From sundays paper:
http://newsok.com/lawmaker-takes-is...article/3534308?custom_click=headlines_widget
http://newsok.com/lawmaker-takes-is...article/3534308?custom_click=headlines_widget
Lawmaker takes issue with OKC police chief's remarks about weapons
BY STATE SEN. STEVE RUSSELL Oklahoman 2 Published: January 23, 2011
I sincerely appreciate the service that Oklahoma City Police Chief Bill Citty has given to our community and share his concern for his officers. However, I strongly disagree with his view that certain types of military-style firearms inherently pose a great public threat (“OKC police chief wants tougher gun laws,” news story, Jan. 16).
City Councilmen Sam Bowman and Pete White have supported Citty's stance and share the belief that these types of weapons have no place in civil communities. I consider those comments to be uncivil to the hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Oklahoma gun owners. More importantly, efforts to impose these views on all citizens are a danger to our guaranteed Oklahoma and U.S. constitutional freedoms.
As co-chairman of the Senate Veteran's Affairs Committee and as a member of both Senate public safety committees, I call on Citty to provide the data that shows these types of weapons are used extensively in crime and pose a greater threat statistically than any other commonly held and legally purchased type of firearm.
There is simply no empirical evidence to support his claim. According to the FBI, crime has dropped 14 percent since 2004, the period he cites as when the so-called ban on military weapons expired. The fact is these weapons were never banned but only certain modifications to them were.
Citty's proposal of registration or titling of such weapons violates Oklahoma's constitution. Furthermore, being able to protect ourselves with the type of firearm we feel most comfortable with is a part of our federal constitutional freedoms. These are basic rights - not privileges bestowed on us by benevolent politicians. His views are something one might hear in San Francisco but are not welcome in Oklahoma. Citty also needs to be mindful that Section 2, Article 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits any such actions as he proposes.
Citty states that he cannot imagine why anyone would want to own such a weapon. On behalf of tens of thousands of active serving and veteran military, I find such comments an affront to the law-abiding citizen. Many soldiers keep such arms to maintain shooting proficiency and many veterans develop an affinity with such weapons they carried in the service, even though these are semi-auto only and are not automatic of the type carried in the service. Tens of thousands of Oklahomans keep and bear such weapons with no threat to the public. The implication that these citizens are either crazed or criminals is offensive.
It should be pointed out that in 1789 when our Bill of Rights was signed as a part of our Constitution, the Brown Bess Musket was the latest in cutting-edge technology of military firearms used for defense of home and property by the common people.
One incident should not become the catalyst for robbing the vast majority of law-abiding citizens' personal freedoms.