Constitutional Carry (SB 1212) on the OK House floor 4/23

[MosinMann]

I had just turned 19 when I started basic training. The only machine gun I had ever seen was on TV. They took us to the range one day and I had to qualify with it. I had to qualify twice a year with M-16 rifles and pistols till I was discharged. Before each qualifying session there was always a class on each firearm. Safety, maintenance, and shooting rechniques.

I believe the reasoning is that if we can take kids age 18, hand them machineguns, explosives, tanks and rocket launchers and trust them to protect out country, we should be able to trust them to carry guns in civilian life too.

I guess that's where I see this bill and the concept of "Constitutional Carry" not married very well. A common argument is that training is not a Constitutional prerequisite for exercising right to bear arms in public. But if you make an exception for military because they have training and may be more responsible, you run into a logical conundrum. If it's a matter of trust, why not maintain the status quo where trustworthiness to carry in public is established by training and a thorough background investigation? Or are we establishing two different ages of majority between military and civilians?

 

[Dave70968]

I guess that's where I see this bill and the concept of "Constitutional Carry" not married very well. A common argument is that training is not a Constitutional prerequisite for exercising right to bear arms in public. But if you make an exception for military because they have training and may be more responsible, you run into a logical conundrum. If it's a matter of trust, why not maintain the status quo where trustworthiness to carry in public is established by training and a thorough background investigation? Or are we establishing two different ages of majority between military and civilians?

Very well said.

 

[CHenry]

I guess that's where I see this bill and the concept of "Constitutional Carry" not married very well. A common argument is that training is not a Constitutional prerequisite for exercising right to bear arms in public. But if you make an exception for military because they have training and may be more responsible, you run into a logical conundrum. If it's a matter of trust, why not maintain the status quo where trustworthiness to carry in public is established by training and a thorough background investigation? Or are we establishing two different ages of majority between military and civilians?

So you wanna undo ALL the regulations in one bill? Mmmkay.

 

[Dave70968]

So you wanna undo ALL the regulations in one bill? Mmmkay.

Actually, I'd like to undo all of them in one good court case that holds the Second Amendment to its explicit wording.

And a pony. I'd like a pony, too.

 

[MosinMann]

So you wanna undo ALL the regulations in one bill? Mmmkay.

Not my take. This is added language, not a strike-out of current regulation. So this doesn't seem like a means to an end. The new language was crafted to make a distinction between when civilians and military are subject to gun rights. Is it logical? Is it right? I think it's an important discussion to have.

 

[CHenry]

Dave, we can get ya a pony, that is easy lol
The current age restriction was already in place and that will be the target in the future but...baby steps.

 

[Dave70968]

Not my take. This is added language, not a strike-out of current regulation. So this doesn't seem like a means to an end. The new language was crafted to make a distinction between when civilians and military are subject to gun rights. Is it logical? Is it right? I think it's an important discussion to have.

I'm opposed to it on the same grounds that I oppose "Courthouse Carry" for .gov employees: it makes a special class of citizens with more rights than the rest of us. It's a principle thing.

 

[MosinMann]

Dave, we can get ya a pony, that is easy lol
The current age restriction was already in place and that will be the target in the future but...baby steps.

Not exactly. Currently, you can carry at 18 on private property. You can apply for a SDA license at 21. This bill doesn't change either law. It does, however, add new law and that new law requires different age requirements based on military history to exercise public carry rights. I haven't heard enough dialogue on this to assume they are pursuing equality of rights.

 

[Cowcatcher]

I get what your saying MosinMann. This bill is a step in the right direction I think. Yes I too would like to see things done all at once but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen.

 

[TuAlum0982]

Actually, I'd like to undo all of them in one good court case that holds the Second Amendment to its explicit wording.

And a pony. I'd like a pony, too.

I second a pony! My daughter would love one!