Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Reciprocity, Constitutional Carry and state permits.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hrdware" data-source="post: 2221054" data-attributes="member: 24475"><p>I agree with you in that the process should be simpler, I was more answering your question about why it takes so long.</p><p></p><p>If I remember correctly, Oklahoma does not currently send mental health records in to the national database. So a person that has a mental health conviction in this state may be able to pass a NICS check, but would not be able to pass the Department of Mental Health check. Also, certain juvenile infractions might not show up on a NICS check, but would show up when the Department of Juvenile Affairs runs an applicant. The difference is between someone simply owning a gun and carrying it in the general populace. The way current law reads in OK, some things that can prohibit you from obtaining a permit, would not prohibit you from owning a firearm.</p><p></p><p>As I already said, it should be easier or at least quicker to get a permit (or not have one at all). </p><p></p><p>Many people who look at law see it as a way to allow people to do things. Instead the law should be read to disallow certain things. Oklahoma law says it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon, then lists an exemption to that...obtaining a permit. Instead of making the permit an exemption, the law regarding carrying a concealed firearm (or at the very least an open handgun) should have been removed from the statute so it would have been legal by default. Since allowing people to carry firearms in public was such a drastic change from what the law was, many people thought we had to make sure "only" law abiding folks would do it. Obviously criminals would comply with this new law and only carry concealed once they received their permit...right?? <img src="/images/smilies/headscratch.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":scratch:" title="Headscratch :scratch:" data-shortname=":scratch:" /> The argument is always made that we have to make sure law abiding citizens are the only ones following the law....this logic makes entirely no sense to me, but to make themselves feel better, lawmakers and those that helped them draft the law back in 1995 decided to put in these hurdles. Maybe it was the only way they thought they would get something like this passed. The sheeple will feel like the government is still looking out for them if the vet law abiding citizens while doing nothing about criminals who will continue to carry concealed illegally. (Although now that I think about it, maybe it was so they could have another charge to bring against the criminal...who knows)</p><p></p><p>Passing constitutional carry in Oklahoma has its own challenges as it requires a vote of the people to change the State Constitution. Part of our constitution says that the legislature can regulate the carrying of firearms, which is exactly what they have done. The legislature has to pass a ballot initiative and put this on a ballot for the people of Oklahoma to vote on. If it passes, (to remove the ability of the legislature to regulate the carrying of firearms) then the legislature would have to look at the firearm laws and fix them accordingly.</p><p></p><p>Another problem with Constitutional Carry (in any state) is the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act. This makes it a crime to carry a firearm within 1000 feet of a school....one of the exemptions is having a permit issued by your state as long as that permit included a background check. Unfortunately the permit from your home state does not satisfy the FGFSZA exemption when visiting another state.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hrdware, post: 2221054, member: 24475"] I agree with you in that the process should be simpler, I was more answering your question about why it takes so long. If I remember correctly, Oklahoma does not currently send mental health records in to the national database. So a person that has a mental health conviction in this state may be able to pass a NICS check, but would not be able to pass the Department of Mental Health check. Also, certain juvenile infractions might not show up on a NICS check, but would show up when the Department of Juvenile Affairs runs an applicant. The difference is between someone simply owning a gun and carrying it in the general populace. The way current law reads in OK, some things that can prohibit you from obtaining a permit, would not prohibit you from owning a firearm. As I already said, it should be easier or at least quicker to get a permit (or not have one at all). Many people who look at law see it as a way to allow people to do things. Instead the law should be read to disallow certain things. Oklahoma law says it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon, then lists an exemption to that...obtaining a permit. Instead of making the permit an exemption, the law regarding carrying a concealed firearm (or at the very least an open handgun) should have been removed from the statute so it would have been legal by default. Since allowing people to carry firearms in public was such a drastic change from what the law was, many people thought we had to make sure "only" law abiding folks would do it. Obviously criminals would comply with this new law and only carry concealed once they received their permit...right?? :scratch: The argument is always made that we have to make sure law abiding citizens are the only ones following the law....this logic makes entirely no sense to me, but to make themselves feel better, lawmakers and those that helped them draft the law back in 1995 decided to put in these hurdles. Maybe it was the only way they thought they would get something like this passed. The sheeple will feel like the government is still looking out for them if the vet law abiding citizens while doing nothing about criminals who will continue to carry concealed illegally. (Although now that I think about it, maybe it was so they could have another charge to bring against the criminal...who knows) Passing constitutional carry in Oklahoma has its own challenges as it requires a vote of the people to change the State Constitution. Part of our constitution says that the legislature can regulate the carrying of firearms, which is exactly what they have done. The legislature has to pass a ballot initiative and put this on a ballot for the people of Oklahoma to vote on. If it passes, (to remove the ability of the legislature to regulate the carrying of firearms) then the legislature would have to look at the firearm laws and fix them accordingly. Another problem with Constitutional Carry (in any state) is the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act. This makes it a crime to carry a firearm within 1000 feet of a school....one of the exemptions is having a permit issued by your state as long as that permit included a background check. Unfortunately the permit from your home state does not satisfy the FGFSZA exemption when visiting another state. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Reciprocity, Constitutional Carry and state permits.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
