well he vetoed it...

[marvinvwinkle]

I think the whole issue is whether you believe in the Constitution or not. As far as open carry, I could care less, but I do believe in following the Constitution and not gradually eroding it.

 

[slade1]

I'll give it a shot (pun intended):

There is no central, empirical database for incidents involving citizen uses of force so "ill effects" is non-provable either way.

Of the states that have open carry, a number of them have local ordinances that allow a municipality or other political sub-division to outlaw open carry. Because of this, the gun-o-phobes that aspire to political office in these areas usually support legislation against open carry thus making open carry less likely in the larger urban areas where the majority of criminal activity and interaction between law enforcement and the citizenry occurs.

Oklahoma has a pre-emption law regarding firearms so while I don't have a whole lot of concern over someone open carrying in small towns where everyone knows everyone, I think it will lead to some misunderstandings in larger metropolitan areas. If Oklahoma did not have this pre-emption, I would support open carry. I don't believe the streets will run red with blood but I think a certain number of avoidable misunderstandings will inevitably occur.

IMO, concealed carry shows some level of discretion.

I believe discretion is one of the most important qualities for anyone who carries a firearm for personal protection.

From some of the comments I've read on this forum in regards to open carry, it appears as though many folks would open carry just to make a statement, which in my opinion is the opposite of discretion. Thus I believe this obvious lack of discretion makes open carry a bad idea.

That said, I'm a firm believer in the legislative process and if our elected legislators decide open carry should be the law in Oklahoma, so be it. As is, I don't have a great deal of heartburn over the issue and don't oppose or support it with my vote but I don't think it's a good idea.

Michael Brown

I totally agree that personal responsibility for carrying a firearm needs to be high but isn't that why we wait for months before we are given a license? It seems to me there are some situations that if a person were to open carry it might act as a deterrent to a violent crime, yeah it could make you a target also.Anyone taking it upon themselves to carry for protection needs to work that out before hand. It seems to me if the system in place can't determine within reason a persons capability to be trusted to carry then that system may need to be changed?

 

[jbarnett]

To say that I am just a little bit surprised by your opinion and interpretation of the Constitution would be an understatement.

RKBA- let's fall back on the literal definition of "bear arms". I find no definition of "bear" meaning that we must conceal. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you read this: "Sensible Regulation of Books"

http://marbut.com/ModestProposal/

Well put!

I feel like you are either for or against the second ammendment.

 

[jjtrish]

Is the open carry veto gonna get overridden sometime soon

 

[1shot(bob)]

I'll give it a shot (pun intended):

There is no central, empirical database for incidents involving citizen uses of force so "ill effects" is non-provable either way.

Of the states that have open carry, a number of them have local ordinances that allow a municipality or other political sub-division to outlaw open carry. Because of this, the gun-o-phobes that aspire to political office in these areas usually support legislation against open carry thus making open carry less likely in the larger urban areas where the majority of criminal activity and interaction between law enforcement and the citizenry occurs.

Oklahoma has a pre-emption law regarding firearms so while I don't have a whole lot of concern over someone open carrying in small towns where everyone knows everyone, I think it will lead to some misunderstandings in larger metropolitan areas. If Oklahoma did not have this pre-emption, I would support open carry. I don't believe the streets will run red with blood but I think a certain number of avoidable misunderstandings will inevitably occur.

IMO, concealed carry shows some level of discretion.

I believe discretion is one of the most important qualities for anyone who carries a firearm for personal protection.

From some of the comments I've read on this forum in regards to open carry, it appears as though many folks would open carry just to make a statement, which in my opinion is the opposite of discretion. Thus I believe this obvious lack of discretion makes open carry a bad idea.

That said, I'm a firm believer in the legislative process and if our elected legislators decide open carry should be the law in Oklahoma, so be it. As is, I don't have a great deal of heartburn over the issue and don't oppose or support it with my vote but I don't think it's a good idea.

Michael Brown

So you agree with a state law that allows pen carry, as long is there a loophole allowing cities to over ride that law. Hmmm. Interesting.

Your definition of discretion escapes me. It is defined thusly:

1 : the quality of being discreet : circumspection; especially : cautious reserve in speech
2 : ability to make responsible decisions
3 a : individual choice or judgment <left the decision to his discretion> b : power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds <reached the age of discretion>
4 : the result of separating or distinguishing

The only statement I would be making is that I believe in the 2A and I feel it applies to me as well as others.

If you don't vote for it, are you not, in effect, voting against it, especially in this instance?

 

[Michael Brown]

To say that I am just a little bit surprised by your opinion and interpretation of the Constitution would be an understatement.

RKBA- let's fall back on the literal definition of "bear arms". I find no definition of "bear" meaning that we must conceal. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you read this: "Sensible Regulation of Books"

http://marbut.com/ModestProposal/

It appears to be the opinion of a lot of a lot of folks more educated in constitutional law than myself, that firearms can be regulated to some degree.

Where that degree is appears to be the rub.

IMO, folks who believe the constitution has no limits have a superficial understanding of constitutional law.

Speech can be regulated but is generally protected. The searching of a person or property can occur but has built in protections.

Why the second amendment would be any different, I don't know.

That said, I generally agree with the notion that the second amendment has been eroded more than others although I don't see this veto as being an example of that.

Michael Brown

 

[skyydiver]

I'll put the importance of the US Constitution ahead of the importance of avoiding misunderstandings 100% of the time.

 

[Michael Brown]

I'll put the importance of the US Constitution ahead of the importance of avoiding misunderstandings 100% of the time.

If regulation was open and shut, I would agree with you.......

But it isn't open and shut.

Michael Brown

 

[DirtyDawg]

If regulation was open and shut, I would agree with you.......

But it isn't open and shut.

Michael Brown

He who is "looking for Black Swans" should know Taleb's Ten Principles for a Black Swan Robust World.

Principle #2- No socialization of losses and privatization of gains.


When I read Principle #2 and reflect upon the loss of rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution....I can't help but compare law abiding citizens forced to conceal carry while the elite get to choose how they carry. The law abiding citizens loose their RKBA openly or under the guise of a tax (permit) all the while elite members of society carry however they choose without any recourse or possibility of criminal charges. The overall society suffers the loss while the few in power celebrate in gain.

Once again, we have strayed from the true meaning & interpretation of the Constitution. Citizens loose freedom and government gains power.

 

[Michael Brown]

I can't help but compare law abiding citizens forced to conceal carry while the elite get to choose how they carry. The law abiding citizens loose their RKBA openly or under the guise of a tax (permit) all the while elite members of society carry however they choose without any recourse or possibility of criminal charges. The overall society suffers the loss while the few in power celebrate in gain.

Who is this "elite" that gets to choose how to carry without recourse or criminal charges?

Michael Brown