Senate Committee Advances Bill Clarifying Open Carry Rifle Handling

[Lhecker51]

I fully agree that one should be ready both physically and psychologically to confront an active threat to ones own or family member safety but your comment sounds an awful lot to me like you are just hoping and waiting for that chance to open fire on someone in a public venue. As a Vietnam Veteran I can assure you that there is no 'thrill' in shooting anyone, nor glory in taking a life. Best to find another way to get your '15 minutes o fame'.

That is not my intent. I should have prefaced my comment with the situation. Regarding police patrolling at a huge event with AR's slung on their chest, I was comparing their mode of carry for their specific mission and that of a citizen during a threat situation that warrants it, such as the threat of riots and looters. I think it's absolute idiocy to bring attention to one's self when it's not needed. I too am a combat vet and I should have been more clear regarding all actions being driven by the situation and risk of threat. When the situation is dire, such as during a riot or threats of looting and destruction, police would fully expect folks will take rational action to defend themselves and property. We have all seen those that are all tacticool with no place to go. I believe in the gray man concept and always practiced that philosophy. For me, guns are critical tools. Just because one has the right to carry an AR, it makes no sense to alarm the general public if the threat is just not there. I personally disagree with the supposed "Constitution Auditors" That go out carrying their AR in a public area with the purpose of supposedly auditing police response and video taping it. They have the right to do it, but they are unduly alarming the public with their uncalled for antics.

I lived in Seattle and we had to patrol our neighborhood due to ANTIFA rioting that extended to the suburbs after they got done destroying the city, our neighborhood was targeted and so were neighborhoods just north of Seattle. We blocked the road coming in and were armed. ANTIFA turned back around and left. That's a situation where you don't want laws interfering with your rational mode of carry. I can tell you that at the time, not even Seattle had laws against what is being proposed here in Oklahoma regarding this particular mode of long gun carry and I am alarmed that it is even being considered.

 

[Lhecker51]

I'm pretty sure that, if by remote chance there happens to be an officer in the vicinity, they will use a median amount of common sense, taking into account the circumstances (i.e. just left gun store walkling to vehicle).

I get your point and agree if this becomes the law of the land.

My problem is this should not be a law of the land. It makes no sense. If a situation would motivate one to patrol an area during high threat rioting, it makes no sense whatsoever to have a law specifically for this as public endangerment is already on the books. A person not observing good muzzle discipline and having a finger on the trigger comes to mind unless they actually have a threat in their sights. I personally don't even move the selector from safe to fire until I am moving muzzle to align with the threat, but that is just me and what I feel confident and comfortable with.

Why should we give the threat the advantage by a law that can only add reaction time to a threat? This proposed law could be read into any situation regardless of the existence of a real threat. Even if it becomes the law I have confidence the police and justice system will exercise common sense. Again, this law is unnecessary and only serves to infringe.

 

[Chuckie]

That is not my intent. I should have prefaced my comment with the situation. Regarding police patrolling at a huge event with AR's slung on their chest, I was comparing their mode of carry for their specific mission and that of a citizen during a threat situation that warrants it, such as the threat of riots and looters. I think it's absolute idiocy to bring attention to one's self when it's not needed. I too am a combat vet and I should have been more clear regarding all actions being driven by the situation and risk of threat. When the situation is dire, such as during a riot or threats of looting and destruction, police would fully expect folks will take rational action to defend themselves and property. We have all seen those that are all tacticool with no place to go. I believe in the gray man concept and always practiced that philosophy. For me, guns are critical tools. Just because one has the right to carry an AR, it makes no sense to alarm the general public if the threat is just not there. I personally disagree with the supposed "Constitution Auditors" That go out carrying their AR in a public area with the purpose of supposedly auditing police response and video taping it. They have the right to do it, but they are unduly alarming the public with their uncalled for antics.

I lived in Seattle and we had to patrol our neighborhood due to ANTIFA rioting that extended to the suburbs after they got done destroying the city, our neighborhood was targeted and so were neighborhoods just north of Seattle. We blocked the road coming in and were armed. ANTIFA turned back around and left. That's a situation where you don't want laws interfering with your rational mode of carry. I can tell you that at the time, not even Seattle had laws against what is being proposed here in Oklahoma regarding this particular mode of long gun carry and I am alarmed that it is even being considered.

With a more fleshed out context, my original thoughts about your post has changed a bit. Like you, I try to be the 'grey man' and find it idiotic for someone to strut around with an AR or AK platformed weapon with no other intent than to 'exercise' their Rights. One does not instill respect, self-responsibility, and confidence in others by displaying a gun to an already 'afraid-of-guns' crowd.

I found myself in the situation of helping to guard my families business during the Watts Riot ('65) and again in guarding my home during the LA Riot ('92), so I fully understand the position you found yourself in and the responses you took while living in Seattle. I would have most likely done the same.

When it comes to the new laws in Oklahoma concerning the pointing the muzzle of a weapon at someone, I believe that this is probably unnecessary being that we alrady have 'brandishing' laws on the books, and most of us here in Oklahoma are fairly responsible when it comes to handling guns safely. I can certainly understand your concern about the ever insidious creeping of California-NTM's anti-gun stance. Let us hope that more rational minds than those in anti-gun states continue to prevail in our own great State.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Don Spencer worked with the author of the bill to clean up language that was ridiculous and would have made open carry of rifles or shotguns virtually impossible. If a law has to be instituted, I want it to be as logical as possible and having Don there to work with the legislature to do that is a major positive in my eyes--enough that I'm renewing my OK2A membership as soon as I finish this post!

What language was it that was ridiculous? Serious question. I don’t know much about carrying rifles around because I don’t do it.

 

[1shott]

I would like to see the numbers, meaning the actual number of people who walked around pointing a rifle at someone.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Don Spencer worked with the author of the bill to clean up language that was ridiculous and would have made open carry of rifles or shotguns virtually impossible. If a law has to be instituted, I want it to be as logical as possible and having Don there to work with the legislature to do that is a major positive in my eyes--enough that I'm renewing my OK2A membership as soon as I finish this post!

Logical is not passing it at all. It is an infringement and is superfluous.

Woody