2014 Oklahoma Legislature Firearms Bills

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Sanford

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
3,703
Reaction score
298
Location
40 Miles S. of Nowhere, OK.
RE: SB1258:

Why should a valid DL be required in addition to a permit? That further restricts the right to keep and bear arms...

I wondered about that when I read it - but then went back and checked and the Sheriff is required to verify it (DL or ID) when submitting the application in the first place so maybe not too big a deal there(?)

RE: SB1264:

The removals are a consolidation of language. Additionally, I believe the only places where parimutuel betting are allowed are already prohibited under tribal law because they belong to Indian tribes and the State of Oklahoma has no jurisdiction there. When you enter the Remington Park property, you are on Chickasaw Nation property, for example.

And is that one actually removing the prohibition on "city, town, county, state" buildings? I'm reading "has a security checkpoint and is owned or leased by a federal governmental authority" leaving the rest out?
 

mr ed

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
7,169
Reaction score
5,083
Location
Tulsa
RE: SB1258:

Why should a valid DL be required in addition to a permit? That further restricts the right to keep and bear arms...
If I'm not mistaken a carry permit is not considered valid ID. Something they screwed up when passing the law.
Therefore you must carry a valid form of ID
 

vvvvvvv

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
12,284
Reaction score
65
Location
Nowhere
If I'm not mistaken a carry permit is not considered valid ID. Something they screwed up when passing the law.
Therefore you must carry a valid form of ID

You don't have to carry a DL or photo ID card without a permit. Why should you be required to carry one with a permit?



And is that one actually removing the prohibition on "city, town, county, state" buildings? I'm reading "has a security checkpoint and is owned or leased by a federal governmental authority" leaving the rest out?


Yes. It removes the prohibition on non-federal government buildings.
 

Sanford

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
3,703
Reaction score
298
Location
40 Miles S. of Nowhere, OK.
It removes the prohibition on non-federal government buildings.
Seems curious - why not remove the whole section then? Let the feds worry about their own buildings since their general stance seems to be to not recognize state-issued carry permits anyway. Or is it a matter of the state having lesser penalties or some such?
 

XDTACTICAL

Marksman
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Location
Broken Arrow
how about getting rid of the mandatory preclusion law 21o.s. 1290.10(5)(e) for any drug violation.this has stopped many from getting a license including me.had One misdemeanor conviction 15 years ago and can't get my license.I filed twice and even tried to appeal and was denied.This is nonsense.I am not the same person i was 15 years ago neither are alot of people.this should be the same as the dui law,dropped after 3 years. And what I really don't understand is people telling me that they know someone who has got their license with the same charge(paraphernalia possession)as i had.
 

rawhide

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
4,296
Reaction score
1,372
Location
Lincoln Co.
how about getting rid of the mandatory preclusion law 21o.s. 1290.10(5)(e) for any drug violation.this has stopped many from getting a license including me.had One misdemeanor conviction 15 years ago and can't get my license.I filed twice and even tried to appeal and was denied.This is nonsense.I am not the same person i was 15 years ago neither are alot of people.this should be the same as the dui law,dropped after 3 years. And what I really don't understand is people telling me that they know someone who has got their license with the same charge(paraphernalia possession)as i had.

I do not know the bill number but I believe there is one that pertains to this.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,718
Reaction score
16,669
Location
Collinsville
1) I think we'd all like a Firearms Freedom Act, but it would be purely symbolic. Nothing wrong with symbolic bills, but the financial end of a FFA is very limited.

2) Making Oklahoma a "shall issue" NFA state is a whole different can of worms. NFA items are regulated at the national level. . .hence the name "National Firearms Act." To bypass that you'd really need a FFA that applied to NFA items. Unless by "shall issue" you mean forcing CLOEs to sign off on suppressors. . .which is fine, but there are several people who can sign off on those or you can go the trust route and bypass them altogether.

While the final rule hasn't been issued yet (the comment period just closed), it's possible the BATFE might be closing the "trust loophole" in regards to CLEO signatures. My comment was that BATFE offices in areas where the CLEO refuses should be required to sign.

As for the DL/State ID requirement, it's stupid. The SDA License is an official state issued ID for the purposes of carry legality. It verifies the identity of the citizen just as well as a state ID from another office. Practically, it probably wouldn't have any impact at all. When I walk the dog and don't want to carry my wallet, I grab the SDA and DL to put in my pocket together. I can't imagine anyone having the cash to get the overly expensive SDA license and not for a state ID or DL.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom