well he vetoed it...

[skyydiver]

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.

Glad you don't agree. I couldn't even pass along that load of crap without spewing.

 

[Nanotech9]

my thoughts exactly.... why is it that (some?) cops and politicians think that a criminal would be more likely to OPEN carry illegally, instead of concealed carry illegally?

if i was going to carry illegally, even if there was an open carry law, i would most likely carry concealed... cause it would reduce the chances of being talked to by an LEO.

i mean really, the idea that a criminal wont illegally concealed carry, but WILL illegally open carry is ridiculous.

 

[dlbleak]

"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. "

the bad guys are going to carry no matter what,so this a mute point

"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."

the bad guy is the one shooting back or running away

"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."

and those legal ccw in oklahoma aren't responsible and safe enough to do it i guess.

"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."

there we go again. i guess we're just to stupid to have open carry.

"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."

yep,the media has been flooded with incidents from all the "stupid" open carry folks in the other 37 or so states.

"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]

i don't think i agree with any of them.btw,the word stupid was used alot. responsible gun carriers should take a little offense to that. i know i sure did. for what its worth, i will probably never open carry except in limited situations. however, i think we should have the choice.

 

[Hobbes]

If open carry is such a problem for LEO in Oklahoma how is it that it doesn't seem to be a problem in all these other states?
http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html

Are Oklahoma LEO not up to the levels of officers in these other states?


I don't plan to open carry, for several reasons, but I keep hearing these justifications from LE and I would honestly like to know why open carry works in all these other states but it's not feasible in a law abiding state like OK.

 

[tulsamal]

I don't plan to open carry, for several reasons, but I keep hearing these justifications from LE and I would honestly like to know why open carry works in all these other states but it's not feasible in a law abiding state like OK.

It's just the exact same arguments we always get. Before OK passed the concealed carry law, there was all this scare mongering in the TV and newspaper media. Every traffic accident would be "gunfight at the OK corral." And it isn't just OK. Look north to Kansas. Every effort to get concealed carry there got the same arguments about how dangerous it was. I would have been insulted if I was a Kansas resident to basically be told that Okies could somehow follow the laws with no problem but people from Kansas were incapable.

I agree that ever time I watched the news on the Gov's veto they trotted out that line about how "LEO's advised him to veto the bill." And every time I was yelling at the screen "what about all the other states? Are they just smarter than us or what?!"

Gregg

 

[tm8634]

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?

agree 100%,no matter what cons some one (LEO'S or not) wants list, THIS QUOTE SUMS IT UP, its proven not to be a problem...

 

[Soulman]

I don't understand why they think this bill was going to allow everyone to carry. All it did was allowed those who are already legally able to conceal carry, to be given the option to open carry. All the hoops for concealed carry would still apply, and would then apply to the open carry too.

 

[tm8634]

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.

this is all the same BULLSH*T we heard from them all before CC law was pasted...

 

[reddog1]

P.o.s.

 

[Werewolf]

what a shocker.... guess he loses his A rating from the NRA. do ya think he cares at this point? i mean,who can get a job in a liberal administration with a good record from the NRA? thank goodness for term limits.

Wanna bet he won't lose his A rating?

NRA was neutral on the OKC bill and to the best of my knowledge hasn't supported passage of any OC law anywhere recently.

IMO it's one of those 1) we can't afford to push the antis too far type of positions typical for them. Or it could be as simple as 2) we've got limited funds and only want to use them where we'll get the most bang for the buck.

My money's on option 1.