Open Carry for OK

[RedTape]

I had not heard about this legislation. Does anyone know the current status of the legislation?

airborne.ranger - this topic was from last year and that bill got killed. Check out the Legal and Political section of the forum. There are a few threads about the current status of open carry in OK. Basically...other bills allowing it have been introduced and the status is pending.

 

[Glockwork1987]

so if you have a ccw, when the bill to oc passes. you can carry open or cc correct. no other license is needed?

 

[jdagreek]

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.

You are ok as long as you don't post the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment. Here is what it actually says in total "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Because of the reference to the necessity or having a well regulated militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms is tied to the militia and that is what was intended in December of 1791, or so it seems to me.

Logic tells me that if it was intended that the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed then that is all the 2nd Amendment would have said. If that were the case then there would be no room for debate and/or different opinion on what the 2nd Amendment was actually intended to mean. However, since there is the reference to "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" then that does create the need for an interpretation of exactly what the language in the 2nd Amendment was actually written to achieve.

That is what many people just want to gloss over. They simply want to read the 2nd Amendment as if there was no reference at all to the militias. But, you simply can't read the total of the 2nd Amendment without consideration and wondering what exactly they meant by including the right to keep and bear arms in the context of the militia.

I have read the 2nd Amendment many times. My interpretation of it is that it was written with the intent of not allow infringement of the peoples right to keep and bear arms in the context of having armed private citizens in service to the militias of the time. In fact, my thought is that if there hadn't been the real need to provide for an armed militia [as the word militia was understood and in common use at the time in 1791] there likely wouldn't have ever been the 2nd Amendment as we know it today.

So, from my standpoint, I think we are indeed fortunate that in 1971 there was a great need to ensure the militias remain strong and to keep them strong and viable, hence the total wording of the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, we might have been left with absolutely nothing to hang our hats on when it comes to the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

That is just my take on the 2nd Amendment.

I know the strict "gun rights" folks will go ballistic, but the 2nd Amendment is what it is. And, there is no way to remove the references to the militia -- they are there and they were there for a reason unique to 1791.

 

[vvvvvvv]

You also need to understand language of that time period, as well as the organization of clauses (especially in legalese).

In plain English, the Second Amendment can be read as "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

Furthermore, Article II Section 2 Clause 1 states that "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"

Article I Section 8 Clauses 15 and 16 grant Congress the following control over the Militia:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;​

The Constitution was adopted without any amendments. The Bill of Rights contains a preamble which does a good job of explaining why the amendments were proposed (my emphasis):

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.​

This preamble explains quite well why the amendments are worded the way they are. In the case of the Second Amendment, it is written in the form of a declaratory clause followed by a restrictive clause. The declaratory clause states why the Second Amendment is necessary:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,​

The States viewed a federal militia as a threat to their sovereignty in the union. In their view, the Constitution did not provide a check against an out of control federal militia. The federal militia needed to be subject to some sort of regulation as a check against its use against states that opposed an action or initiative of the federal government. That regulation is found in the restrictive clause of the Second Amendment:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

This protection of the right to keep and bear arms for the People of the United States is meant to serve as a regulation against an unchecked federal militia authorized by the United States Constitution. People who believe that the founders meant for government to infringe upon the People's right to keep and bear arms by imposing restrictions such as licensing provisions and ownership prohibitions clearly do not understand the history behind the Second Amendment.

 

[skyydiver]

...So, from my standpoint, I think we are indeed fortunate that in 1971 there was a great need to ensure the militias remain strong and to keep them strong and viable, hence the total wording of the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, we might have been left with absolutely nothing to hang our hats on when it comes to the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms...

Because of the oil crisis?

 

[jarhead983]

You are ok as long as you don't post the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment. Here is what it actually says in total "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."...I know the strict "gun rights" folks will go ballistic, but the 2nd Amendment is what it is. And, there is no way to remove the references to the militia -- they are there and they were there for a reason unique to 1791.

OK, if it is what it is, then at least write it as it actually is, as you say. Your using way too many commas, even more than what is commonly misrepresented. The ratified wording is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since the portion before the comma is not a complete thought it cannot be the point or subject of the statement. It is what is called a subclaus or preamble which was more commonly used at the time of the writing but has become less understood by the common man in modern times. The statement after the comma is a complete thought and is the subject or statement being made. Therefore, as commonly agreed by English professors, the truthfull statement is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is a the full statement of the 2nd Amendment, the preamble cannot be used as a quantifier or limiter to the statement. The left have tried to muddle this for years and obviously have had great success, but the truth is as stated and as understood now as it was then. Our founding fathers would be aghast at the confusion over such a simple statement.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

jdagreek

You forgot to look at the conditions of that particular time in history. And the Federalist papers.

That should change your opinion.

 

[vvvvvvv]

OK, if it is what it is, then at least write it as it actually is, as you say. Your using way too many commas, even more than what is commonly misrepresented. The ratified wording is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Actually, the comma usage in the Second Amendment depends on which state you ask.

 

[Coltcombat]

so if you have a ccw, when the bill to oc passes. you can carry open or cc correct. no other license is needed?

If open carry passes, it will not require one to retake a conceal carry course. no other license needed. and you can carry a pistol open OR concealed. (why carry open in public though?...you'll scare the sheople)

 

[Glockwork1987]

If open carry passes, it will not require one to retake a conceal carry course. no other license needed. and you can carry a pistol open OR concealed. (why carry open in public though?...you'll scare the sheople)

thanks coltcombat... now to cc you still have to get a license???