nar·row·ly
/ˈnerōlē/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
- 1.
by only a small margin; barely.
"he narrowly defeated Anderson to win a 12th term in office"
That said, on the grand scale of world events, that "small margin" can be huge on our little corner of the world. Without specification in the law, its all up to interpretation. Be weary of such ambiguous language and of those who use it.
Woody
That’s not an objective definition, and you know it. Numbers and other such precisely quantifiable meanings are what we’re looking for here. “Narrowly” can mean different things to different people, hence the reluctance of those of us who apparently have reading comprehension issues to accept the wording of the resolution as such.
Apparently you’re one of us who have reading comprehension issues.
I know what your saying but you cant write a bill like that or I dont know how one would.
Hey Guys -> First let me say I just saw this Thread. I have been checking The ''Sticky" OK2A News & Updates under the General Discussion Board - I did not realize that this new Thread had started. My following 3 posts is the COMPLETE breakdown & discussion of SJR16 from OK2A President Don Spencer. Folks being a "Purist" is fine in Theory - in the State Legislature we MUST deal with the real world. SJR16 is a Huge Improvement over the existing wording of the State Constitution AND we can get it passed - if you want to hold out for Perfect then things will NEVER change. Our Enemies are Masters of Incremental Action. They shoot for the moon but take what they can get today- then tomorrow morning they start working on getting that next Increment ... We need to take what improvement we can get today & then start working on getting better tomorrow.
===========================================
SJR16 Post follows...
Why Does the Oklahoma Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Need Amending?
The current constitutional guarantee has been grievously damaged through misinterpretations by the Oklahoma courts that stretch back more than a century. It does not provide the protection it was supposed to provide. And even if the current provision had been interpreted rightly, it would still provide less protection than Oklahomans today expect and deserve.
Current Provision
The text of section 26 of the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Okla. Const. art. II, § 26, has been unchanged since statehood in 1907. It reads:
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.
The plain text of this provision tells much about how it should have been interpreted. Reading it, one would assume the right would have certain features:
(1) The most important purpose of the right should be personal defense – “defense of [the citizen’s] home, person, or property.” That is why the Oklahoma Constitution lists it first.
(2) Thus, the “arms” that a citizen has the right to keep and bear should include the weapons appropriate for personal defense, particularly handguns, which the U.S. Supreme Court calls “the quintessential self-defense weapon.”
(3) The Legislature can “regulate” carrying weapons, but cannot “prohibit” the practice – the constitutional text itself makes this distinction.
(4) Since the text specifically affirms the citizen’s right “to … bear arms in defense of his home … or property” (emphasis added), a peaceable citizen should, at a bare minimum, have a constitutional right to carry a handgun for self-defense on his or her own property.
Shockingly, in the eyes of the courts, not one of these four claims is true today under the Oklahoma Constitution’s right to arms, despite the plain language of art. II, § 26. The right is not about personal defense. It does not protect defensive weapons. And the State can completely prohibit carrying a handgun in one’s own backyard. It can even ban handguns entirely.
This is a result of the grudging and erroneous interpretations that the Oklahoma courts have historically given to the provision. It is one important reason why the state constitution must be reformed.
The Leading Cases on Art. II, § 26
In Ex parte Thomas, 97 P. 260 (Okla. 1908), the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld a conviction for concealed carry of a pistol. Whatever the merit of that result, the reasoning that the Oklahoma Supreme Court used to get there was blatantly contrary to the text of the state constitution. The court held that Art. II, § 26 does not generally protect arms useful for self-defense, such as pistols. Instead, it only protects militiaman’s weapons, those used in “civilized warfare”. It held that the purpose of the amendment is simply “the maintenance of an armed militia,” id. at p. 264, for the defense of the community as a whole, not the individual. See id. at 262-64.
This was obviously wrong, since the very first purpose listed by the Oklahoma Constitution is individual defense: the “defense” of “a citizen[’s] … home, person, or property.” To reach its implausible conclusion, Thomas relied only on cases from states whose constitutions are very different from Oklahoma’s. A few constitutions, such as Arkansas’s, say that the right to keep and bear arms is solely for the purpose of “the common defense.” But most are not so narrow, including Oklahoma’s. Our constitutional convention actually considered and rejected the “common defense” wording in favor of broad language recognizing personal defense. Thomas paid no heed to this.
In Pierce v. State, 275 P. 393 (Okla. Crim. App. 1929), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that it was perfectly constitutional to ban carrying a handgun on one’s own property. Deputies seeking a bootlegging still served a search warrant at Pierce’s home. Pierce came to the door, visibly wearing a Colt revolver in his belt. Pierce made no attempt to use the gun, and invited the deputies to execute their warrant. He stepped out of his front door onto his own land while the deputies searched inside. After finding nothing illegal in his house, deputies seized Pierce’s revolver and he was charged with the crime of carrying a handgun. A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, and held that the Oklahoma Constitution gave no protection in such a situation. Indeed, the court went out of its way to stress that, despite the guarantee of a right to bear arms in the state constitution, a complete ban of pistols and revolvers would be perfectly constitutional: the government “has power to not only prohibit the carrying of concealed or unconcealed [pistols or revolvers], but also has the power to even prohibit the ownership or possession of such arms.”
Thomas and Pierce remain on the books today.
Some might think these old cases are unlikely to guide courts today, but the truth is otherwise. The Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to overrule Thomas just sixteen years ago, in an important case that dealt with whether an individual could be precluded from a concealed carry license based on a prior felony arrest (after which he had been charged but acquitted).
In State ex rel. OSBI v. Warren, 975 P.2d 900 (Okla. 1998), the court quoted with approval the passage from Thomas that rejected protection for arms appropriate for personal defense, and noted that “Thomas has been consistently followed and never overruled.” Id. at 902.
The court also added that whatever the right to arms under the Oklahoma Constitution did protect, it would protect only to a weak degree, since the right was “subject to reasonable regulation under the police power.” Id. at 903. That statement was not even necessary to the decision in Warren, since the case was ultimately decided in the permit applicant’s favor on the basis of completely different constitutional provisions.
In other words, the Oklahoma Supreme Court went out of its way in 1998 to approve the most objectionable aspects of Thomas, and to declare a weak “reasonable regulation” standard of review for claims under art. II, § 26 – even though it could have reached the identical outcome in the case without weakening the right to arms in this fashion.
The court has stated in another context that a statute does not violate the “reasonable regulation / police power” standard unless it “is palpably unreasonable and arbitrary in its requirements. … It is not for [the courts] to say that a better method could be found, or that the method adopted is unwise.”
Many other states’ courts today apply the weak “reasonable regulation” standard announced in Warren to the right to arms in their state constitutions. Under this standard, with some exceptions, almost any restriction on gun rights is upheld by the courts, as long as it does not completely prohibit the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. See Adam Winkler, Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 683 (2007). As Professor Winkler documents, the “reasonable regulation” standard involves a balancing of interests, but “this balancing is decidedly tipped in favor of the government, so much so that the individual almost never wins. The large-scale problem of violence in society … virtually always overwhelms the individual … interest in self-defense or recreation.” Id. at 717-718.
It is very likely that the Oklahoma Supreme Court will continue to apply Warren’s weak “reasonable regulation” standard to any newly amended version of the state constitutional right to arms, unless the amended text specifically mandates a different, more protective form of scrutiny. The court has given no reason to think it would do anything else.
In summary, our right to arms needs amending for three reasons:
First, to clarify that handguns and other common arms used for self-defense today are indeed protected. The historical tendency of Oklahoma courts to read the definition of “arms” in an unreasonably narrow way shows that the definition of protected “arms” needs to be very explicit.
Second, to clarify that individual self-defense, including carrying arms for self-defense, is a central purpose of the right to keep and bear arms in Oklahoma. (Unlike the courts, the Oklahoma Legislature has acknowledged this truth. Our state’s 1995 handgun carry licensing law is called the “Oklahoma Self-Defense Act,” 21 O.S. § 1290.1 et seq., and the Legislature declares that it “shall be liberally construed to carry out the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense and self-protection.” 21 O.S. § 1290.25.)
Third, to supply a standard of scrutiny that is significantly more protective of the right than the weak “reasonable regulation / police power” standard. If the right to arms is amended but the amendment does not specify a higher standard of scrutiny, then it is very likely that the Oklahoma Supreme Court will continue to apply the “reasonable regulation” standard it announced in Warren, undoing much of the value of amending the constitutional guarantee. The Legislature and the People need to mandate more protection.
SJR16
by Bullard of the Senate and K West of the House 3-6-2020
A. The fundamental right of each individual citizen to keep and to bear arms, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition, for self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto lawfully summoned, or for any other legitimate purpose shall not be infringed.
B. This section shall not prevent the State Legislature from adopting or enforcing narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations, or authorizing political subdivisions to enforce and adopt such regulations, to serve a compelling state interest.
C. No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms, including the acquisition, ownership, possession or transfer of arms, ammunition or the components of arms or ammunition.
Explanation of SJR16
Par A of SJR16. The “fundamental right of each individual citizen.” It elevates and clarifies to courts the right is and protects the Individual and does NOT only belong to the militia as often misstated in the Bill of Rights.
“To keep and to bear arms,” is to reflect the US Constitution.
“Including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms,” this phrase is to tell the Oklahoma courts that have previously ruled that the legislature can outlaw a pistol, that pistols cannot be outlaw or ruled against for the peaceful ownership and possession.
“As well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition,” This prevents a backdoor way to prohibit firearm use by protecting the manufacturing, sale or use of ammunition or restricting the sale of such things as primers or brass.
“For self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto lawfully summoned” This phrase is clear what the arms can be used for their intended purposes and protects the militia.
“Or for any other legitimate purpose,” is a legal catch all to protect the individual for any further situation that that courts or law may not have addressed.
“Shall not be infringed.” This is stated in the Second Amendment that is right is subject to a high legal standard.
Paragraph B of SJR16
“This section shall not prevent the State Legislature,” This clarifies only the legislature can regulate and then authorize political subdivisions to regulate firearms such as authorizing municipalities to control of the discharge of firearms and control the carry of firearms “narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations,” into some sensitive areas controlled by the municipality or by the state such as a jail, prison courtrooms.
“To serve a compelling state interest.” This legal term is one that is much higher level before a prohibition of weapons can take place such as a professional sporting event where each entry way is monitored with walk through metal detectors and trained Commissioned Law Enforcement providing the screening and ample security for the venue.
Paragraph C of SJR16. “No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms.” This phrase is to prohibit the legislature from GUN REGISRATION or taxes other than regular sales tax.
“Including the acquisition, ownership, possession or transfer of arms.” The keeps the State of Oklahoma from monitoring, recording private firearm transactions.
“Ammunition or the components of arms or ammunition.” This keeps the legislature from any special taxation other than regular sales tax on ammunition or the components like primers or brass.
===========================================
SJR16 Post follows...
Why Does the Oklahoma Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Need Amending?
The current constitutional guarantee has been grievously damaged through misinterpretations by the Oklahoma courts that stretch back more than a century. It does not provide the protection it was supposed to provide. And even if the current provision had been interpreted rightly, it would still provide less protection than Oklahomans today expect and deserve.
Current Provision
The text of section 26 of the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Okla. Const. art. II, § 26, has been unchanged since statehood in 1907. It reads:
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.
The plain text of this provision tells much about how it should have been interpreted. Reading it, one would assume the right would have certain features:
(1) The most important purpose of the right should be personal defense – “defense of [the citizen’s] home, person, or property.” That is why the Oklahoma Constitution lists it first.
(2) Thus, the “arms” that a citizen has the right to keep and bear should include the weapons appropriate for personal defense, particularly handguns, which the U.S. Supreme Court calls “the quintessential self-defense weapon.”
(3) The Legislature can “regulate” carrying weapons, but cannot “prohibit” the practice – the constitutional text itself makes this distinction.
(4) Since the text specifically affirms the citizen’s right “to … bear arms in defense of his home … or property” (emphasis added), a peaceable citizen should, at a bare minimum, have a constitutional right to carry a handgun for self-defense on his or her own property.
Shockingly, in the eyes of the courts, not one of these four claims is true today under the Oklahoma Constitution’s right to arms, despite the plain language of art. II, § 26. The right is not about personal defense. It does not protect defensive weapons. And the State can completely prohibit carrying a handgun in one’s own backyard. It can even ban handguns entirely.
This is a result of the grudging and erroneous interpretations that the Oklahoma courts have historically given to the provision. It is one important reason why the state constitution must be reformed.
The Leading Cases on Art. II, § 26
In Ex parte Thomas, 97 P. 260 (Okla. 1908), the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld a conviction for concealed carry of a pistol. Whatever the merit of that result, the reasoning that the Oklahoma Supreme Court used to get there was blatantly contrary to the text of the state constitution. The court held that Art. II, § 26 does not generally protect arms useful for self-defense, such as pistols. Instead, it only protects militiaman’s weapons, those used in “civilized warfare”. It held that the purpose of the amendment is simply “the maintenance of an armed militia,” id. at p. 264, for the defense of the community as a whole, not the individual. See id. at 262-64.
This was obviously wrong, since the very first purpose listed by the Oklahoma Constitution is individual defense: the “defense” of “a citizen[’s] … home, person, or property.” To reach its implausible conclusion, Thomas relied only on cases from states whose constitutions are very different from Oklahoma’s. A few constitutions, such as Arkansas’s, say that the right to keep and bear arms is solely for the purpose of “the common defense.” But most are not so narrow, including Oklahoma’s. Our constitutional convention actually considered and rejected the “common defense” wording in favor of broad language recognizing personal defense. Thomas paid no heed to this.
In Pierce v. State, 275 P. 393 (Okla. Crim. App. 1929), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that it was perfectly constitutional to ban carrying a handgun on one’s own property. Deputies seeking a bootlegging still served a search warrant at Pierce’s home. Pierce came to the door, visibly wearing a Colt revolver in his belt. Pierce made no attempt to use the gun, and invited the deputies to execute their warrant. He stepped out of his front door onto his own land while the deputies searched inside. After finding nothing illegal in his house, deputies seized Pierce’s revolver and he was charged with the crime of carrying a handgun. A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, and held that the Oklahoma Constitution gave no protection in such a situation. Indeed, the court went out of its way to stress that, despite the guarantee of a right to bear arms in the state constitution, a complete ban of pistols and revolvers would be perfectly constitutional: the government “has power to not only prohibit the carrying of concealed or unconcealed [pistols or revolvers], but also has the power to even prohibit the ownership or possession of such arms.”
Thomas and Pierce remain on the books today.
Some might think these old cases are unlikely to guide courts today, but the truth is otherwise. The Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to overrule Thomas just sixteen years ago, in an important case that dealt with whether an individual could be precluded from a concealed carry license based on a prior felony arrest (after which he had been charged but acquitted).
In State ex rel. OSBI v. Warren, 975 P.2d 900 (Okla. 1998), the court quoted with approval the passage from Thomas that rejected protection for arms appropriate for personal defense, and noted that “Thomas has been consistently followed and never overruled.” Id. at 902.
The court also added that whatever the right to arms under the Oklahoma Constitution did protect, it would protect only to a weak degree, since the right was “subject to reasonable regulation under the police power.” Id. at 903. That statement was not even necessary to the decision in Warren, since the case was ultimately decided in the permit applicant’s favor on the basis of completely different constitutional provisions.
In other words, the Oklahoma Supreme Court went out of its way in 1998 to approve the most objectionable aspects of Thomas, and to declare a weak “reasonable regulation” standard of review for claims under art. II, § 26 – even though it could have reached the identical outcome in the case without weakening the right to arms in this fashion.
The court has stated in another context that a statute does not violate the “reasonable regulation / police power” standard unless it “is palpably unreasonable and arbitrary in its requirements. … It is not for [the courts] to say that a better method could be found, or that the method adopted is unwise.”
Many other states’ courts today apply the weak “reasonable regulation” standard announced in Warren to the right to arms in their state constitutions. Under this standard, with some exceptions, almost any restriction on gun rights is upheld by the courts, as long as it does not completely prohibit the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. See Adam Winkler, Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 683 (2007). As Professor Winkler documents, the “reasonable regulation” standard involves a balancing of interests, but “this balancing is decidedly tipped in favor of the government, so much so that the individual almost never wins. The large-scale problem of violence in society … virtually always overwhelms the individual … interest in self-defense or recreation.” Id. at 717-718.
It is very likely that the Oklahoma Supreme Court will continue to apply Warren’s weak “reasonable regulation” standard to any newly amended version of the state constitutional right to arms, unless the amended text specifically mandates a different, more protective form of scrutiny. The court has given no reason to think it would do anything else.
In summary, our right to arms needs amending for three reasons:
First, to clarify that handguns and other common arms used for self-defense today are indeed protected. The historical tendency of Oklahoma courts to read the definition of “arms” in an unreasonably narrow way shows that the definition of protected “arms” needs to be very explicit.
Second, to clarify that individual self-defense, including carrying arms for self-defense, is a central purpose of the right to keep and bear arms in Oklahoma. (Unlike the courts, the Oklahoma Legislature has acknowledged this truth. Our state’s 1995 handgun carry licensing law is called the “Oklahoma Self-Defense Act,” 21 O.S. § 1290.1 et seq., and the Legislature declares that it “shall be liberally construed to carry out the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense and self-protection.” 21 O.S. § 1290.25.)
Third, to supply a standard of scrutiny that is significantly more protective of the right than the weak “reasonable regulation / police power” standard. If the right to arms is amended but the amendment does not specify a higher standard of scrutiny, then it is very likely that the Oklahoma Supreme Court will continue to apply the “reasonable regulation” standard it announced in Warren, undoing much of the value of amending the constitutional guarantee. The Legislature and the People need to mandate more protection.
SJR16
by Bullard of the Senate and K West of the House 3-6-2020
A. The fundamental right of each individual citizen to keep and to bear arms, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition, for self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto lawfully summoned, or for any other legitimate purpose shall not be infringed.
B. This section shall not prevent the State Legislature from adopting or enforcing narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations, or authorizing political subdivisions to enforce and adopt such regulations, to serve a compelling state interest.
C. No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms, including the acquisition, ownership, possession or transfer of arms, ammunition or the components of arms or ammunition.
Explanation of SJR16
Par A of SJR16. The “fundamental right of each individual citizen.” It elevates and clarifies to courts the right is and protects the Individual and does NOT only belong to the militia as often misstated in the Bill of Rights.
“To keep and to bear arms,” is to reflect the US Constitution.
“Including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms,” this phrase is to tell the Oklahoma courts that have previously ruled that the legislature can outlaw a pistol, that pistols cannot be outlaw or ruled against for the peaceful ownership and possession.
“As well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition,” This prevents a backdoor way to prohibit firearm use by protecting the manufacturing, sale or use of ammunition or restricting the sale of such things as primers or brass.
“For self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto lawfully summoned” This phrase is clear what the arms can be used for their intended purposes and protects the militia.
“Or for any other legitimate purpose,” is a legal catch all to protect the individual for any further situation that that courts or law may not have addressed.
“Shall not be infringed.” This is stated in the Second Amendment that is right is subject to a high legal standard.
Paragraph B of SJR16
“This section shall not prevent the State Legislature,” This clarifies only the legislature can regulate and then authorize political subdivisions to regulate firearms such as authorizing municipalities to control of the discharge of firearms and control the carry of firearms “narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations,” into some sensitive areas controlled by the municipality or by the state such as a jail, prison courtrooms.
“To serve a compelling state interest.” This legal term is one that is much higher level before a prohibition of weapons can take place such as a professional sporting event where each entry way is monitored with walk through metal detectors and trained Commissioned Law Enforcement providing the screening and ample security for the venue.
Paragraph C of SJR16. “No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms.” This phrase is to prohibit the legislature from GUN REGISRATION or taxes other than regular sales tax.
“Including the acquisition, ownership, possession or transfer of arms.” The keeps the State of Oklahoma from monitoring, recording private firearm transactions.
“Ammunition or the components of arms or ammunition.” This keeps the legislature from any special taxation other than regular sales tax on ammunition or the components like primers or brass.
Last edited:
I'm sure this bill is going to change once a few committee members scribble on it.
SJR16 Readable Text Dox with OK2A & Don Spencer comments...
SJR16
by Bullard of the Senate and K West of the House 3-6-2020
A. The fundamental right of each individual citizen to keep and to bear arms, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition, for self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto lawfully summoned, or for any other legitimate purpose shall not be infringed.
B. This section shall not prevent the State Legislature from adopting or enforcing narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations, or authorizing political subdivisions to enforce and adopt such regulations, to serve a compelling state interest.
C. No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms, including the acquisition, ownership, possession or transfer of arms, ammunition or the components of arms or ammunition.
Explanation of SJR16
Par A of SJR16. The “fundamental right of each individual citizen.” It elevates and clarifies to courts the right is and protects the Individual and does NOT only belong to the militia as often misstated in the Bill of Rights.
“To keep and to bear arms,” is to reflect the US Constitution.
“Including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms,” this phrase is to tell the Oklahoma courts that have previously ruled that the legislature can outlaw a pistol, that pistols cannot be outlaw or ruled against for the peaceful ownership and possession.
“As well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition,” This prevents a backdoor way to prohibit firearm use by protecting the manufacturing, sale or use of ammunition or restricting the sale of such things as primers or brass.
“For self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto lawfully summoned” This phrase is clear what the arms can be used for their intended purposes and protects the militia.
“Or for any other legitimate purpose,” is a legal catch all to protect the individual for any further situation that that courts or law may not have addressed.
“Shall not be infringed.” This is stated in the Second Amendment that is right is subject to a high legal standard.
Paragraph B of SJR16
“This section shall not prevent the State Legislature,” This clarifies only the legislature can regulate and then authorize political subdivisions to regulate firearms such as authorizing municipalities to control of the discharge of firearms and control the carry of firearms “narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations,” into some sensitive areas controlled by the municipality or by the state such as a jail, prison courtrooms.
“To serve a compelling state interest.” This legal term is one that is much higher level before a prohibition of weapons can take place such as a professional sporting event where each entry way is monitored with walk through metal detectors and trained Commissioned Law Enforcement providing the screening and ample security for the venue.
Paragraph C of SJR16. “No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms.” This phrase is to prohibit the legislature from GUN REGISRATION or taxes other than regular sales tax.
“Including the acquisition, ownership, possession or transfer of arms.” The keeps the State of Oklahoma from monitoring, recording private firearm transactions.
“Ammunition or the components of arms or ammunition.” This keeps the legislature from any special taxation other than regular sales tax on ammunition or the components like primers or brass.
Call your state legislators to coauthor and vote for this VERY important bill.
SJR16
by Bullard of the Senate and K West of the House 3-6-2020
A. The fundamental right of each individual citizen to keep and to bear arms, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition, for self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto lawfully summoned, or for any other legitimate purpose shall not be infringed.
B. This section shall not prevent the State Legislature from adopting or enforcing narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations, or authorizing political subdivisions to enforce and adopt such regulations, to serve a compelling state interest.
C. No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms, including the acquisition, ownership, possession or transfer of arms, ammunition or the components of arms or ammunition.
Explanation of SJR16
Par A of SJR16. The “fundamental right of each individual citizen.” It elevates and clarifies to courts the right is and protects the Individual and does NOT only belong to the militia as often misstated in the Bill of Rights.
“To keep and to bear arms,” is to reflect the US Constitution.
“Including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms,” this phrase is to tell the Oklahoma courts that have previously ruled that the legislature can outlaw a pistol, that pistols cannot be outlaw or ruled against for the peaceful ownership and possession.
“As well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition,” This prevents a backdoor way to prohibit firearm use by protecting the manufacturing, sale or use of ammunition or restricting the sale of such things as primers or brass.
“For self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto lawfully summoned” This phrase is clear what the arms can be used for their intended purposes and protects the militia.
“Or for any other legitimate purpose,” is a legal catch all to protect the individual for any further situation that that courts or law may not have addressed.
“Shall not be infringed.” This is stated in the Second Amendment that is right is subject to a high legal standard.
Paragraph B of SJR16
“This section shall not prevent the State Legislature,” This clarifies only the legislature can regulate and then authorize political subdivisions to regulate firearms such as authorizing municipalities to control of the discharge of firearms and control the carry of firearms “narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations,” into some sensitive areas controlled by the municipality or by the state such as a jail, prison courtrooms.
“To serve a compelling state interest.” This legal term is one that is much higher level before a prohibition of weapons can take place such as a professional sporting event where each entry way is monitored with walk through metal detectors and trained Commissioned Law Enforcement providing the screening and ample security for the venue.
Paragraph C of SJR16. “No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms.” This phrase is to prohibit the legislature from GUN REGISRATION or taxes other than regular sales tax.
“Including the acquisition, ownership, possession or transfer of arms.” The keeps the State of Oklahoma from monitoring, recording private firearm transactions.
“Ammunition or the components of arms or ammunition.” This keeps the legislature from any special taxation other than regular sales tax on ammunition or the components like primers or brass.
Call your state legislators to coauthor and vote for this VERY important bill.
Last edited:
Similar threads
