well he vetoed it...

[aestus]

he blamed it on the response from law enforcement "a public saftey issue"...

Well, to be fair, most of the LEO's I'm friends with and know are also against open carry and think it's a bad idea for the state. They're all for conceal carry, however. I think even Mike Brown may have said on a thread here that he thinks open carry is a bad idea, not necessarily against it, but just thinks it's a bad idea.

I've met and spoken with Brad a couple of times. He's a reasonable guy and if he honestly did speak with LEO's regarding open carry and they stated their opinions that open carry is a bad idea similarly to the LEO's I know have responded, then his veto should come as no surprise.

As a governor, he must rely on the advise of others when it comes to policy, especially on policy that he may not be 100% familiar with. If he's not a conceal carry holder or knowledgeable in firearms, then it makes sense for him to defer to the opinions of LEO that he may have consulted.

He's a democrat, so obviously he tends to lean a bit on the left on policy and when it comes to firearms. However, you can't say that a conservative politician that doesn't conceal carry wouldn't have also veto'd the bill if LEO's had advised against the measure. It may have taken stronger arguments against open carry, but it would and could still happen.

 

[abajaj11]

Well, to be fair, most of the LEO's I'm friends with and know are also against open carry and think it's a bad idea for the state. They're all for conceal carry, however. I think even Mike Brown may have said on a thread here that he thinks open carry is a bad idea, not necessarily against it, but just thinks it's a bad idea.

I've met and spoken with Brad a couple of times. He's a reasonable guy and if he honestly did speak with LEO's regarding open carry and they stated their opinions that open carry is a bad idea similarly to the LEO's I know have responded, then his veto should come as no surprise.

As a governor, he must rely on the advise of others when it comes to policy, especially on policy that he may not be 100% familiar with. If he's not a conceal carry holder or knowledgeable in firearms, then it makes sense for him to defer to the opinions of LEO that he may have consulted.

He's a democrat, so obviously he tends to lean a bit on the left on policy and when it comes to firearms. However, you can't say that a conservative politician that doesn't conceal carry wouldn't have also veto'd the bill if LEO's had advised against the measure. It may have taken stronger arguments against open carry, but it would and could still happen.

Given that over 40 US states have open carry with no ill effects, i think many of us are very interested to know precisely why some folk believe it's a bad idea for Oklahoma.
Can you explain that for our benefit, please?

 

[aestus]

Given that over 40 US states have open carry with no ill effects, i think many of us are very interested to know precisely why some folk believe it's a bad idea for Oklahoma.
Can you explain that for our benefit, please?

I don't speak for anybody who is against it or the LEO's that are against open carry. These aren't even my viewpoints on open carry.

However, here are the reasons I recall that were given to me. Most of these reasons are typically given by LEO's in cities with large, diverse populations.

1) Conceal carry forces people to go through some sort of validation/verification process. Criminals won't go through that process and most would fail the background check anyways. This gives the LEO the relief knowing that if you get pulled over and you show them the permit, it's reasonable for them to assume that you can be trusted and are not a threat with a firearm.

Typically conceal carry holders are careful about concealing their weapon and getting basic training on gun safety. Criminals tend to be a bit more careless with their firearms. Chances are, if an individual is pulled over or stopped with a firearm without a permit, there's a good chance the individual has prior history, with warrants, ect. It makes it easier for LEO's to instantly apprehend criminals and take them off the streets outside of actually catching the criminal "in the criminal act." This is more true in city centers than out in smaller towns and in the country.

(unrestricted) Open carry removes that and now everybody good or bad may carry firearms. LEO's have told me that this will force LEO's to assume that every person open carrying is a hostile target unless proven otherwise. Alternatively, this increases hostile profiling of people open carrying based on location of city/state, ethinicity, ect.

2) It makes it hard for LEO's to discern who the bad guy is in a situation. Typically, anyone with a firearm is instantly zeroed in. With open carry, it makes it harder for them to do this because a gun does not mean bad anymore and takes retraining. It makes it harder for the LEO's to know who the good / bad guys are in a situation, especially if firearms are drawn. "Misunderstandings" between LEO's and citizens will increase.

3) For the most part, most people don't open carry, even in states where it's legal to do so. Because of that, you're dealing with a small percentage of the population so there is very little problems. The small percentage of the people who currently open carry are typically gun owners who are responsible and practice proper safety.

However, as with anything if that percentage of people who open carry goes up, numerous problems associated with open carry goes up exponentially. If the majority of the population were to open carry, then you have to factor in an exponential increase of "stupidity." Things like people open carrying while intoxicated or people firing on each other during a heated argument. You also open up to an increase of accidental discharges.

If enough of these incidents happen and there's proof of a higher increase of "stupidity" with firearms in correlation with open carry, kiss your 2nd amendment goodbye. It will only be a matter of time before there's an outcry from the media and populace about stricter gun control.

Anyways, those are some of the reasons communicated to me by various LEO's and and former LEO's I know. Not saying I agree with any or all of the reasons.

 

[marvinvwinkle]

I don't speak for anybody who is against it or the LEO's that are against open carry. These aren't even my viewpoints on open carry.

However, here are the reasons I recall that were given to me. Most of these reasons are typically given by LEO's in cities with large, diverse populations.

1) Conceal carry forces people to go through some sort of validation/verification process. Criminals won't go through that process and most would fail the background check anyways. This gives the LEO the relief knowing that if you get pulled over and you show them the permit, it's reasonable for them to assume that you can be trusted and are not a threat with a firearm.

Typically conceal carry holders are careful about concealing their weapon and getting basic training on gun safety. Criminals tend to be a bit more careless with their firearms. Chances are, if an individual is pulled over or stopped with a firearm without a permit, there's a good chance the individual has prior history, with warrants, ect. It makes it easier for LEO's to instantly apprehend criminals and take them off the streets outside of actually catching the criminal "in the criminal act." This is more true in city centers than out in smaller towns and in the country.

(unrestricted) Open carry removes that and now everybody good or bad may carry firearms. LEO's have told me that this will force LEO's to assume that every person open carrying is a hostile target unless proven otherwise. Alternatively, this increases hostile profiling of people open carrying based on location of city/state, ethinicity, ect.

2) It makes it hard for LEO's to discern who the bad guy is in a situation. Typically, anyone with a firearm is instantly zeroed in. With open carry, it makes it harder for them to do this because a gun does not mean bad anymore and takes retraining. It makes it harder for the LEO's to know who the good / bad guys are in a situation, especially if firearms are drawn. "Misunderstandings" between LEO's and citizens will increase.

3) For the most part, most people don't open carry, even in states where it's legal to do so. Because of that, you're dealing with a small percentage of the population so there is very little problems. The small percentage of the people who currently open carry are typically gun owners who are responsible and practice proper safety.

However, as with anything if that percentage of people who open carry goes up, numerous problems associated with open carry goes up exponentially. If the majority of the population were to open carry, then you have to factor in an exponential increase of "stupidity." Things like people open carrying while intoxicated or people firing on each other during a heated argument. You also open up to an increase of accidental discharges.

If enough of these incidents happen and there's proof of a higher increase of "stupidity" with firearms in correlation with open carry, kiss your 2nd amendment goodbye. It will only be a matter of time before there's an outcry from the media and populace about stricter gun control.

Anyways, those are some of the reasons communicated to me by various LEO's and and former LEO's I know. Not saying I agree with any or all of the reasons.

Not attacking you, but this sounds pretty much like the anti-gun and union talking points. I dealt with convicted criminals all my professional life and never once heard these ideas put forth, by the any leos(not that there weren't some that might have felt that way). Oklahoma law would stop the bad guys in most cases from open carry and those that it doesn't won't last long. I can assure you that the bad guys that carry concealed now will continue to do so, open carry or not.

Again this is not an attack on you, but just my response to the points you made. We need to be restoring our constitutional rights, not continue to remove them.

 

[rawhide]

I don't speak for anybody who is against it or the LEO's that are against open carry. These aren't even my viewpoints on open carry.

However, here are the reasons I recall that were given to me. Most of these reasons are typically given by LEO's in cities with large, diverse populations.

1) Conceal carry forces people to go through some sort of validation/verification process. Criminals won't go through that process and most would fail the background check anyways. This gives the LEO the relief knowing that if you get pulled over and you show them the permit, it's reasonable for them to assume that you can be trusted and are not a threat with a firearm.

Typically conceal carry holders are careful about concealing their weapon and getting basic training on gun safety. Criminals tend to be a bit more careless with their firearms. Chances are, if an individual is pulled over or stopped with a firearm without a permit, there's a good chance the individual has prior history, with warrants, ect. It makes it easier for LEO's to instantly apprehend criminals and take them off the streets outside of actually catching the criminal "in the criminal act." This is more true in city centers than out in smaller towns and in the country.

(unrestricted) Open carry removes that and now everybody good or bad may carry firearms. LEO's have told me that this will force LEO's to assume that every person open carrying is a hostile target unless proven otherwise. Alternatively, this increases hostile profiling of people open carrying based on location of city/state, ethinicity, ect.

2) It makes it hard for LEO's to discern who the bad guy is in a situation. Typically, anyone with a firearm is instantly zeroed in. With open carry, it makes it harder for them to do this because a gun does not mean bad anymore and takes retraining. It makes it harder for the LEO's to know who the good / bad guys are in a situation, especially if firearms are drawn. "Misunderstandings" between LEO's and citizens will increase.

3) For the most part, most people don't open carry, even in states where it's legal to do so. Because of that, you're dealing with a small percentage of the population so there is very little problems. The small percentage of the people who currently open carry are typically gun owners who are responsible and practice proper safety.

However, as with anything if that percentage of people who open carry goes up, numerous problems associated with open carry goes up exponentially. If the majority of the population were to open carry, then you have to factor in an exponential increase of "stupidity." Things like people open carrying while intoxicated or people firing on each other during a heated argument. You also open up to an increase of accidental discharges.

If enough of these incidents happen and there's proof of a higher increase of "stupidity" with firearms in correlation with open carry, kiss your 2nd amendment goodbye. It will only be a matter of time before there's an outcry from the media and populace about stricter gun control.

Anyways, those are some of the reasons communicated to me by various LEO's and and former LEO's I know. Not saying I agree with any or all of the reasons.

How is a drawn firearm different with open carry? In a life threatening situation the concealed firearm will be drawn. These just sound like political talking points.

 

[Street Rat]

I don't see anyone of those that are a common sense point of view.

I remember when the Stand Your Ground law was passed. The Nichols Hills chief of police was saying on TV how it was just going to make his job harder to discern between the victim and the suspect.

 

[Brother Jim]

1) Conceal carry forces people to go through some sort of validation/verification process. Criminals won't go through that process and most would fail the background check anyways. This gives the LEO the relief knowing that if you get pulled over and you show them the permit, it's reasonable for them to assume that you can be trusted and are not a threat with a firearm.


However, as with anything if that percentage of people who open carry goes up, numerous problems associated with open carry goes up exponentially. If the majority of the population were to open carry, then you have to factor in an exponential increase of "stupidity." Things like people open carrying while intoxicated or people firing on each other during a heated argument. You also open up to an increase of accidental discharges.

If enough of these incidents happen and there's proof of a higher increase of "stupidity" with firearms in correlation with open carry, kiss your 2nd amendment goodbye. It will only be a matter of time before there's an outcry from the media and populace about stricter gun control.

Anyways, those are some of the reasons communicated to me by various LEO's and and former LEO's I know. Not saying I agree with any or all of the reasons.[/QUOTE]

This has not been my experience talking with LEO's nor do the statistics from "Open Carry" states back this up. The few LEO's that hold this opinion also do not favor "average" citizens having concealed carry permits. The governor vetoed it because he is looking for a job in the liberal administration and fully knows that he is out of a job in Oklahoma. Amazing how the common folk can be trusted to conceal carry but all the "stupid" people will only open carry. These "facts" are not based in reality from open carry states. YOMV

 

[dennishoddy]

As a governor, he must rely on the advise of others when it comes to policy, especially on policy that he may not be 100% familiar with.

.

Maybe he could have read the damm bill???? Maybe he could have accessed a dozen or so polls on the states news stations that stated the majority of okies thought it was ok. At the last time I looked we are a republic, and our electected officials should rule by the majority opinion, but then again I forget the Regime we live under now. Maybe he should quit sucking the hind tit of obama???? Your justifications have the smell of rotten fish.

 

[dennishoddy]

I don't speak for anybody who is against it
1) Conceal carry forces people to go through some sort of validation/verification process. Criminals won't go through that process and most would fail the background check anyways. This gives the LEO the relief knowing that if you get pulled over and you show them the permit, it's reasonable for them to assume that you can be trusted and are not a threat with a firearm.

DUH? Do criminals ever go through any legitimate process???
If you get pulled over by a LEO, would a criminal ever tell the LEO that he had a weapon, much less tell them where it is located???
A person with a CC license will in a heartbeat, and if the right to OC is there, the LEO would be assured the person is legal or else they wouldn't carry open???? would the criminal Open carry?? No! They will illegally conceal.
This argument smells like rotten fish left out in the sun for a week or so...and it keeps getting worse.

 

[jOe_U87]

well what a surprise. guess he really loves sucking up to Obama.