Open Carry Passed in Oklahoma

Talk of open carry comes up in the Texas Legislature every few years but is always shouted down by the anti-gun segment with a lot of help from the media despite the fact that a majority of Texans want open carry. I hope the Governor of Oklahoma signs the bill. Perhaps that will cause our Texas legislators to grow a backbone.
 
I would be interested to hear how you think it can cause so many problems. It doesn't seem to be an issue in the 44 other states that allow open carry.

I'm not sure that 44 states actually allow it, but that aside, if you live in a state like mine where cowboys and thugs would end up killing each other when egos get in the way of rational thought, it would be an issue. That's how I see it.

If the state wants to allow it, it's certaily their right.

You all have to realize, like it or not, by openly carrying, you are making others uncomfortable. If you can legally carry concealed, you achieve the same purpose, yet keep it to yourself.
 
They dont have open carry in my state (Florida), and personally I think it's unnecessary and can cause more problems than it's worth.

HOWEVER, in reference to the part of your message I underlined, the law in my state was changed recently so issues like "printing" or accidental brief flashing of your concealed firearm is no longer a crime. It's written into the statute that it's allowable if you have a concealed weapons permit as long as it's not purposely done.

I believe that is the best way to handle that issue. Open carry is not the solution. Especially if you ever have an encounter with law enforcement, most of them have the belief that they are the only ones who should have weapons.
The best way to handle it is to add even more language and rules to be interpreted? What you may think is "brief" or "accidental" maybe different from the local police and prosecutor. No, the best way to handle it would be less rules. If you can't bear to see an armed citizen maybe you need to rethink which side you're on.
 
Actually I should have worded that a bit better. Only like 24 are true OC states. The others have OC in some form, which is long guns under certain circumstances, etc. Many states have it in their constitutions but do not allow it thanks to some clause.
 
It's amazing that it's been proved over and over again that law abiding citizens do not commit anymore crimes armed than they do unarmed, yet some want to try and insist carrying a gun makes you a vigilante or looking for trouble. Carrying one open carry makes you a Clint Eastwood wanna-be, yet the towns that have open carry ALWAYS have lower crime rates than those who outlaw it.

I'm not really sure where the debate is, the Constitution covers it and those who support it do not try to alter it's approach. The Founding Father's would be disgusted with some of the posts on here.

It is especially disgusting to see it on this, a gun forum. Maybe I should post a link to the Brady site...naahhh..probably unneeded.

I have no plans to open carry, it's not smart tactically IMO or appropriate in some situations, but those are not legal issues, they are personal. That does not mean I think violating someone's rights who does open carry is acceptable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DGT
This is an issue that each person ought to think thru -- including reaction drills whether you open carry or CCW.

I open carry only on my farm or in the marsh -- just for ease of access if I encounter a snake, nutria, etc. I CCW in cities, going out to eat at night, shopping trips. Studies have shown that folks are actually most vulnerable getting in and out of a vehicle -- and the element of surprise provided by CCW is an ace in the hole. If the bad guy(s) already know you are carrying (i.e. open carry), they may simply revise their plan (particularly if they are desparate) and simply take you out of the game first, before you can draw your weapon.

I would suggest that everyone actually think of the scenarios they might encounter and how they would react -- you ought to react differently depending on if you are alone or have spouse/kids with you -
think this thru. Do a "battle drill" of how you would handle a bad guy(s) in a parking lot, reastaurant, shopping mall, getting in or out of your car. Really, really think this thru and "imprint" your chosen action on your brain.

Most folks have fired many many rounds at profile or ring targets -- quite different if facing a live individual who poses a threat. This is why you have to think thru what your reaction will be.

This is why the military and law enforcement have "shoot/don't shoot" drills, drills involving "instant threats" (someone suddenly drawing or brandishing a weapon), drills entering and exiting vehicles, close-quarter drills. Truth is, if you ever have to use your weapon, it will be most likely in a range of 6 feet to 21 feet -- become an expert on close-quarter use of your weapon. Hitting stationary targets at 15 or 25 yards is one thing -- hitting a moving person at close quarter is quite different.

I never realized the importance of this until attending my first military "shoot/don't shoot course" at the JRTC at Ft Polk (Joint Readiness Training Center) -- having spent lots of time on M-16 ranges, M-203 (40 mm grenade) ranges, M-60/M-2 ranges, learning close quarter engagements (both rifle and pistol) was an eye-opener.
Battle drills give you both confidence and muscle memory, and a prescient sense of how to react depending on what threat you encounter.

Did not mean to be long-winded with this -- but if you decide to open carry off your property, really think thru your personal "battle drills"
as to what you might plausibly encounter and your course of action.

My personal "drill" -- I am pulled up at a gas station/convenience store, dressed in a shirt and tie (i.e. easy mark) with a nice watch and nice car -- 3 or 4 ding-bats, low on money, using the last of their cash to buy a couple gallons of gas, decide I am their personal "Bank of America" -- one of them approaches me (sometimes I figure it is 2 of them) with a weapon (knife, bar of steel, pistol) and demands "Give it up" -- My drill involves voice dissuasion, then escalation to defense of self and life -- I came up with this drill after a real-life encounter at 2 AM at a gas station/convenience store off I-20 in the Dallas area, driving for the holidays to New Mexico with my wife, two sons and 6 dogs in a dog trailer, (all of whom were sleeping as I pumped gas),
when approached by 3 guys needing to "borrow a few dollars" --
only 2 other cars at the station which had 8 pump islands (and 2 clerks inside). Voice dissuasion deployed, 2 bad guys still advanced,
......... suffice it to say, the sight of an instantly drawn weapon
(I will confess that it was a Kimber .45) was magical. End of story.
Interlopers went back to their car, I finished pumping, and ran to the store and told the clerks (just wanted them to be aware). Resumed journey. That encounter really made me think about the importance of having a plan. Hope this is thought-provoking for the good folks on this forum.
 
Whether you believe anyone should open carry or not, It is our Constitutional right that has been taken away for far too long.

Along with Open Carry, Oklahoma passed a bill that will allow those from states with Constitutional Carry, to open carry when in Oklahoma.

I hope that the reasoning behind the passage of this bill will someday allow passage of Constitutional Carry in Oklahoma.

I may never open carry, but I believe it is a Constitutional right for law abiding citizens.
 
I'm not sure that 44 states actually allow it, but that aside, if you live in a state like mine where cowboys and thugs would end up killing each other when egos get in the way of rational thought, it would be an issue. That's how I see it.

That's the same logic used to argue against concealed carry as well. Somehow allowing people to carry guns means they'll be pulling them and gunning each other down in the street.

"Thugs", i.e. criminals, are restricted from having guns at all, not that it stops them. They don't comply with concealed carry laws and I doubt even more that them hiding it in their jacket makes it less likely they'll use it versus carrying it on their hip. Thugs are going to carry guns and shoot people whether a state has open carry, concealed carry, no carry (look at Chicago) or outright bans. Only law abiding citizens are being impacted by any of these laws, criminals do what they want regardless.

Kentucky is a constitutionally guaranteed open carry state, and I see very few people open carry and know of no issues with it whatsoever having lived here my entire life in both rural and urban settings. Most of it is people going to/from hunting stopping in a corner store on the way, that sort of thing. It's our right, we can exercise it when we see fit, but it certainly hasn't led to people carrying guns and shooting each other.

If people are responsible enough to carry a gun in a jacket they can handle carrying it on their hip. If they aren't they shouldn't be doing either, but no law will stop them from it, which is why we need to allow those who are responsible to carry however they choose.

Mind you I do agree open carry can make folks nervous, so you can't expect the guys in the store at 2am to not notice or maybe get nervous, but they're being foolish. Like ccdw,it's not the people with guns on their hips you have to worry about, it's the ones you don't see coming. Still, that's why few choose to open carry other than in specific cases, but they should have the right to do so and exercise their judgment.

I know you're not arguing against it per se, so we're all on the same side here, and we all see it as a right, but coming from an open carry state of long standing I wanted to put in my observation that I haven't seen any negative impact or impact on behavior of our criminal element. I certainly understand your concerns but I don't think they'd come to fruition if Florida allowed open carry. I agree 100% open carry evokes a certain reaction from people though, which is why it should be (and is in open carry states) used judiciously.
 
Last edited:
First time I saw open carry in Kentucky I was about 5. That would have been in the late 1950s in Harlan, KY. An older guy who only came into town once a month to buy supplies and then head back up his "holler". He came from an era where Harlan was less civilized - 1920s union wars and the very big [for my five year old eyes] revolver on his hip was just part of his life. It is never an issue here.
 
It's amazing that it's been proved over and over again that law abiding citizens do not commit anymore crimes armed than they do unarmed, yet some want to try and insist carrying a gun makes you a vigilante or looking for trouble. Carrying one open carry makes you a Clint Eastwood wanna-be, yet the towns that have open carry ALWAYS have lower crime rates than those who outlaw it.

I am going to take exception with that one comment:

For the most part, and correct me if I am wrong. Most states which truly allow open carry of handguns are rural, and crime is low as a rule.

It's debatable that it could be due to low population density, low population in general, demographics (fewer transients, fewer minorities/illegals, etc), economics, etc. Not necessarily because they allow open carry.

Someone in another thread brought up Wyoming, and then tried to compare it to a place like Atlanta. Not a valid comparison.
 
I am going to take exception with that one comment:

For the most part, and correct me if I am wrong. Most states which truly allow open carry of handguns are rural, and crime is low as a rule.

It's debatable that it could be due to low population density, low population in general, demographics (fewer transients, fewer minorities/illegals, etc), economics, etc. Not necessarily because they allow open carry.

Someone in another thread brought up Wyoming, and then tried to compare it to a place like Atlanta. Not a valid comparison.


You think Oklahoma is a rural state? We have large cities like any other. Never been to Tulsa or OKC?
The data supporting statement that less than 1% of legally purchased firearms are used in crimes comes from the DOJ and the FBI.
To correct your incorrect statement that states with OC are mostly rural, only something like eleven states don't allow straight up OC to some degree. By your logic, all but 11 states are pretty much rural. You are simply not correct. If you travel at all, you have been on OC states without even knowing it.
 
I am going to take exception with that one comment:

For the most part, and correct me if I am wrong. Most states which truly allow open carry of handguns are rural, and crime is low as a rule.

It's debatable that it could be due to low population density, low population in general, demographics (fewer transients, fewer minorities/illegals, etc), economics, etc. Not necessarily because they allow open carry.

Someone in another thread brought up Wyoming, and then tried to compare it to a place like Atlanta. Not a valid comparison.

While we could have this debate, it would shift the focus from the primary point in my mind. We are Constitutionally guaranteed no infringement upon right to keep and bear arms. There is no other fact needed to determine whether open carry should be allowed.
 
God gave me the right to defend myself how I do it is a choice I make. I open carry and I conceal carry depending on the situation in pa I have the option to do both although a permit is required to conceal carry
 
It seems to me that so many people against OC want you to justify why you would use that right and often cite paranoia as a reason for OC. Just like StatesRightest stated (rightly, ha), it a right. I don't need justification. I dont need to be paranoid. I don't need to explain my actions to anyone, including law enforcement as long as I break no law.
We are not being given a privilege by the grace of our state and federal government. They are just recognizing a right that we already had and should not have been infringed. I don't say thank you, I say it's about time.
 
While we could have this debate, it would shift the focus from the primary point in my mind. We are Constitutionally guaranteed no infringement upon right to keep and bear arms. There is no other fact needed to determine whether open carry should be allowed.

I disagree with that statement. The right to keep and bear arms does not necessarily guarantee you the right to open carry. And the issue of states rights was determined by the civil war.
 
I disagree with that statement. The right to keep and bear arms does not necessarily guarantee you the right to open carry. And the issue of states rights was determined by the civil war.

When a right is described as "shall not be infringed", that means no stipulations. It's either a right or it is not. If it is a right, the government has no business restricting it in any way.
That said, I do feel that a business owner has every right to ask that guns not be brought into his/her business if that's how they feel about it. The free market will decide if that's the right move or not.
 
I disagree with that statement. The right to keep and bear arms does not necessarily guarantee you the right to open carry. And the issue of states rights was determined by the civil war.

What an absurd statement. If "bearing arms" is a right, then restricting how arms are carried invalidates the right. Amazing how the anti-Ocers sound just like liberal antigunners.
 
I disagree with that statement. The right to keep and bear arms does not necessarily guarantee you the right to open carry. And the issue of states rights was determined by the civil war.

I'm not going to debate you, you are wrong and I'm not going to waste my time attempting to convince you otherwise on the 2nd Amendment.

As for your other statement, the last time I checked the 10th Amendment was still part of the Constitution. Try reading it, it clearly states there are plenty of States Rights.
 
What an absurd statement. If "bearing arms" is a right, then restricting how arms are carried invalidates the right. Amazing how the anti-Ocers sound just like liberal antigunners.

Don't they though, that and for absolute Federal control of your lives in some cases.

Shall not be infringed...apparently some have a reading impediment.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top