To be fair, our current state government can't even keep the main promises they campaigned on.
If the legislature were to actually vote for a pro-gun bill the Governor would sign it and that is not what the legislators want. Under our old Governor they could pass all kinds pro-gun bills know full well they would be vetoed. They cannot risk passing a bill our present governor will sign.
These legislators have shown their true colors last session when they were forced to change their pro-gun votes to anti-gun when it came time to override the Governor's veto. These same people this session have done their best to kill the same bill that they overwhelmingly approved in the last session.
Nothing more than liars in my opinion. Not one lick of honesty in any of them. I have more respect for the ones who voted against it last time and that returned to fight against it again this session.
Michael
These legislators have shown their true colors last session when they were forced to change their pro-gun votes to anti-gun when it came time to override the Governor's veto. These same people this session have done their best to kill the same bill that they overwhelmingly approved in the last session.
Nothing more than liars in my opinion. Not one lick of honesty in any of them. I have more respect for the ones who voted against it last time and that returned to fight against it again this session.
Michael
The reason is that most Americans, not just Oklahomans, are ignorant and selfish. They only worry about rights when they perceive it as THEIR rights being infringed upon.
As a complete replacement, the new language would be acceptable to me.
However, until that new language appears officially, I will continue to let my position against HB1647 as it is currently written be known to my legislators and the public.
How true...
Been married to the same wonderful woman now for 32 years.
Discovered today she doesn't understand that freedom is for all not just those you agree with. Tried for a little bit to explain but it became obvious that understanding wasn't in her future. (The issue was the Westboro Baptist church decision by SCOTUS. A correct decision in my opinion no matter how hateful/heinous it is what those monsters do.)
Point is there's a whole lot of Americans out there that just don't get it and probably never will. It is a case of thinking with their hearts instead of their heads.
A relook at HB1647 since things are a little quiet at the moment..........
"6. When the person has a reasonable fear of bodily harm, if the person has filed an emergency protective order, or if a protective order has been granted by a district court; or"
Even with this Virgin amendment, me being a math major and understanding logic but not a lawyer, the three phrases should be considered separate and equal. I don't see any way that the protective order language has any effect on the fear of bodily harm phrase because in language and in math, when there is an or, they are three distinct situations not applying to one another.
Now, if they can add language in the Senate to ensure that the burden of proof for the "reasonable fear of bodily harm" is not upon the firearm carrier such that he is not susceptible to police harassment, then we could have a good bill, in my opinion. However, as we have seen, our current legislature finds a way to screw up everything that is meaningful for gun owners. As it is was originally written it was too ambiguous and the Virgin amendment just added doubt to the reasonable fear clause.
I would propose something like this:
"6. When the person has a reasonable fear of bodily harm, if the person has filed an emergency protective order, or if a protective order has been granted by a district court; reasonable fear shall be in the discretion of the individual citizen in the normal course of lawful activities and shall not be defined by the state, local municipalities, or any law enforcement agencies nor shall a citizen be asked to present a reasonable fear; or"
"6. When the person has a reasonable fear of bodily harm, if the person has filed an emergency protective order, or if a protective order has been granted by a district court; or"
Even with this Virgin amendment, me being a math major and understanding logic but not a lawyer, the three phrases should be considered separate and equal. I don't see any way that the protective order language has any effect on the fear of bodily harm phrase because in language and in math, when there is an or, they are three distinct situations not applying to one another.
Now, if they can add language in the Senate to ensure that the burden of proof for the "reasonable fear of bodily harm" is not upon the firearm carrier such that he is not susceptible to police harassment, then we could have a good bill, in my opinion. However, as we have seen, our current legislature finds a way to screw up everything that is meaningful for gun owners. As it is was originally written it was too ambiguous and the Virgin amendment just added doubt to the reasonable fear clause.
I would propose something like this:
"6. When the person has a reasonable fear of bodily harm, if the person has filed an emergency protective order, or if a protective order has been granted by a district court; reasonable fear shall be in the discretion of the individual citizen in the normal course of lawful activities and shall not be defined by the state, local municipalities, or any law enforcement agencies nor shall a citizen be asked to present a reasonable fear; or"
^^^^
1647 is bad law. Period.
It falls under the category of Common Sense gun control and we all know where bowing to that evil concept has gotten us.
The 2nd doesn't say "that the right to keep and bear arms - if the bearer has a reasonable fear of bodily harm - shall not be infringed".
Gun owners have bent over backward for too many years in an effort to keep from treading on the sensibilities of the sheep all in the name of reasonableness and common sense gun control. Why should we be the ones to give up rights because they faint at the sight of a gun? They're the ones with the problem not us yet we're the ones the law makers go after. Why is that?
1647 is bad law. Period.
It falls under the category of Common Sense gun control and we all know where bowing to that evil concept has gotten us.
The 2nd doesn't say "that the right to keep and bear arms - if the bearer has a reasonable fear of bodily harm - shall not be infringed".
Gun owners have bent over backward for too many years in an effort to keep from treading on the sensibilities of the sheep all in the name of reasonableness and common sense gun control. Why should we be the ones to give up rights because they faint at the sight of a gun? They're the ones with the problem not us yet we're the ones the law makers go after. Why is that?
To paraphrase - "the only thing we have to fear is the word fear itself", as well, of course, as our state representatives. Heaven help us!
I heard an interview this morning with Sen. Russell on KTOK at 6:45 talking about the open carry bills. They did not reference which bill they were talking about but I think its SB129 that Russell and Osborn authored. He sounded very optimistic saying that Tibbs was working with them as well as some of the other opponents and they were trying to meet on some terms. He primarily mentioned age limits for open carry and safety training. It sounds like they are wanting to make it 21 years of age (which I disagree with but its a step forward) and requiring some sort of safety class - he likened it to the hunters safety course - and did not mention a registration but you would have a card showing you did pass the training and they would just have a number on file for that card.
These are still restrictions and I don't like it as well as constitutional carry but its better than what we have. The training shouldn't be a requirement in my opinion but its not a bad idea at the same time. I operate under the premise that I am responsible with a given right or privilege and I will take the extra steps to make sure I am informed and trained to execute said right or privilege. I like to think that most folks who choose to own a firearm would do the same. I' have been driving for 27 years but I still take a defensive driving class every 2 years, it polishes my tarnished driving habits and makes me a better driver. No one requires that I do this but i do it anyway - plus I get a nice discount on my insurance.
The age limit for open carry that he talked about is looking like 21 just because that's the age in which you can legally purchase a gun from a dealer. The radio host mentioned 18 as being old enough to enter the military and fight for our country but of course this is a debate that will never be won i don't think. Sen. Russell basically said that its an ongoing debate about what age is a person a mature adult.
I think I was 17 when I bought my first 22 rifle and I and some buddies liked to go out to the river and shoot turtles and plink at soda cans. Was I a "mature person"? With the gun in my possession, absolutely, we all were. Did I do stupid stuff like race my car on Friday nights at the local drag? Absolutely. I was not mature in alot of ways but I was responsible with my gun and new the consequences of irresponsibility with it.
These are still restrictions and I don't like it as well as constitutional carry but its better than what we have. The training shouldn't be a requirement in my opinion but its not a bad idea at the same time. I operate under the premise that I am responsible with a given right or privilege and I will take the extra steps to make sure I am informed and trained to execute said right or privilege. I like to think that most folks who choose to own a firearm would do the same. I' have been driving for 27 years but I still take a defensive driving class every 2 years, it polishes my tarnished driving habits and makes me a better driver. No one requires that I do this but i do it anyway - plus I get a nice discount on my insurance.
The age limit for open carry that he talked about is looking like 21 just because that's the age in which you can legally purchase a gun from a dealer. The radio host mentioned 18 as being old enough to enter the military and fight for our country but of course this is a debate that will never be won i don't think. Sen. Russell basically said that its an ongoing debate about what age is a person a mature adult.
I think I was 17 when I bought my first 22 rifle and I and some buddies liked to go out to the river and shoot turtles and plink at soda cans. Was I a "mature person"? With the gun in my possession, absolutely, we all were. Did I do stupid stuff like race my car on Friday nights at the local drag? Absolutely. I was not mature in alot of ways but I was responsible with my gun and new the consequences of irresponsibility with it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Silkwood - Kerr McGee - remember these names? KOCO 5 does and investigates- Latest: GnometownHero
-
Found a good used Cherry Picker Now I just need an Engine Stand- Latest: sushi & pistols
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oklahoma City Remington .270 Winchester managed recoil Ammo
- Latest: Moparman485
-
-