Open Carry for OK

[shootermcgavin]

Would you guys be yeling 2A every 5 minutes if you were told to Keep and Bear arms was a carry over from English rights to noblemen. The time period interpretation is that to bear arms is to perform as a soldier, to fight. When coupled with Keep it is purely a militaristic term. To Own and be able to perform as a soldier in order to perform one's civic duty?

are you implying we join the militia they are trying to develop? just joking around.

 

[257wby]

I am all for the option to open carry, but who of you guys will actually open carry?

 

[Jefpainthorse]

We can only hope someone will send the message we would really like a law like Arizona just passed. NO PERMIT, NO RESTRICTIONS.

Open carry does has it's place. Now and then... I need to travel a few yards down a county road.. and cross it for the gate we have on the other side.
Under the existing law... I am in violation to carry a SAA on horseback (or ATV)...With the "new law" I will be compliant.

The new law eliminates the "get out of the car at the gas station with my jacket off" problem too. Or the "take my coat off at the barber shop" problem.

I do not think it's tactically prudent to show a gun in public... but the "option" comes in handy at times.

Too bad we have to pay a "user tax" as it is... I say let's move on to bigger and better things (see: Arizona above)
~J

 

[mhphoto]

I get what you're sayin. I don't like the way things are heading either. If only the world could be like one big Clint Eastwood movie.

Now let's not fall prey to that dumb argument. If we start using the debunked "Wild West" argument on each other how are were ever going to get the fun grabbers to stop using it?

I can dig both opinions on the matter, but permit requirement or not, the state needs this right now. All the LEO layoffs, crime going up, punkasses going to greater lengths to rob honest people... It all makes me sick.

I know the people who would actually go open instead of concealed are in the minority in this forum, it's still good to know we could if we wanted.

 

[thesensei]

I am all for the option to open carry, but who of you guys will actually open carry?

I open carry whenever legally possible (when traveling in OC states). I believe it to be tactically prudent, as it is a visible deterrent. I realise the possible risks, but the pros outweigh the cons in my mind. Therefore, if OK permitted OC, I would exercise that right.

 

[nofearfactor]

We can only hope someone will send the message we would really like a law like Arizona just passed. NO PERMIT, NO RESTRICTIONS.

Open carry does has it's place. Now and then... I need to travel a few yards down a county road.. and cross it for the gate we have on the other side.
Under the existing law... I am in violation to carry a SAA on horseback (or ATV)...With the "new law" I will be compliant.

The new law eliminates the "get out of the car at the gas station with my jacket off" problem too. Or the "take my coat off at the barber shop" problem.

I do not think it's tactically prudent to show a gun in public... but the "option" comes in handy at times.

Too bad we have to pay a "user tax" as it is... I say let's move on to bigger and better things (see: Arizona above

+1000. I'm a bigger fella and I dont do tucked in holsters too well,I do when I have to though even though its uncomfortable. I wear shorts and big comfy Tshirts about 90% of the year so open carry would be close to semi open carry for me anyways. I also agree with what thesensei said as I travel alot in my jobs and am in quite a few of the other states a good part of the time. I seriously am considering a move to Arizona. Its close to my home state of California and I like the weather better.

 

[spd67]

Let me try -- please read the Second Amendment and point out to the forum where those limits you detailed are specifically written. 2A = pure freedom as intended by the writers of the Constitution; the limits you have listed restrict that freedom in order to address some societal "concern" as regards firearms. Some of those limits may be well-supported, others less supported by data or experience. If something is truly a right, then a license from the state is not necessary to exercise the right. License = privilege.

Deep thinking exercise: assuming you attend a religious body gathering on some occasions, please examine the lobby or ask the leadership to show you where they have their license posted to be a religious organization delivering spiritual guidance. Get back to us when you find one....

OK here goes....there is no provision in the second amendment for a permit process. I would have you look to the 9th and 10th amendment. 9th amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. so what it is saying is that the rights in the Bill of rights states that the rights are retained by the people. If we take this into effect then we look to the 10th amendment, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So what that means is that the federal government cannot make a permit process or infringe on our second amendment rights but a state can if a vote of the people says they can. The people of Oklahoma can enter into a vote to have these things like a permit process. when the bill comes to vote for open carry if you don't like the permit aspect of it don't vote for it or lobby to have it changed but if the majority of people vote for it then so be it the will of the people of this state is done and not a single right is infringed upon.

As for your "Deep thinking exercise" don't confuse the practice and exercise of religion with something like gun rights you will not find a permit in a house of worship. I would challenge you to find in the Bible, Koran, or other text where God gives you the right to carry a gun without a permit or to even carry a gun....I'll be waiting

Don't get me wrong I am all about gun rights and the right to carry a gun I just don't think that a Permit is abridging those rights.

 

[ShooterMcGee]

I am all for it. I would however like to see more training, I worry about people getting shot with their own guns.

 

[tRidiot]

OK here goes....there is no provision in the second amendment for a permit process. I would have you look to the 9th and 10th amendment. 9th amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. so what it is saying is that the rights in the Bill of rights states that the rights are retained by the people. If we take this into effect then we look to the 10th amendment, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So what that means is that the federal government cannot make a permit process or infringe on our second amendment rights but a state can if a vote of the people says they can. The people of Oklahoma can enter into a vote to have these things like a permit process. when the bill comes to vote for open carry if you don't like the permit aspect of it don't vote for it or lobby to have it changed but if the majority of people vote for it then so be it the will of the people of this state is done and not a single right is infringed upon.

I disagree...

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I would argue that this means this right is protected by the Constitution and BoR and is withheld from limitation by federal, state or local government.

Requiring a permit to exercise a right guaranteed by the BoR is inherently an infringement, vote of the people or not. I think a Constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd amendment would be required, but in my view, the 2nd amendment isn't eligible for repeal without scrapping the whole Constitution - since it was required to be included to achieve ratification in the first place.

 

[Poke78]

OK here goes....there is no provision in the second amendment for a permit process. I would have you look to the 9th and 10th amendment. 9th amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. so what it is saying is that the rights in the Bill of rights states that the rights are retained by the people. If we take this into effect then we look to the 10th amendment, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So what that means is that the federal government cannot make a permit process or infringe on our second amendment rights but a state can if a vote of the people says they can. The people of Oklahoma can enter into a vote to have these things like a permit process. when the bill comes to vote for open carry if you don't like the permit aspect of it don't vote for it or lobby to have it changed but if the majority of people vote for it then so be it the will of the people of this state is done and not a single right is infringed upon.

As for your "Deep thinking exercise" don't confuse the practice and exercise of religion with something like gun rights you will not find a permit in a house of worship. I would challenge you to find in the Bible, Koran, or other text where God gives you the right to carry a gun without a permit or to even carry a gun....I'll be waiting

Don't get me wrong I am all about gun rights and the right to carry a gun I just don't think that a Permit is abridging those rights.

Welcome back to the discussion. You open this round with an admission that my 2A argument was correct and then use a 9A/10A argument as a fall-back from a position that you admitted was incorrect. While granting you that the 9A/10A allows for the current political reality of permits at the state/local level, the SCOTUS McDonald case appears poised to incorporate the Second Amendment and render moot those with the most restrictions against firearms (Chicago, et.al.) It will depend on the language within the decision as to how well carry permits and such stand up to further judicial review. As I noted in my previous response, I acknowledged that the limits, permits, and restrictions are based on some societal "concerns" that have passed political muster but will likely see some judicial review post-McDonald.

If anybody is confused about the logical connection of the First Amendment to the Second, I believe it is you. I would recommend you re-read my post but I shall summarize my exercises: my point was that the practice of religious liberty (DTE#1) or freedom of speech/press (DTE #2) does not require government permission of any kind, at any level of political sub-division, as that has been ruled by the courts as Constitutionally prohibited. Applying the same logic to the Second Amendment seems reasonable, given the similar language and structure.

As to your last paragraph, we are in total agreement as to being all about gun rights and their carry for personal protection. I just have less faith in government control than you and I believe the Constitution and the BoR support my position.