Oklahoma Senate panel approves open-carry bill

[pak-40]

It was interesting to watch Reyolds discussing his "fear of Bodily harm" ammendment. It is unfortunate that it was written so poorly because the way he explained it, he basically wanted constitutional carry.

 

[kinggabby]

It was interesting to watch Reyolds discussing his "fear of Bodily harm" ammendment. It is unfortunate that it was written so poorly because the way he explained it, he basically wanted constitutional carry.

I agree it sounded good when he spoke about it be our 2A right under the Constitution .

 

[pak-40]

If you watch nothing else in this video, Watch Pittmans questions starting at 1:31 and listen to Martins response. BRILLIANT!

 

[OKCHunter]

I'm upset with my Rep. (Marian Cooksey - R from Edmond). She was one of the 9 that voted against HB 2522. I had sent an email yesterday asking for her support and talked with her assistant this morning before the vote. After her vote I sent an email regarding re-evaluating my support for her, my surprise that she voted with the small minority, and a request for her to explain her opposition to the bill. I'm anxious to see her response.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

Unless some judge is willing to toss out Oklahoma's preemption laws the only thing OML will accomplish is to waste a bunch of money pursuing a suit lost before it is even brought.

OML has worked against the People of Oklahoma for years
I wish more people would look at some of the lobby groups that run growth away and keep funeral directors and florist running most small Oklahoma cities.
If your water plant sucks and your public works is stuck in the 50's thank OML

 

[av8r115]

It was interesting to watch Reyolds discussing his "fear of Bodily harm" ammendment. It is unfortunate that it was written so poorly because the way he explained it, he basically wanted constitutional carry.

No kidding. He spoke fairly well about our second amendment rights, so it seems really odd that his amendment was so poorly written.

 

[pak-40]

No kidding. He spoke fairly well about our second amendment rights, so it seems really odd that his amendment was so poorly written.

When I read his ammendment, I thought it was a HUGE limit to open carry. Obviously not his intent, but he should have written a better ammendment.

 

[MLR]

Originally Posted by pak-40
It was interesting to watch Reyolds discussing his "fear of Bodily harm" amendment. It is unfortunate that it was written so poorly because the way he explained it, he basically wanted constitutional carry.

I believe that if his amendment had been approves it would have killed any chance of the present bill passing. If he is sincere about Constitutional carry he should help pass this bill and then later try to pass true Constitutional carry legislation.

Michael

 

[abajaj11]

Maybe I'm a little overly concerned about the retention issue, but it really chaps my hide to think I will be severely limited in the types of "open carry" I would be allowed to utilize.

You are spot-on. I'm glad it got denied.
If I ever open carry, i would use a retention holster, of course. I just don't need some bureaucrat telling me what I can and can't use!

 

[pak-40]

I believe that if his amendment had been approves it would have killed any chance of the present bill passing. If he is sincere about Constitutional carry he should help pass this bill and then later try to pass true Constitutional carry legislation.

Michael

Martin handled it really well and the ammendment was tabled very quickly.