Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Constitutional Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744

    Constitutional Carry

    Quote Originally Posted by OK2A
    The Oklahoma Second Amendment Association would like to thank State Rep Dan Fisher for introducing HJR 1026 to change the state constitution:Article 2 Section 26

    The fundamental right of each individual citizen to keep and to bear handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives and other common arms, ammunition and the components thereof, for security, defense, recreation, lawful hunting or any other legitimate purpose shall not be infringed. Regulations of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny, and shall not frustrate or impair the purposes of the right.

    Send Rep Fisher an email of support @ dan.fisher@okhouse.gov
    While I can greatly appreciate the freedom this would give us, I do have some concerns about unintended consequences. There are businesses that do not post gun buster signs because of the background check people go through. Also without a permit, a person becomes an insta-felon when they get within 1000 feet of a school with a loaded gun.

    Not saying I'm against this, just a couple other things to think about and work on along with constitutional carry.
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be accepted as legal advice

  2. #2
    Regular Member okiephlyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    420
    Some other questions - what would that do to existing laws/regulations/restrictions/etc.?
    How do the Constitutional Carry states cover the GFSZ laws?
    Most importantly, what are the chances of this passing?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by okiephlyer View Post
    Some other questions - what would that do to existing laws/regulations/restrictions/etc.?
    How do the Constitutional Carry states cover the GFSZ laws?
    Most importantly, what are the chances of this passing?
    I am not sure how this will play out, but our current state constitution gives the legislature the authority to regulate firearms, the new language would says that regulation would have to be given strict scrutiny. I am unclear on what strict scrutiny means so I don't know if all existing laws would be null and void or not.

    There is a bill in the senate, SB401 that would cover the GFSZ law by saying any law abiding citizen is considered licensed for the GFSZ.

    I don't know about the passing of this as it would go to a vote of the people. The HJR would have to pass in order for it to go on the ballot.
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be accepted as legal advice

  4. #4
    Regular Member Glock 1st fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    While I can greatly appreciate the freedom this would give us, I do have some concerns about unintended consequences. There are businesses that do not post gun buster signs because of the background check people go through. Also without a permit, a person becomes an insta-felon when they get within 1000 feet of a school with a loaded gun.

    Not saying I'm against this, just a couple other things to think about and work on along with constitutional carry.
    Ok I am going to voice my opinion. I do think everyone should be better trained to carry a firearm but I dont think that it should be required. The reason I say that is when government gets involved things get nasty. Things like the required SDA class (Which by luck they capped the class fee at 60 dollars to prevent gouging) make people just sit in a class and day dream because they really have no desire to learn anything only to get the certificate. Secondly when your required to have the permit look at the consequences. 90 days in many cases to get a permit is rediculous and having to pay for the priveledge of excercising a right is worst.

    Consider the fact if the law did not cap class fees at 60 dollars people would see that we want to carry a firearm and could not do so without taking the class then greedy people would run the price up to 500 dollars or more for the class. Government intervention rarely does anything more then cause hardships on the law biding citizens.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    13
    I think that constitutional carry should receive support because of who it directly benefits the most - the poor. Throwing down the money for the SDA class and licensing frees isn't a problem for the vast majority of those seeking to get a carry permit, but it could serve as a barrier for lower-income individuals wanting to protect themselves (especially after adding in the cost of purchasing a firearm and practice). It's also possible that they could already have a firearm and the know-how to use it, but can't afford to go through the process at that particular moment. Lower-income areas tend to see the most crime, so it seems unfair to have a policy in place that makes it more difficult for people in those areas who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Stillwater, OK
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock 1st fan View Post
    Consider the fact if the law did not cap class fees at 60 dollars people would see that we want to carry a firearm and could not do so without taking the class then greedy people would run the price up to 500 dollars or more for the class. Government intervention rarely does anything more then cause hardships on the law biding citizens.
    Just a side-note here. OK2A is trying to pass a bill that would remove the $60 cap, but I don't think you'll see $500 prices because the free market doesn't work that way. In fact, even though there is a $60 cap, there are some instructors already doing it for less. I'm not going to pay $500 if the guy in the next town is doing it for $50.

    Next, as to the plausibility of such a bill passing, SB1733 last year (if I remember correctly) says that our state currently recognizes all residents who are permitted by their state to carry, which supposedly means constitutional carry states as well. This is already a foot in the door because is someone can come to our state and their driver's license is their permit, then why not us as well?

    I don't know that it will pass this year, but I think it has a fair chance in the future.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Section II-26: Bearing arms - Carrying weapons.

    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.
    Title 21 Section 1272

    A. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry upon or about his or her person, ...
    Bolded added for emphasis. Section 1272 goes directly against the State Constitution as it is a flat out prohibition on the carry of arms and there is no exemption to this prohibition for self defense. Also the HWP only applies to pistols .45 caliber or smaller and as such even with it there is a prohibition (NOT regulation) on the carry of all other arms.

    Personally I'm all for Constitutional Carry. If one wants to make laws against the use of weapons during a crime (or rather, make the penalties for using a weapon in a crime harsher), then go for it. But Constitutional Carry helps bring us back in like with both the State and Federal Constitutions. As for stores potentially putting up "No Weapons" signs, well no one said fighting for our rights would be an easy thing. Given what it took for us to gain our independence I would say working to get such signs removed is easy compared to what our forefathers had to do to gain those rights.

    I'm sure there will be people who will be against it because it will make things "hard" for them, but that isn't a reason to not push for the restoration of our rights. We will simply have to point to logic and reason of how other Constitutional Carry states don't have issues, and should the law pass and logic/reason fail, then we simply hit them in the pocketbook and go somewhere else with our money. Might take some time, but it took time for us to lose our rights and as such no one should expect to regain our losses in the blink of an eye.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Robert318's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Choctaw, OK
    Posts
    158

    The constitution is the law of the land, yeah right!

    Am I the only one that sees the problem with this whole deal? The bill of rights also say we have free speech, freedom of religion, etc. We accept that but throw out the part of the 2nd " shall not be infringed"!

    What part of shall not be infringed don't we understand?
    Infringe:

    - verb (used with object)
    1.
    to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

    That means that any and all laws that restrict ALL citizens from bearing arms in ALL places and at ALL times in the USA is infringing on that very right.

    If any one part of the bill of rights is not valid then what the hell do we even have it for? Why did so many pay for it with their lives only to have their payment thrown down, stepped on then crapped on?!

    The constitution is supposed to be the law of the land, so if shall not be infringed means nothing and its ok to violate that law to pass laws then what good is the law?

    Laws are supposed to allow for punishment for acts that cause harm to others not to tell people what they can own or how they can protect themselves.

    Therefore if someone uses a weapon that includes hands and feet or even law or rules to do others harm for anything other than protection unless they themselves are attempting to do harm to others should be punished and made an example of that hurting others (which includes theft) will not be tolerated.

    Why is it that law abiding people are punished and or restricted by the law? Criminals by definition don't care about the law nor obey it so therefore it doesn't restrict them but only allows for the punishment if they get caught which most of the time is ineffective to prevent the continuing of such violations of law or the continuation of causing others harm.

    So I say what good is a new state constitutional law if we don't honor the one we already have aka the US constitution?

    If we lived in a perfect world there would be no need for arms but the fact is that we don't. And any law that has the effect of causing people to be defenseless and be harmed or victimized is just as bad as the bad guy that physically does harm to another, therefore those who create such laws are just as guilty. And also such laws are at odds with the very intention of the idea that laws are created to keep the people safe.

    I say that a complete reconstruction of not only state law but also federal laws that do anything other than line up with the 2A and shall not be infringed be completely wiped from the books! And anything else is a flagrant disregard for the safety of the innocent and especially our children who are the most helpless.
    Last edited by Robert318; 02-01-2013 at 11:44 AM. Reason: Added text and fixed some typos
    Stay safe and God bless.

    Everyone will hate you because of me.
    But not a hair of your head will perish.
    Stand firm, and you will win life.
    (Luke 21:17-19 NIV)

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

    "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.",
    "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Section II-26: Bearing arms - Carrying weapons.

    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.
    Less is more. The above should simply be changed to:

    The natural right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any government entity.
    Yet even my version is susceptible to corruption simply because government uses terminology that is similar, but technically different enough to do an end run simply by using "firearms, weapons, guns, assault weapons, etc." in place of "arms". There is no foolproof way to protect the right to keep and bear arms today and in the future (technology will eventually make "firearms" obsolete) short of not having government (which has it's merits imho).

    For those who believe the US Constitution as being the "supreme" law of the land, please read Article VI:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in PURSUANCE THEREOF; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
    Laws are only "supreme" when they are in accord with Article 1, Section 8. If such laws are not in accord with the specifically listed enumerated powers, then they are null and void.

    The Constitution is nothing but a list of by-laws put in place by the separate States in confederation that spells out the powers and limits of the created, legal entity called the "United States of America" (a corporation owned by the States as per the preamble). There is a difference between "We the People, of the United States" and "the United States of America". Of course to understand the difference you need to read documents other than just the Constitution itself. I digress...

    Not much likelihood that the Oklahoma constitution will be changed to limit the state and federal government from infringing on our natural rights.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Duncan, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    67
    This sounds similar to what Louisiana passed last year as a constitutional amendment when they added the strict scutiny language to the right to bear arms part of there constitution and from what i know it didn't change any of there current gun laws as of yet until there challenged.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Boley, OK
    Posts
    1

    Thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by yoshieslunchbox View Post
    I think that constitutional carry should receive support because of who it directly benefits the most - the poor. Throwing down the money for the SDA class and licensing frees isn't a problem for the vast majority of those seeking to get a carry permit, but it could serve as a barrier for lower-income individuals wanting to protect themselves (especially after adding in the cost of purchasing a firearm and practice). It's also possible that they could already have a firearm and the know-how to use it, but can't afford to go through the process at that particular moment. Lower-income areas tend to see the most crime, so it seems unfair to have a policy in place that makes it more difficult for people in those areas who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
    Appreciate what you wrote, as I found myself in just that situation. But also out of principle: I believed in the Constitutional Carry even before my current status. I had CHLs from Texas and Iowa. I am a law-abiding citizen with LEO experience, etc. Why should I be forced to get another CHL in Oklahoma? Maybe to help the economy and to let the gov't know me better, but I don't think I can contribute much to either.

Posting Permissions

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