Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Open Carry HB2522 Passes the House

  1. #1
    Regular Member russcook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    114

    Open Carry HB2522 Passes the House

    HB2522 passed the state House this morning on a 85-9 vote!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    What amendments were passed?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744

    Hb2552

    Here is kind of a play by play of how it went down:

    Amendment 1 McCullough request for retention by his local LEO. Martin moves to table the McCullough Amendment. Amendment Tabled 49 -11 DENIED!!!

    Amendment 2 by Bennett was withdrawn

    Amendment 3 Reynolds - for bodily harm, the Reynolds is not what we thought...maybe. Seems like Reynods wants unconditional open carry. Martin moves to table. Amendment tabled 52 -30
    Had this amendment passed, the bill probably would have failed.

    Amendment 4 Martin - clears up when we have to notify from first contact to first available opportunity. Passed 78 - 0

    Amendment 5 Murphey - would allow open carry in a shoulder holster. Passed 74 - 1

    Amendment 6 Cockroft - mailing license directly to the applicant address instead of the sheriff department. Amendment passes by voice vote.

    Questions on the bill:
    Hardin asks asks about how the public would know if someone was licensed. Martin answers they wouldn't. Hardin asks if Martin forsees any anxiety of public, Marting responds that maybe early on but not later on.

    Morgan asks if it changes anything regarding private property banning. Martin answers no

    Pitman asks what the restrictions are. Martin responds with all the prohibited places. Pitman asks if this is the camels nose in the tent, and open carry will grow to include other places. Martin says those are questions for a later date and would depend on the success of the current bill. He could not control what people thought in the future.

    Bennett says that he spoke with the author of the TN OC bill and after 15 years they have had no problems or concerns with OC like what Hardin asked about. Martin says that in 17 years, there has never been a bad shooting by an SDA holder as a random act of violence.

    Johnson asks about municipal subdivision being able to criminalize OC. Martin mentions the new preemption language.

    Brown asks about penalties for carrying in a posted location. Martin is unsure about answer as not part of his bill. Brown asks about local control. Martin again reiterates preemption.

    McDaniel Jeannie asked about guns at capitol. Martin says his bill does not allow it.

    Nollan asks about restrictions on people with mental illness. Martin refers to the background checks that have to happen to get a permit. Martin says, "this law only applies to law abiding citizens" not what the criminal will do.

    McPeak asks about the Bennett amendment. That Amendment was withdraw.

    There was no debate, the measure PASSES 85 - 9.
    No votes include: Cooksey, Nollan, Shelton, Hardin, Pittman, Virgin, McDaniel, J., Roan, Williams.

    Apparently Nollan doesn't get that criminals will do whatever they want anyway, Pittman thinks it will lead to more rights being given to law abiding citizens who wish to carry a gun...perhaps on a campus.

    Now it gets moved to the Senate and the process is repeated. The Senate will probably not hear it for a couple weeks. They have until the 15th to get their own bills out of the chamber. The bill goes through the Senate Public Safety Committee and if it comes out, then get voted on in the Senate and if they pass it, it goes to the Governors desk for her signature.

    The video is worth watching as it is full of puns.

    Video Link It's about 1:06:00 into it, you can also click on the bill number under the video to jump to it.
    Last edited by hrdware; 03-07-2012 at 01:56 PM. Reason: Added video link

  4. #4
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    One small step at a time. While I don't agree with this approach (just adding the word "concealed" to the wording of the first sentence of 270 is much cleaner), it is progress.

    I wonder if anyone in the OK legislature even thought about looking at ID, which has almost identical state constitutional wording as OK (unlicensed OC has been legal there forever) or WA, same here, unlicensed OC has been legal forever, but our constitution does not have a provision for the legislature to "regulate".

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Excellent, especially the overwhelming vote in favor.

    I can't wait to rub this in the faces of our Texas folks who are terrified of change.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836

    good luck

    As I grew up in Granite,OK. in greer county. I was really suprised when I married and moved to Washington and found out they have open carry with no permit required. My only hope is that it will be nation wide open carry w/no permit in my lifetime we might get get this country back on the right track.
    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Congrats! Sounds like you are halfway there. I guess that OC in any manner after total prohibition is better than nothing. And it seems some of the OK legislators understand that after the blood-in-the-streets hysteria dies down from lack of actual incidents there will be time and opportunities to consider allowing some form of carry without a state permission slip.

    That Mr. Nollan would ask about restrictions on people with mental illness is indicative of his base fears. Mr. Martin's comment that "this law only applies to law abiding citizens," not what the criminal will do, is worthy of commendation. Maybe even being enshrined somewhere as a reminder to the rest of the legislature (in OK as well as all the other 57 states) that what they only has the power to control those who are willing to be controlled.

    All this sounds like OK is following the example of The Old Dominion: kicking and screaming its way into the 19th century no matter what the calendar says.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Congrats! Sounds like you are halfway there. I guess that OC in any manner after total prohibition is better than nothing. And it seems some of the OK legislators understand that after the blood-in-the-streets hysteria dies down from lack of actual incidents there will be time and opportunities to consider allowing some form of carry without a state permission slip.

    That Mr. Nollan would ask about restrictions on people with mental illness is indicative of his base fears. Mr. Martin's comment that "this law only applies to law abiding citizens," not what the criminal will do, is worthy of commendation. Maybe even being enshrined somewhere as a reminder to the rest of the legislature (in OK as well as all the other 57 states) that what they only has the power to control those who are willing to be controlled.

    All this sounds like OK is following the example of The Old Dominion: kicking and screaming its way into the 19th century no matter what the calendar says.

    stay safe.
    okiebryan had asked Rep Martin about changing the language about police asking for ID just because you were open carry and at the time Rep Martin indicated he did not think the bill would pass without that language. So he recommended leaving it in, getting it passed, then letting the courts decide after the fact.

  9. #9
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    okiebryan had asked Rep Martin about changing the language about police asking for ID just because you were open carry and at the time Rep Martin indicated he did not think the bill would pass without that language. So he recommended leaving it in, getting it passed, then letting the courts decide after the fact.
    Is he going to be the one to spend the time and money doing this? I'm going to go hit my head against a wall for a bit.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    61
    Im glad to see that Ok will soon join the ranks of OC states, however Im looking down a road filled with speedbumps between police officers, and law abiding open Carriers, do we have any OK lawyers on the forums?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Richmond/VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    89
    I look forward to the opportunity to open carry as I have grown accustomed. Being from VA, it is my preferred method of carry. I will have to get used to the cross-eyed looks though... I never got anything but a hello in VA and I frequented some cities notorious for inadequate LEOs, i.e. Norfolk (skidmark can attest)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    To ALL Whom are Concerned or Interested:

    I REALLY like The Fact that The Amendment Entered into The Legislative Bill, as Agreed upon and Passed, Specifically Protects a Person from any Criminal Liability for any Public Disorderly Persons Offense for Merely Carrying an Unconcealed Handgun off of The Authority of a Permit as is Specifically Authorized under This Legislation.

    The Relevant Insertion can be Located on Page 38 at Line Item No. 3, under Oklahoma Code 1289.24.

    aadvark
    Last edited by aadvark; 03-13-2012 at 05:19 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    To ALL Whom are Concerned or Interested:

    I REALLY like The Fact that The Amendment Entered into The Legislative Bill, as Agreed upon and Passed, Specifically Protects a Person from any Criminal Liability for any Public Disorderly Persons Offense for Merely Carrying an Unconcealed Handgun off of The Authority of a Permit as is Specifically Authorized under This Legislation.

    The Relevant Insertion can be Located on Page 38 at Line Item No. 3, under Oklahoma Code 1289.24.

    aadvark
    State preemption at work

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744

    SB1733 - Senate Passes Its Own Open Carry Bill

    SB1733 passed the senate floor today 34 - 9. Why is this so important? SB1733 is the senate open carry bill. This means that both chambers have passed an open carry bill this session. The senate bill would allow all judges to carry in courthouses, while the house version makes no change to this. The senate version also has no preemption clause or an officer checking the permit clause. Since both houses passed similar bills, I imagine that open carry will end up in conference and with luck, will not get killed there.

    The 9 Senators who voted No were: Adelson, Eason-McIntyre, Lerblance, Ballenger, Johnson, C., McAffrey, Bass, Laster, Wilson

  15. #15
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    SB1733 passed the senate floor today 34 - 9. Why is this so important? SB1733 is the senate open carry bill. This means that both chambers have passed an open carry bill this session. The senate bill would allow all judges to carry in courthouses, while the house version makes no change to this. The senate version also has no preemption clause or an officer checking the permit clause. Since both houses passed similar bills, I imagine that open carry will end up in conference and with luck, will not get killed there.

    The 9 Senators who voted No were: Adelson, Eason-McIntyre, Lerblance, Ballenger, Johnson, C., McAffrey, Bass, Laster, Wilson
    Seems each one has its own advantages and disadvantages. Personally I think preemption is key so sounds like the house bill is a bit better.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Over the weekend call Sen Barrington's office to ask for HB2522 to be heard as soon as possible. The Senate Public Safety Committee meets every Thursday, he could get it heard as early as next week if he wants to. The number is 405-521-5563, leave a polite message.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    HB2522 is on the Agenda for the Senate Public Safety Committee Thursday Morning. Unfortunately, there is no audio broadcast from the meeting room so unless someone goes to the meeting and catches it live, there will be no play by play on this one. Committee meets Thursday at 9:30 in room 534. The other 2 bills are not on the agenda.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744

    HB2522 is now SB1092

    Attended the committee meeting this morning along with leadership from OK2A. HB2522 did pass the committee but there was a committee substitute that needs a bit more work. The current version of HB2522 is identical to SB1092. The title has been stricken and Senator Treat and Senator Russell are working on amendments to bring the good stuff from HB2522 into SB1092 before it gets to the Senate Floor.

    Here is the play by play, HB2522 came into the committee and there were 2 amendments.

    The first Amendment was by Senator Johnson, this amendment would increase the penalty for carrying a firearm while under the influence if you have a CCL. This amendment would have suspended your CCL for 10 years and you would have to pay a $5000 administrative fine. This amendment failed.

    The second amendment was a committee substitute which did pass. This substitute removed the entire text of HB2522 and replaced it with SB1092. The title was then stricken so Senators Treat and Russell could work on amendments. These amendments would include adding ammunition to the parking lot exemption, allowing OC on your own property without a permit, sending the CC app to the recipient instead of the sheriffs office, and the ability of a LEO to ask to see your certificate.

    SB1092 would require someone to get a safety permit from a NRA or Cleet instructor and carry with them. This permit would essentially state that you knew the laws and how to safely handle a firearm. Ideally this would allow more people to open carry as it would relieve a lot of the cost involved.

    The theory now is that at some point the 2 bills will go to conference committee and let them sort out the details for the best option for Oklahoma, either tied to the CCL or not, then get voted on by both houses and off to the gov for passage.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fort Smith, Arkansas, USA
    Posts
    75

    Reciprocity with other states under SB1092

    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post

    SB1092 would require someone to get a safety permit from a NRA or Cleet instructor and carry with them. This permit would essentially state that you knew the laws and how to safely handle a firearm. Ideally this would allow more people to open carry as it would relieve a lot of the cost involved.
    How would reciprocity with other states work if this version passes? I live in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and I travel through Oklahoma all the time. Would I be able to open carry?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkyhog View Post
    How would reciprocity with other states work if this version passes? I live in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and I travel through Oklahoma all the time. Would I be able to open carry?
    Probably not, unless you took the safety training class from someone in Oklahoma. This section of law is not part of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act so reciprocity has nothing to do with it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fort Smith, Arkansas, USA
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    Probably not, unless you took the safety training class from someone in Oklahoma. This section of law is not part of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act so reciprocity has nothing to do with it.
    Hmmm... I wonder if a certified concealed carry instructor from Arkansas would be qualified?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkyhog View Post
    Hmmm... I wonder if a certified concealed carry instructor from Arkansas would be qualified?
    The proposed law specifically states from someone in this state. This would be due to the fact that the instructor is saying that you know the Oklahoma laws. Someone not from Oklahoma may interpret them differently.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    The proposed law specifically states from someone in this state. This would be due to the fact that the instructor is saying that you know the Oklahoma laws. Someone not from Oklahoma may interpret them differently.
    Which, imo, is ironic given that we have recoprocity for CC which means we allow others to CC in our state without them being specifically taught on our gun laws.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Springfield Smitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    OKC, OK (Heading back to MI very soon - thank goodness)
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    The proposed law specifically states from someone in this state. This would be due to the fact that the instructor is saying that you know the Oklahoma laws. Someone not from Oklahoma may interpret them differently.
    Can you cite please?
    -U.S. Army Veteran (2002-2005) 11BVB4 (Infantry, Airborne, Ranger, some other stuff) SGT (E-5)
    -Public Service Professional - I've done it all: LEO, FF, and EMT
    -Certified NRA Instructor
    -CPL / CCW (whatever other acronym you can think of for carrying a concealed pistol) Instructor
    -Co-founder of OKOCA

    I am not an attorney. None of my statements should be accepted, nor are they intended to be offered, as legal advice or fact of law.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield Smitty View Post
    Can you cite please?
    The actual committee substitute is not yet available on the state's website, however I believe it is identical to SB1092, so here is the reference from SB1092

    Quote Originally Posted by SB1092 Section 1289.6 Paragraph A Item 6
    6. When:
    a. issued a document in this state by an individual certified as a National Rifle Association instructor or authorized as an instructor for the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act. The issuer shall retain the records for all documents issued pursuant to this paragraph for ten (10) years, and nothing in this paragraph shall make issuers liable to any person for any claim of damages as a result of issuing a document pursuant to this paragraph. The document shall conform to the following requirements:
    (1) a size of three and one-fourth (3 1/4) inches in length and two and one-fourth (2 1/4) inches in height,
    (2) a statement on the front of the document that:
    (a) the undersigned has been instructed and understands the open carry laws of Oklahoma, and
    (b) the undersigned has been instructed and understands the safe use and handling of firearms,
    (3) a designated place for the signature of the holder, and
    (4) the back of the document contains the full printed name of the issuer, and
    b. the firearm is carried in a holster that is wholly or partially visible or in a scabbard or case designed for carrying firearms that is wholly or partially visible and the person is twenty-one (21) years of age or older. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1289.13 of this title, a person complying with the requirements of this subparagraph may transport the firearm in a vehicle in a manner provided by this subparagraph. Any person who carries a firearm in the manner provided for in this subparagraph shall be prohibited from carrying the firearm into any of the places prescribed in subsection A of Section 1277 of this title;

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •