Constitutional Carry send your support

I've heard from a few people about the requirement of only carrying a firearm you personally purchased through an FFL? As in you can't lawfully carry a firearm you bought private party... I've read the bill twice, nothing is jumping out. Care to shed light? Are people just confusing their "no background checks" spiel?

TwoForFlinching said:

I've heard from a few people about the requirement of only carrying a firearm you personally purchased through an FFL? As in you can't lawfully carry a firearm you bought private party... I've read the bill twice, nothing is jumping out. Care to shed light? Are people just confusing their "no background checks" spiel?

Click to expand...

Some people are full of $h!+.

TwoForFlinching said:

I've heard from a few people about the requirement of only carrying a firearm you personally purchased through an FFL? As in you can't lawfully carry a firearm you bought private party... I've read the bill twice, nothing is jumping out. Care to shed light? Are people just confusing their "no background checks" spiel?

Click to expand...

But I heard it on the internet, so it must be true.
The misunderstanding/misinformation and personal beliefs out there are amazing.
"adamsredlines said: ↑
Today I learned, from a coworker who is also in the National Guard, that this bill is dangerous because it allows 16yr olds to carry."
Stop listening to people who have never read the bill! Read it for yourself! Facepalm!
Someone once told me I was good looking too.

Old Phart said:

Some people are full of $h!+.

Click to expand...

golddigger14s said:

But I heard it on the internet, so it must be true.
The misunderstanding/misinformation and personal beliefs out there are amazing.

Stop listening to people who have never read the bill! Read it for yourself! Facepalm!
Someone once told me I was good looking too.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I read the bill twice and couldn't find anything on it. Just thought it was weird hearing it from so many people, including the hardcore 2A dudes I had lunch with today. Just didn't make any sense. I imagine it's some sort of distortion from the "We need background checks" libbies and the "You have a background check to purchase guns in store" from the fudds.

mr ed said:

when did they pass that?
It was when detained and only if your carrying. Not asking directions at the donut shop.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's all about interpretation.

TerryMiller said:

Well, unfortunately, we do have one slight hope. The leftists STILL support abortion, and since leftists are probably the MOST LIKELY to avail themselves of that option, they may very well be "killing off" the offspring that they would be "training" to be leftists for the future.

While I despise abortion, maybe this gives us "some" hope?

Click to expand...

I know you’re not condoning or supporting abortion, but if you’re someone who despises abortion, consider what it means to speak about abortion in terms of it being “hopeful.” There is no hope in abortion. There is nothing good in abortion.

We all here value every person’s right to protect themselves from violence and we defend that right vigilantly. Abortion is an evil, vicious, heinous act of violence toward young children, the most vulnerable people who have no means of self-defense. When you consider the depth of this tragedy and outrage, you realize that abortion must be condemned in every way and never spoken of in any remotely positive way. These are people being murdered.

I don’t say any of this to pick a fight or say you don’t truly hate abortion. I’m just hoping to cause you to think harder about the meaning of what you said. While our rights to arms are one of the things most essential to maintaining a free society, if I could give up my own 2nd Amendment rights for a guarantee that no abortion would ever be committed again, I would in a heartbeat.

chuter said:

Channel 9 just had a constitutional "expert" say that this law is just policy made by legislators, and not something that is required by the second amendment.......

Click to expand...

You know, this guy could be referring to our state constitution where it guarantees the right to keep arms but specifically states that the legislature has all the power they want to regulate the carrying of arms. I think that violates our federal constitution but either way, I think the next step to restoring our rights and keeping "experts" like this off the air, we need to change our state constitution to match the federal. Here's what the state says about your RTKBA:

Article II, § 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.”

There have been 3 cases about carrying weapons over the past 100 years that have reached the Okla Supreme Court (that I'm aware of, there might be more?), each case lost because of how this article is written.

sanjuro893 said:

You know, this guy could be referring to our state constitution where it guarantees the right to keep arms but specifically states that the legislature has all the power they want to regulate the carrying of arms. I think that violates our federal constitution but either way, I think the next step to restoring our rights and keeping "experts" like this off the air, we need to change our state constitution to match the federal. Here's what the state says about your RTKBA:

Article II, § 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.”

There have been 3 cases about carrying weapons over the past 100 years that have reached the Okla Supreme Court (that I'm aware of, there might be more?), each case lost because of how this article is written.

Click to expand...

Yep. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has essentially ruled that Article II § 26 doesn’t do anything and the legislature can regulate arms however they want, including an outright ban. They don’t understand the basic concept that laws aren’t enacted for the purpose of having no effect.

But we can do better than the Second Amendment. Here’s our proposed constitutional amendment…

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2019-20 INT/SRES/SJR16 INT.PDF

ethansisson said:

Yep. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has essentially ruled that Article II § 26 doesn’t do anything and the legislature can regulate arms however they want, including an outright ban. They don’t understand the basic concept that laws aren’t enacted for the purpose of having no effect.

But we can do better than the Second Amendment. Here’s our proposed constitutional amendment…

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2019-20 INT/SRES/SJR16 INT.PDF

Click to expand...

"THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS:
This measure would amend Section 26 of Article 2 of the Oklahoma
Constitution. This measure would prevent infringement of the
fundamental right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. This
measure will not prevent the Legislature from prohibiting
possession of firearms by a convicted felon, a person adjudicated as mentally incompetent or an individual
involuntarily committed in any mental institution. This measure
would prohibit the imposition of registration or special
taxation upon the keeping of arms or ammunition."

ethansisson said:

Here’s our proposed constitutional amendment…

Click to expand...

Who is "our?"