I See Where The Olkahoma Rifle Association

[Rule 303]

Has come out against Open Carry in the State of Olkahoma.

I didn't know that they were Anti Second Admenment.

Gun rights group opposes Oklahoma's open-carry bill | Tulsa World

Appearently they wish to side with the more Liberal Law Enforcers and Sheeple.

Sounds like a group of Fudds to me.

Rule 303

 

[smokey]

Thats just sad, i wonder if they let their members vote to oppose this bill, or just the groups president or whatever organized leadership structure they have decided it for the members, in any case i hope their membership plummets, friends like this group we can do without.

 

[nogods]

They appear to be anti-open carry and anti-gun for 18 to 20 year-olds.

The Second Amendment does not presently include either as a right.

Distracting the conversation about the issues with gratuitous assertions about the 2nd Amendment just drives the discussion down a dead end that will not help in expanding the ability of citizens to possess firearms beyond the currently constitutionally protected individual right to own a firearm of common usage for self defense in one's home.

Anti-gun advocates love it when we let the conversation head down those dead ends. They don't have to respond with reason or logic to any of our assertions. They can just let the discussion drift into the never never land of wishful Second Amendment topics.

Each of us should avoid falling into that trap.

When the public discussion focuses on whether the state should enact an open carry law, the answer is neither "Yes, because the Second Amendment requires it" nor "No, because the Second Amendment does not require it."

Simply put, under existing jurisprudence, the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the issue.

 

[sar4937]

At our range a lot of the rifle group do not participate in action pistol shooting, although they may have a gun in their home for self-defense. And among the rifle group quite a few of the old-timers do not see the need for "assault rifles" even though we have a well established group of high-power shooters. They exist in their own world of wood stocked rifles, and shotguns. They believe that even if handguns and hi-cap rifles are banned, their world will be unchanged. Our club meetings are attended by younger handgun shooters and high power rifle shooters, but all other disciplines are represented by older shooters. They attend meetings and generally run the club. They attend in higher numbers as well. I mean all this in a good way, but they do not feel as threatened as the other disciplines. We have difficulty getting hunters to join the NRA, because they feel hunting will never be threatened in Nebraska. It's just the culture we were raised in I guess.

 

[PDL]

I won't say what I'm thinking about the BS statement that was made a couple of posts above, 'cause I'd get in trouble here.

There is nothing in the 2nd that says it's only applicable to a gun in the house for self defense.
The supreme court was cautious in their rulings because they didn't want to remove all 'sensible' gun laws. But these things will be fleshed out in further court procedings.
As far as what age is appropriate for carrying a firearm, I'd always thought that the constitution applied to all citizens. If you're of 'legal' age you should have all the rights stated in the constitution.

 

[nogods]

I won't say what I'm thinking about the BS statement that was made a couple of posts above, 'cause I'd get in trouble here.

Always good to bite your tongue when you aren't familiar with the topic.

The Heller holding:

In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful fire­
arm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the Dis­
trict must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it so.

We have to deal with the issue as it is, not as we would like it to be.

Right here right now everything beyond owning a firearm for home self defense is a privilege. Claiming otherwise doesn't convince any knowledgeable legislator to vote for expanding gun ownership and possession rights. It just distracts the conservation to the benefit of the anti-gunners.

Yes, we can keep on fighting in the courts to expand the rights recognized under the Second amendment. But claiming such rights are already recognized is so easily disposed of the anti-gunners are hoping we'll premise our arguments to legislators on that foolishness.

 

[PDL]

I didn't bite anything.
As is usual the Supreme Court ruled narowly to the specifics of the case.
And as I said, further court cases will flesh the rights as required.
We are just lucky there were a majority of honest justices. Unlike Satomayer(sp) who stated there was an individual right durring her hearings. But then couldn't find that same right when she had to rule in McDonald v. Chicago.

 

[oldman45]

Times change with time. I am an older male that was brought up with guns. I believe in open carry, enjoy open carry and support open carry.

When I was a kid of about 12 yrs old, I was allowed to carry a H&R .22 down to the river banks about a mile away to shoot. I would get on my bike and wear the gun on an ill fitting belt. Then come home and clean the gun.

When i was 15, I would carry my shotgun, rifle or such to school and a few of my teachers would go hunting with me after school. The guns remained in my car during the school day.

When I went off to college, several of my guns went with me.

The law allowed each of the above. I cannot see the law changed, other than prevent guns on school property.

What has changed is people's perception of guns. Those tree huggers of today have never been exposed to guns and therefore are against what they do not know about. Most of us owning guns never discuss them with anti gun people or even gun people. So the anti gun people grow in size.

Open carry allows people to be exposed and accustomed to seeing and being around guns. If one walked into a WalMart and saw several wearing guns during their visit, they would become comfortable in the presence of guns by seeing those with guns are not bad guys. Once comfortable, they would not be so anti gun and may even join the ranks of avid shooters.

But open carry opens up opportunities to discuss guns with those uninformed that might be curious. Several have asked me about guns when I have been seen in restaurants or stores. I even got a phone number of one couple and we went shooting a few days later. Now the guy is my best shooting companion and his wife is my favorite cook. They own several guns whereas when we met, they were almost anti gunners.

 

[OKFC05]

Well, the situation we have with open carry bills in Oklahoma now is a mess, thanks to two committee chairpeople in the legislature.

There are FOUR versions of the open carry bills, and the one we want is being held hostage by Sue Tibbs, chairwoman of the house judiciary committee. If she sent HB1400 to the floor, it would pass and the governor has said she will sign it.

However, the bill that HAS been released is the unlicensed carry if 18, which is designed by those OPPOSED to open carry as a way to draw fire and defeat it, preventing a new bill for two years under OK law.

Got all that? It's dirty politics, and all you who jumped on the twisted story in the liberal rag Tulsa World and blamed the OKRA fell for it!

 

[nogods]

If one walked into a WalMart and saw several wearing guns during their visit, they would become comfortable in the presence of guns by seeing those with guns are not bad guys.

Well...how would they know that the people with guns are not bad guys? How would they know that people with guns are not idiots with guns? (By "idiots" I mean the people who are responsible for the daily news stories of unintentional discharges.)

I'm for open carry so that I can make intelligent choices about my surroundings, something I can't do with concealed carry.

For instance, in NYS there is no law against having a concealed carry firearm in a restaurant or bar. I go out to eat just about every Friday night. I don't drink during those Friday night dinners because I'm driving and carrying concealed. But I have no way of knowing if the guy or lady sitting in the next table chugging beer and wine as if they have signed up for rehab starting the next day are packing.

If NYS had open carry instead of concealed carry, I would at least be able to make personal decision about the surroundings I'm willing to expose myself to. Perhaps I wouldn't go into a bank unless everyone was armed. Perhaps I wouldn't go into a bar unless no one was armed.

In any event, none of us, whether someone is a permit holder or anti-gunner, can make those personal decisions when concealed carry is allowed instead of mandated open carry. That is why I would prefer that NYS change from being a concealed carry state to a mandated open carry.