You do, of course, realize that 'regulate' does not mean to limit or prohibit. Any law in Oklahoma limiting or prohibiting the carrying of weapons is unconstitutional.
Woody
You do, of course, realize that 'regulate' does not mean to limit or prohibit. Any law in Oklahoma limiting or prohibiting the carrying of weapons is unconstitutional.
Woody
From my American Heritage Dictionary:
"reg·u·late tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates. 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law."
Control means being able to limit parameters. How do you define "regulate" then?
"Regulate" means "to make regular." Think of a "regulator" in a clock: it makes the seconds "regular," the same every time. It does this by establishing limits, high and low, on the speed the machine can tick.
In a Second Amendment context, the "well-regulated militia" was drilled to ensure that all members met a standard--a minimum limit--on performance.
"Regulate" absolutely can mean "limit." As a matter of law, you're not going to win on the argument that requiring a license constitutes a prohibition that runs afoul of the Oklahoma Constitution's right to carry, subject to the legislature's power to "regulate." This one of those times when the US Constitution gives more freedom than the state's constitution (see my previous posts, somewhere, about "State Constitutions as a Bulwark of Freedom," or I'll dig it up later if need be).
Let me be abundantly clear: I entirely support the idea of Constitutional Carry; I base that in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, though, not to Oklahoma's. Fortunately, the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates those rights to the states; I think it's just a matter of convincing the right courts to honor that. That's actually my preferred solution: what the legislature giveth, the legislature can taketh away, but if the courts smack the legislatures around, the legislature is bound by that cage. That's the whole point of having the checks-and-balances of separate branches.
I'm not sure that would go our way.
^^^I agree with the above. The majority is not on our side, and a public vote would kill it for us. Look at online polls, social media, etc. And then watch the evening news. Every newscast has at least one shooting.
This isn't a big deal. Nothing has changed. Of the fifty states, only a dozen have passed this. There are still many battles to win, and far bigger issues to face. There was hardly any mention of the idea until the bill was introduced. It will come back up again, and we will have another chance to change public perception. We have a lot of PR work to do in the meantime.
Agreed,.. We are on the same team.. I hope my directness didn't come off as me being an arsehole which of course I am...
Every news cast has an anti Trump segment as well. It's the fake news media trying to sway public opinion.
Similar threads
