to carry a story like their imagination can produce in Oklahoma.
This is why the educators in Oklahoma are against the human right of self defense, they know their product is not human. They do not want humans.
