Open carry?

[Bravo 3]

Tim,
You have mentioned reps and organizations/groups that have helped,how about the ones blocking efforts,maybe starting with Dan Sullivan!

There has been much discussion about the open carry discharge petition and OK2A. I haven't been on OSA for a while due to time contraints, so I apoligize for this not being more timely to the flow of the discussion, but I would like to clear things up a bit.

In February, after the House leadership blocked a chage to their rules that would have helped get good 2A legislation through the chamber, we knew we needed to do something to force the issue. Three people currenlty have complete control over the fate of every bill: the chairman of the committee the bill is assigned to, the Floor Leader, and the Speaker. It is the same in the Senate. Until we break up this oligarchy, it is going to mean more frustration every year as we try again and again to pass good legislation. This was the first purpose of the discharge petition.

This petition was kicked off by a group of around 20 conservative grassroots organizations from around the state. We discussed several different bills, ranging from an ad valorem tax cut, to open carry. We decided to use HB1400, a "traditional" unlicensed open carry bill. However, the author of the bill asked that we not use his bill because he hoped to get Sue Tibbs to hear the bill in committee. Tibbs was never going to hear his bill, but we had to honor his wishes. The problem we faced was waiting for the committee deadline to pass would have meant we would possibly run out of time trying to get the signatures on the discharge petition so we chose another bill. It came down to HB1470 or HB1647. The author of HB1647 was already on board with the effort and, since 1470 was licensed, we chose 1647. From the beginning, the plan was to clean the language up once we got it moving through the process.

For example, Senator Russell had introduced SB856, an unlicensed open carry bill. Sen. Barrington refused to hear it, so Senator Russell amended it into a completely different bill. Then, on the floor, Senator Russell added his open carry language back into another bill, SB129. As bills move through the process, it is not difficult to clean them up, and sometimes even change them completely. We were never going to be satisfied with the language as it was, partly because of some of the conerns that have been voiced in this forum: the burden of proving reasonable fear of bodily harm.

Several Representatives were instrumental in helping. Rep. Bennett, as the author of the bill, worked hard to get the freshmen Republicans on board. Reps. Ritze, Terrill, Reynolds, Key, Derby, and others were helpful. Also, Reps. Inman and Procter were influental with the Democrat caucus. The organizations that carried the water were OK2A, the High Noon Club, John Birch Society, OCPAC, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, OKC Tea Party, and a few others. Also, Kaye Beach was a big help.

As for OK2A, we would have loved to see Rep Tibbs hear HB1400 and Sen Barrington to hear SB856. That wasn't going to happen. We would have loved to use HB1400 for the petition - that was our initial plan - but that didn't work out. The best option was 1647. If SB129 doesn't come out of the House Public Safety Committee, we will work to clean up the language in HB1647 while it is in the Senate. We actually still have a strong chance to pass unlicensed open carry before the session is over in May. The next hurdle will be the Governor. She has said she would sign it, but she sure hasn't helped move it through the process, so I have my doubts.

Tim Gillespie
Director,
OK2A

 

[tagillespie]

Tim,
You have mentioned reps and organizations/groups that have helped,how about the ones blocking efforts,maybe starting with Dan Sullivan!

Dan Sullivan, Sue Tibbs, Kris Steele, and many of the other members of the Republican leadership. The whips, led by Rep. McNiel, worked to keep Representatives from signing the petition and from voting for the bill. They've actually gone on a witch hunt trying to intimidate Representatives. We've heard how we should just play along and make nice and I was referred to as demonic by one Representative. They've said they were lied to about the discharge petition, which is a lie. On one of the days we were collecting signatures, we had about 50 people there. About 10 of us (including myself) were pastors. Sue Tibbs referred to us in the Republican Caucus meeting as a bunch of lying preachers. They don't like it when the people that hired them show up to tell them how to do the job they were hired to do.

 

[CamaroMan]

Dilema?

More freedom = less safe
More safe = less freedom

It's a sliding scale. The only dilema is where on the scale we put the marker.

I don't believe thats true at all. More freedom = more safe.

 

[Lurkerinthewoods]

Dilema?

More freedom = less safe
More safe = less freedom

It's a sliding scale. The only dilema is where on the scale we put the marker.

Personally - accepting risk and having freedom is IMO preferable to the alternative. Unfortunately as our country matures it seems more and more not only accept but prefer the alternative. Whether by design or accident that is a situation that will eventually become unbearable to those who prefer more freedom.

I don't believe for one second your premise of More freedom = less safe.

My dilemma was in regards to the question asked by the post I was referring to.

I have always believed we have a right to bear arms. And I have always believed that when the Constitution was written and signed the U.S was entirely different than what it is today.

 

[Republicanhack]

If I'm not mistaken Kris Steele was also against Oklahoma legalizing tattoos. He is from Shawnee right? Why is this schmuck in a leadership position? These people are going to drive me to recognize the Libertarian Party as a legitimate party and switch.

 

[Werewolf]

I don't believe for one second your premise of More freedom = less safe.

My dilemma was in regards to the question asked by the post I was referring to.

I have always believed we have a right to bear arms. And I have always believed that when the Constitution was written and signed the U.S was entirely different than what it is today.

Let me clarify:

More freedom = sheep less safe. they become responsible for their own well being. Less rules and regulations means that people are punished for active crime (something they do) as opposed to something they think or own. For example: the market place and the courts (civil action) not the government would be responsible for worker safety. The marketplace and the courts (civil actions) not the government would be responsible for product safety. Anyone could drive a car, anyone and as long as they did it responsibly no problem. Total freedom? Until the irresponsible actually hurt someone or damage property (less safety) no action taken. As it is now many people are denied the priviledge of driving for arbitrary reasons. Examples of how total freedom equals less safety for many abound.

The point is we can have total safety with no freedom at all if we were willing to accept total governmental control over every single aspect of our lives. Or we can have total freedom from government and all civil regulation and individuals take care of themselves. A business does you wrong you handle anyway you see fit without interference from anyone or thing.

Total freedom and total safety are extremes. Neither of which is practical. Give up one to get the other. Even Benjamin Franklin recognized that simple concept.

It's a sliding scale.

The only dilema is where society decides the marker on the scale belongs.

 

[Lurkerinthewoods]

Let me clarify:

More freedom = sheep less safe. they become responsible for their own well being

I can agree with that... :-)

 

[abajaj11]

The main reason 1796 didn't go through was because of the referendum. I understand what you mean, though. I would also rather have a licensed bill than no bill, but I believe we will still get an unlicensed bill through this year. Or at least, we have a very good shot at it.

I really hope we succeed in this. Thank you for your efforts in increasing our freedoms. I know you have mentioned this earlier, but is ther eany way all of us here (at least the ones who support OC) help?
thanks again

 

[Griffin]

All though I agree somewhat with your response, I must point out that the 18yr old men and women that are chosen to fight for this country receive extensive firearm training before they are allowed to carry a rifle/pistol and use it to defend this country. It seems when the same restriction is placed on people who have chosen not to enter the military "all hell breaks loose" about infringing on our rights.

And I wasn't aware that an 18yr old could buy a firearm other than a rifle. I know that you are allowed to own one if it is given by a parent, but unless they plan on changing the age in one of the HB to allow 18yr old citizens to purchase handguns, I guess it's a moot point on being allowed to carry at 18.

My son has shot with me for years and has demonstrated a very clear understanding of firearm safety and the inherent dangers of owning a firearm. I still wasn't comfortable giving him his first handgun until he turned 21. And yes, I noticed a change in how mature and responsible he became as he left high school and started his career.

I am not saying that my beliefs and situation are the same for everyone. I just hope people will stop using the "why can an 18yr old defend our country but can buy beer or handguns" argument. To me it seems to degrade the sacrifice these young men and women have given to be in the military. Because in my eyes they are better trained and more mature than the majority of the 18yr olds I see everyday. JMO

It appears that maybe you mistook the message behind my initial post; perhaps I didn’t make my point, or failed to clarify what I was trying to say, I am sorry for the confusion.

What I was originally trying to say was that age is irrelevant to maturity (in our contemporary culture). As others have pointed out, anyone, at any age, may not be a responsible gun over. It is my belief that the majority of 18-year-olds today are irresponsible. But I also think many older adults are irresponsible.
I know 50 something year old men who work 9-5, go home and play video games all night (like world of warcraft). These men act like children, shedding responsibility, escaping into a reality that they prefer, just to wake up the next day and repeat. They work only so they can play.
I also know a young man who recently turned 15, he owns his own software company, writes applications for corporate clients, and already earns a comfortable yearly salary by today’s standard.

Age is irrelevant, mature men (I am discussing men because they comprise the majority of gun owners, sorry ladies ) are nowhere to be found, according to a Newsweek article published in 2008, less than a third of men at the age of 30 have transitioned into adulthood, a direct quote is “Today's guys are perhaps the first downwardly mobile—and endlessly adolescent—generation of men in U.S. history.”

Every man, woman and child, should show noticeable signs of character growth as time passes, there is no “retirement” age for maturing, and we all should actively try to reform each day, to improve, to grow; sadly this is not the case in our culture.

I am not saying that 18-year-olds are mature, I think, like you, that most 18-year-olds are not responsible and that they do not have the maturity needed to lawfully carry a gun. Furthermore I agree that men and women in the military mostly conduct themselves with greater levels of maturity than their civilian counterparts, not because they have been trained to use a weapon, but because they have been trained to respect authority, and know the true cost of their actions and inactions, something that most of their civvie “peers” have no concept of. In short they are self-governing.

The important divergence from your train of thought is even if we may not want certain people to lawfully carry guns, we have NO JURISDICTION to deny them (as long as they are eligible, no felons etc).

It is not our job, or any other person in the world’s job to regulate, and deny people’s God given rights just because we feel they do not measure up. Law abiding citizens of any age, adults for example, have the right to defend themselves, and since the law currently classifies a person as an adult once you reach the age of 18, that person, should hold equal rights ( after all I wasn't aware that 21+ were more equal than 18-20).

Moreover, the age of 18 you face the full repercussions of law-breaking, yet you do not enjoy many of the benefits of being an adult. Why is it that at 18 you can vote for civil magistrates, a responsibility that has more implications than carrying, an action that can shape the course of history, yet you cannot carry to defend yourself?

There is no justice in the arbitrary age requirement, if all people are not equal in the eyes of the law then the law holds no meaning and should be disregarded, if the law does not govern every person, it governs no one.

“I hope my 19yr doesn't find this out.. He is a good example why someone under 21 doesn't need to own a firearm, period”

Yes it is true that a person 18 years and older can buy a handgun from a private seller (non FFL) or be gifted. There are very few state’s that laws to forbid this (Oklahoma is not one of them), and the only reason that an under 21-year-old cannot buy from an FFL dealer is because of federal law.
While I always advocate heeding and respecting the counsel of your elders (especially parents, no matter what age you may be) technically your son does have the right to buy a handgun, a right that no one can infringe upon. This does not mean that every person able should run out and buy a gun, only that they do have the right to, if theu so choose. A gun is simply another a tool, not everyone needs bench saw, but if wanted one they shouldn't be denied.

I think the issue with this age deal is one that will never be answered in a way to please everyone. I think people mature at different rates and some people never mature. The key is that I think we should shoot for something that is reasonable. I don't know that I have the right answer but I think - "if a person is at an age where he is expected to be on his own, earn his own living, and defend his family from outside harm has a right to protect himself as a citizen" - type of argument holds more water with me than if he's allowed to fight in a war or drink alcohol type of argument. to me, it is about individual liberty and when he is no longer under the legal responsibility of a parent or guardian because no one else is going to be expected to protect that individual's physical well being.

That is exactly correct, since the legal age for an adult is 18, and you are expected to have those responsibilities, you should have the means to fulfill them. Until the laws are made consistent, it is a gross form of tyranny that the public, even the majority of gun owners, seem happy to adopt.

Tagillespie: Thank you for everything you are doing, hopefully Oklahoma can someday become a Constitutional Carry state.

In conclusion I will leave you with a quote from a far more insightful man than I can ever hope.

When after having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.
-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835)

Chis Griffin


Article Cited http://www.newsweek.com/2008/08/30/why-i-am-leaving-guyland.html

 

[Cx12]

Hell I just want some bill that will not revoke my ccw just because peeping tom saw me print when I was reaching for something. I am no lawyer or politician by any means I just want to protect my right to bear arms. I feel naked with out my mp40c on me. I am sure some of you feel the same way. Call it whetever bill number you want.