Open carry?

[morganjokc]

Good luck with SB129 and tomorrows public safety committee meeting, here is their agenda....And it's missing something important to us all.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2011-12HB/CMN-PUBSFTY-32320111030.doc

 

[GlockedandLoaded]

Ugh. The comments on That article disgust me.

mine was the second comment. it was deleted

 

[Glocktogo]

mine was the second comment. it was deleted

Yep. Just posted mine a few minutes ago and they already yanked it. Guess they couldn't handle the fact that I corrected the lie about the law.

 

[Werewolf]

He did explain that in earlier post.

Specifically here.

Originally Posted by tagillespie:
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.

That's kind'a like choosing between really really evil and really really really evil. No choice at all.

Sometimes when making a choice becomes necessary making no choice at all becomes the best option.

I truly appreciate the efforts organizations like OK2A make for us but when the effort is misguided - not so much... 1647 would have - if passed as written - set the OC cause back by years.

Unlicensed OC? Please. IMO what it was was a smokescreen so politicians could say look, see, we're pro 2A and pro OC. When in fact they are neither. Passage of 1674 as OC would have been meaningless due to the onerous restrictions that must be met to exercise OC.

 

[mhphoto]

I got into about unlicensed, 18 year old open carry with my wife and her folks last night. Here's a little something I used as a source to my rebuttals.

Out of the 50 states of our great union, 43 allow for the open carry of firearms. CA is one of those, but essentially the law only provides for rural OC (open carry), so we'll take that out. So, 42 states with OC. Of those 42 states, only 14 require permits to OC (UT, MD, MN, IA, HI, TN, IN, MS, BA, MA, CT, RI, NJ, MD). So that leaves 28 states with unlicensed OC, or 56% of America. Of those remaining 28 states, only 1 has an age limit above 18 years of age (NM, age 19). Of the remaining 27 states, 20 of them have the minimum age of 18, 4 of them have an age limit of less than 18, and a further 4 have no statutory age limit. The states that have OC rules similar to what we might soon have in our great state are WA, OR, ID, NV, SD, AZ, CO, NE, KS, WI, MI, LA, AL, OH, PA, WV, DE, NC, VA, and KY.


So, to wrap up:

Unlicensed OC (28; statutory age in parenthesis): WA (18), OR (18), ID (18), NV (18), SD (18), AZ (18), CO (18), NE (18), KS (18), WI (18), MI (18), LA (17), AL (18), OH (18), PA (18), WV (18), DE (18), NC (18), VA (18), KY (18), AK (14), WY (No age limit), NM (19), MO (No age limit), ME (No age limit), NH (No age limit), and VT (16)

Licensed OC (14; statutory age in parenthesis): UT (18), MD (No age limit), MN (No age limit), IA (18), HI (No age limit), TN (No age limit), IN (No age limit), MS (18), GA (No age limit), MA (No age limit), CT (No age limit), RI (No age limit), NJ (No age limit), and MD (No age limit)

Effectively no OC (1; statutory age in parenthesis): CA (18)

No OC (7): OK, TX, AR, IL, NY, SC, FL

Source: http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html

 

[mhphoto]

Anyone catch the OC piece on FOX 23 last night?

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Packing-Heat-In-Oklahoma/nDc6FF_IYU2AmvyKsJaGZA.cspx

I went ahead and wrote a letter to Abbie Alford.

"Hello there,

I watched the piece on the proposed open carry legislation last night and I wanted to request that next time you do a report on SB129, should it pass the House, to include some statistics about open carry.

- 43 states allow some form of open carry. 71.86% of all Americans live in a state where open carry is legal in some form.

- 42 of those states allow open carry without regard to geographical area (I'm taking California out, as they only allow it rural areas)

- Of the 42 states where open carry is generally allowed, only 14 states require a permit to open carry (statutory age limitations in parenthesis): UT (18), MD (No age limit), MN (No age limit), IA (18), HI (No age limit), TN (No age limit), IN (No age limit), MS (18), GA (No age limit), MA (No age limit), CT (No age limit), RI (No age limit), NJ (No age limit), and MD (No age limit)

- Of the 28 states that allow unlicensed open carry, only one (1) has an age requirement greater than 18 years of age (New Mexico, where the statutory age limit is 19)

- Of those 28 states that don't require a license, 20 have laws that define the statutory age limit as 18 years or older (WA, OR, ID, NV, SD, AZ, CO, NE, KS, WI, MI, LA, AL, OH, PA, WV, DE, NC, VA, and KY). That's 40% of U.S. states and 33.73% of the U.S. population, just for laws similar to SB129.

- Of the 28 unlicensed open carry states, 4 have statutory age limit lower than 18: AK (14), LA (17), VT (16), and MT (14)

- A further 4 more states have no statutory age limit: WY, MO, ME, NH

Source for state-by-state open carry info: http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html
Source for percentages: 2010 Census data on state populations

I've been quite put off by the biased coverage of open carry issues over the past few years (I'm not referring to your piece, just in general). I often see that the people interviewed for opinions for these pieces are ignorant of just how prevalent not just open carry, but unlicensed open carry for law-abiding citizens eighteen and over. It would be refreshing to have some solid statistics to show people that open carry isn't going to turn our state into the Wild West, as the people who oppose these bills often suggest.

Thank you for your time,
XXXXXX"

 

[Mirge]

Anyone catch the OC piece on FOX 23 last night?

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Packing-Heat-In-Oklahoma/nDc6FF_IYU2AmvyKsJaGZA.cspx

I went ahead and wrote a letter to Abbie Alford.

"Hello there,

I watched the piece on the proposed open carry legislation last night and I wanted to request that next time you do a report on SB129, should it pass the House, to include some statistics about open carry.

- 43 states allow some form of open carry. 71.86% of all Americans live in a state where open carry is legal in some form.

- 42 of those states allow open carry without regard to geographical area (I'm taking California out, as they only allow it rural areas)

- Of the 42 states where open carry is generally allowed, only 14 states require a permit to open carry (statutory age limitations in parenthesis): UT (18), MD (No age limit), MN (No age limit), IA (18), HI (No age limit), TN (No age limit), IN (No age limit), MS (18), GA (No age limit), MA (No age limit), CT (No age limit), RI (No age limit), NJ (No age limit), and MD (No age limit)

- Of the 28 states that allow unlicensed open carry, only one (1) has an age requirement greater than 18 years of age (New Mexico, where the statutory age limit is 19)

- Of those 28 states that don't require a license, 20 have laws that define the statutory age limit as 18 years or older (WA, OR, ID, NV, SD, AZ, CO, NE, KS, WI, MI, LA, AL, OH, PA, WV, DE, NC, VA, and KY). That's 40% of U.S. states and 33.73% of the U.S. population, just for laws similar to SB129.

- Of the 28 unlicensed open carry states, 4 have statutory age limit lower than 18: AK (14), LA (17), VT (16), and MT (14)

- A further 4 more states have no statutory age limit: WY, MO, ME, NH

Source for state-by-state open carry info: http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html
Source for percentages: 2010 Census data on state populations

I've been quite put off by the biased coverage of open carry issues over the past few years (I'm not referring to your piece, just in general). I often see that the people interviewed for opinions for these pieces are ignorant of just how prevalent not just open carry, but unlicensed open carry for law-abiding citizens eighteen and over. It would be refreshing to have some solid statistics to show people that open carry isn't going to turn our state into the Wild West, as the people who oppose these bills often suggest.

Thank you for your time,
XXXXXX"

Good response to Abbie. These worthless anti-gun arguments from closed-minded sheeple piss me off.

 

[vvvvvvv]

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.

From the beginning, the plan was to clean the language up once we got it moving through the process.

The problem with starting with a poorly written bill that is easy to sell as being "the right solution" is that it won't get fixed in the legislative process. Politics 101.

It would have been much, much smarter to encourage various legislators to amend a "sacrificial lamb" type of bill. That seemed to almost work last year, by the way, but there was the given of a Governor's veto.

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

Might want to check into an FBI study or two, as well as the experiences of other states that already have open carry.

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

That's basically what I said this morning.

Sometimes when making a choice becomes necessary making no choice at all becomes the best option.

This.

1647 would have - if passed as written - set the OC cause back by years.

Absolutely correct.

It's also why I mean it when I say that I have no faith in any 2A organization to fight for 2A rights any more. Between the NRA and GOA's praising of Heller and McDonald and this year's open carry fumbling, I see no reason to support any "Second Amendment" organization.

 

[tagillespie]

That's kind'a like choosing between really really evil and really really really evil. No choice at all.

Sometimes when making a choice becomes necessary making no choice at all becomes the best option.

I truly appreciate the efforts organizations like OK2A make for us but when the effort is misguided - not so much... 1647 would have - if passed as written - set the OC cause back by years.

Unlicensed OC? Please. IMO what it was was a smokescreen so politicians could say look, see, we're pro 2A and pro OC. When in fact they are neither. Passage of 1674 as OC would have been meaningless due to the onerous restrictions that must be met to exercise OC.

Werewolf,
We'll have to just disagree on this, I guess. I don't see how it would have set the OC movement back when it is a step closer to where we want to be than where we are now. When you consider the legislators that were involved, they are all solid 2A supporters and very much pro OC. There weren't any restrictions in the bill as it went to the floor. It simply said you could open carry if you had a reasonable fear of badily harm. If you know the crime stats, you'll have that covered just stepping out your front door. We planned, in the Senate, to add to that a clause restricting the police from stopping anyone just because they were carrying - the person would have to be committing a crime. I don't see the restrictions you're talking about.

 

[Mirge]

Werewolf,
We'll have to just disagree on this, I guess. I don't see how it would have set the OC movement back when it is a step closer to where we want to be than where we are now. When you consider the legislators that were involved, they are all solid 2A supporters and very much pro OC. There weren't any restrictions in the bill as it went to the floor. It simply said you could open carry if you had a reasonable fear of badily harm. If you know the crime stats, you'll have that covered just stepping out your front door. We planned, in the Senate, to add to that a clause restricting the police from stopping anyone just because they were carrying - the person would have to be committing a crime. I don't see the restrictions you're talking about.

That's exactly my gripe with the bill. Who determines what is legitimate "reasonable fear of bodily harm"?