Did we get any gun legislation this session

[otis147]

if they can give (or deny) it, it isn't a right.

 

[gerhard1]

if they can give (or deny) it, it isn't a right.

Not necessarily. We all have the right to life and liberty, but we can still lose either of these if we are convicted of a serious crime.

 

[rc508pir]

Why didn't SB35 include retired military?

Retirees and Veterans were stripped from the bill. I wrote my reps to inquire why

 

[otis147]

because retirees and veterans are no longer more equal than others.

 

[SMS]

Retirees and Veterans were stripped from the bill. I wrote my reps to inquire why

Because they wanted the bill to make even less sense...

 

[rc508pir]

I don't get this bill at all, as it was passed. I can see why Active duty members since they are mostly not OK residents. But why add Nat Guard and Reserve and not Vets and Retirees???? Nat Guard and Reserves are for the most part, residents of OK

 

[SMS]

It doesn't even make sense for guard and reserve. A large portion of military members do not receive handgun training.

To leave the training requirements in place for non-vets, vets, and retirees while suddenly lifting them for active duty and guard/reserve is a logical disconnect.

If they are trying to incrementally eliminate the training requirements then I can understand, and will be patient but standing on its own it's nonsensical.

 

[Dave70968]

Call me cynical, but I think it's mostly a feel-good measure. The people writ large have a general fear of terrorist, nutjob mass shooters, etc. They see the police as protectors; they also see the military as protectors. They don't know that many servicemembers never receive handgun training, nor that fewer yet receive more than a familiarization course; all they know is that soldiers protect us from our enemies. Allowing active-duty servicemembers to carry makes the population feel like the legislature is Doing Something, putting armed protectors out on the street to look out for us. It makes us feel safer, and feel good about the politicians who did it. The small minority of us who know the facts, who care about individual liberty, won't be swayed either way by this, so we don't matter (in an electoral sense), and the masses feel a little better.

But then, some call me cynical.

 

[CHenry]

Call me cynical, but I think it's mostly a feel-good measure. The people writ large have a general fear of terrorist, nutjob mass shooters, etc. They see the police as protectors; they also see the military as protectors. They don't know that many servicemembers never receive handgun training, nor that fewer yet receive more than a familiarization course; all they know is that soldiers protect us from our enemies. Allowing active-duty servicemembers to carry makes the population feel like the legislature is Doing Something, putting armed protectors out on the street to look out for us. It makes us feel safer, and feel good about the politicians who did it. The small minority of us who know the facts, who care about individual liberty, won't be swayed either way by this, so we don't matter (in an electoral sense), and the masses feel a little better.

But then, some call me cynical.

I tend to agree with this.

 

[D. Hargrove]

I believe that Dave is spot on. None of my Soldiers ever had M9 training. M4, yes and lots of it. But their not carrying M4s, they are carrying Glocks and Berettas. I on the other hand always had both a M9 and M4, yet I do not qualify under this new law. The feel good is strong in this one.