Open carry?

[CHenry]

You seem to represent OK2A.

Please explain why y'all supported the OC bill that required one to believe they were in danger to be able to OC.

Eagerly awaiting your response.

He did explain that in earlier post.

 

[jmtgsx]

Specifically here.

I would have responded to your post sooner, but I've not been on here for a while - busy with legislative issues. The reason we used HB1647 was because the author of HB1400 didn't want us to use his bill. It was the closest thing to unlicensed open carry we had. When it goes to the Senate, we will work on amending it to make it better.

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

 

[Peacemaker]

I think that open carry will cater to the criminals as well as the law abiding citizens, the criminals will also open carry which will make it harder for the law to make a determination on who to take down

What??? Criminals who carry now carry concealed like we do. How do they determine who is a criminal now? But, if that argument even held water, I'd still say you are crazy asking a person to give up a God given/Constitutional right just so the police know who to harass.

 

[Lurkerinthewoods]

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.

I wasn't confused at all with your original post. I was just commenting on the part where you referenced the military and the fact that there is training involved before they are allowed to handle a firearm. Other than that I completely understood your position and respected a lot of what you said.

It all boils down to one thing with me, I could really careless at what age they allow someone to buy a firearm, as long as I'm allowed to own one as well to defend myself and my family. The rest is pure semantics..

 

[GlockedandLoaded]

and now we have our oklahoma rifle asc bowing down to the all mighty feds as their excuse.
i honestly feel like its a kid saying " ive got my sand box and i dont want you to have one."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20110322_298_0_OLHMIY200522

 

[kd5rjz]

and now we have our oklahoma rifle asc bowing down to the all mighty feds as their excuse.
i honestly feel like its a kid saying " ive got my sand box and i dont want you to have one."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20110322_298_0_OLHMIY200522

I was just about to post a link to this.

I would say ORA has just proven itself to be completely worthless.

 

[Poke78]

I would say ORA has just proven itself to be completely worthless.

ORA = Entire douche kit, i.e. way beyond just a nozzle, a hose, or a bag.

 

[Griffin]

It's funny that none of the comments on the article point out it's inaccuracy.

"...the purchase of handguns by anyone under 21 is a violation of federal law..."

Since they are all under the delusion that it is illegal, why not just let the language stay, they already think that 18-20 have been put in their sub-adult places.

It just goes to show that if you don't know your rights you have none.

 

[Seth247]

Watchdogok tweeted earlier that he will be at the house public safety committee meeting tomorrow at 10:30. Hopefully we will see some kind of action on sb129.

 

[Seth247]

and now we have our oklahoma rifle asc bowing down to the all mighty feds as their excuse.
i honestly feel like its a kid saying " ive got my sand box and i dont want you to have one."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20110322_298_0_OLHMIY200522

Ugh. The comments on That article disgust me.