• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Oklahoma State Rep. David Derby on his bill to legalize open carry in Oklahoma

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Smarter way to protect our good Oklahomans
POINT OF VIEWS: Freedom to open carry firearm

BY STATE REP. DAVID DERBYFebruary 22, 2010



Our Founding Fathers were intelligent people.
Almost 234 years ago, they fought for freedom from tyranny and oppression. After declaring independence from the British, they worked toward creating a document that would present a better form of government for Americans. In 1787, the Constitution was formed. Two years later, the Bill of Rights was introduced.


I believe an open-carry rule would go a long way toward impeding criminals from wreaking havoc.


Included in that was the Second Amendment. It gave Americans a right to bear arms to protect themselves.
At times, this amendment has come under attack. Especially so in recent years, as anti-gun activists lobby to take firearms away from honest, law-abiding citizens. Why is that? Have they never heard the saying "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”? I suppose not.
And there has been a lot of talk from the current federal administration about additional gun registrations and potential arms confiscation. I, on the other hand, would like to strengthen a person’s right to own guns in a responsible manner.
This session, I have submitted an amendment to House Bill 3239 that would enable those who already have a concealed carry license the freedom to open carry a firearm.
To some, that might seem like an outrageous maneuver, even irresponsible. I respectfully disagree.
I believe our Founders had great wisdom in allowing citizens to bear arms. I also believe that if good people are not armed, we’re all in that much more danger. Since bad guys do things like rob banks, kidnap children and knock off convenience stores, there must be an immediate consequence for them to consider. They do all this knowing that good people around them aren’t in position to stop their criminal efforts. And since they realize our hardworking police forces are at closest a few minutes away, that’s all the time they need to get what they want.
This must stop. I believe an open-carry rule would go a long way toward impeding them from wreaking havoc. They would have to think twice about committing a crime, knowing there might be a regular, everyday person inside who would respond to dangerous threats in a way that could directly harm the would-be criminal.
In short, I believe good Oklahomans having the right to have weapons on them in public will help crime rates go down, benefiting banks, businesses and the safety of every citizen.
How are crime rates now, when the average person cannot take a gun with them out and about? Not good. But the laws now aren’t stopping bad citizens from hurting others. Keeping guns out of the hands of good people isn’t the answer. Neither is gun confiscation. When confiscations occur in countries around the world, the crime rates don’t go down, as the "bad guys” still have their guns.
I understand this idea might seem a little outside-the-box, but it is one I think will benefit everyday people who, at present, have no real retaliation if faced with a criminal.
Derby, R-Owasso, represents District 74 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives.
 

cowman

New member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
12
Location
, ,
imported post

This is good, I hope all works out for you all citizens.. Wish we had some one like that in Texas to push the same open carry issure,, but we don't.. GOOD LUCK GUYS!!
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

cowman wrote:
This is good, I hope all works out for you all citizens.. Wish we had some one like that in Texas to push the same open carry issure,, but we don't.. GOOD LUCK GUYS!!
Keep working the issue in Texas - it will take a while especially since your legislature only meets once every 2 years...
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

LOL, too funny.
This esteemed "public servant" starts off by acknowledging the true purpose of the 2nd amendment: Protecting ourselves from tyranny.

Then, he crawfishes, starts mumbling about protecting ourselves from crime. Why can't he(and a lot of others) man up and admit we need to AGAIN protect ourselves from tyranny and oppression?
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

Awww, c'mon M.E.M. Rep Derby does tip his hat to "tyranny" when he mentions the confiscations in other countries ... but then he brings it right back to crime :D

Actually folks, the past several months, the nightly news in Oklahoma (OKC metro)has had at least one shooting or armed robbery almost every night.

One month, one bank was robbed three times in three weeks ... and it was right next to the VA clinic SO goes to!

Here, the past 8 weeks or so, there have been several convenience stores being held up ... or attempted holdups.

Of course, OKC wouldn't even admit that we had gangs until about 5 years ago ... and even went out of their way to deny gangs were in OKC in the wake of a real, honest-to-god, gang-banger shootoutoutside ofa mall at Christmas.

I realize that this bill is notoptimal, but it IS a step forward and I, for one, will take any improvement that we can get!
 

Bullbuster

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
579
Location
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
imported post

I can't wait to see what happens with this. Maybe his way of thinking will rub off on the rest of our elected officials.

The only problem with it I see is we would still have to have a permit. Still not a freedom if we have to have a permit. But its a step in the right direction for anyone who chooses to OC or wants the option to do so.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Why not do as I do ?

When a Louisiana state rep introduced a totally ridiculous piece of "legislation" concerning OC'ing, I called him on the phone, explained the difference between a right and a privilege. Unlike MOST Louisiana political whores, he actually LISTENED and LEARNED, the next day he WITHDREW his bill.

Instead of settling, why not go for the brass ring?
 

Bullbuster

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
579
Location
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Why not do as I do ?

When a Louisiana state rep introduced a totally ridiculous piece of "legislation" concerning OC'ing, I called him on the phone, explained the difference between a right and a privilege. Unlike MOST Louisiana political whores, he actually LISTENED and LEARNED, the next day he WITHDREW his bill.

Instead of settling, why not go for the brass ring?
Well said.
 

cowman

New member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
12
Location
, ,
imported post

Yeah I understand that they do it only every 2yrs.... but at the same time there should be some type ofpreparation time,.... C'mon Texas Law makers have some type ofenthusiasm about this... thing is they are hoping this issue blows over.. I don't think Law markers have enough in them to enforce this issue anymore .:uhoh:
 

JIM GARINGER

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1
Location
, ,
imported post

:cool:AMEN!!! IT'S ABOUT TIME! ALL OF US , NOT JUST CCL HOLDERS



JIM GARINGER

GUTHRIE,OK.

LIFE N.R.A.
 

sml

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
6
Location
OKC, ,
imported post

Bullbuster wrote:
I can't wait to see what happens with this. Maybe his way of thinking will rub off on the rest of our elected officials.

The only problem with it I see is we would still have to have a permit. Still not a freedom if we have to have a permit. But its a step in the right direction for anyone who chooses to OC or wants the option to do so.


I personally don't have a problem with being required to have a permit in order to open carry. Especially with the gun safety course you are required to take in order to get that permit. I want to know that the person sitting at the restaurant table across from me, openly carrying, knows how to use it and isn't strutting around like the cock-of-the-walk because he's got the right to carry a gun on his hip. I also want to know that convicted felons aren't going to be masquerading as law abiding citizens with the right to carry openly. I am not so niave to think that it's not going to happen. That person openly carrying at the table across from me may very well have been convicted of armed robbery, and if we allow open carry without permits, the police will have no control, no reason to stop said person and request verification of his right to openly carry.

I do have a problem with some of the other gun laws in this state, however.

Example 1: I work for an attorney indowntown OKC, across from the Metro Transit Station, I have a concealed carry permit, Ihave a S&W 38 Special in a concealed pouch in my purse. I WILL NOT walk the 4 blocks to the court house because, even though I have passed OSBI's background checks, I am still not considered trustworthy enough to walk into the courthouse with my weapon.

Example 2: Because my adult daughter has a felony record (uttering a forged instrument and false personation) she cannot legally travel, or be around my husband or myself as long as we are carrying our concealed weapon.

I know my post has gone off topic to some extent, but if we're debating the open carry vs. the status quo, we might as well try to get other reforms while we're at it.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

SML,
If you don't have a problem with a permit, please don't assume you (and others who share your statist view) have the right to force permits on others.
As you admit, you want to dictate to others how THEY must live.
In order to carry, they must meet YOUR criteria.
Land of the free? LOL, not even a chance.
 

sml

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
6
Location
OKC, ,
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
SML,
If you don't have a problem with a permit, please don't assume you (and others who share your statist view) have the right to force permits on others.
As you admit, you want to dictate to others how THEY must live.
In order to carry, they must meet YOUR criteria.
Land of the free? LOL, not even a chance.

Really, seriously? Are you saying that you are comfortable with and encourage every person who wants to do so, to run right out and buy a gun and have it on his person, within his reach and control if he hasn't a clue how to even use it safely? That's like giving your car keys to someone who's never driven a car, ......and further, are you saying you have no problem with people convicted of violent crimes to be able to carry a weapon, openly, with no recourse?
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Unlike most here,what I AM saying is I don't have the right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do with their own private property.
If someone ends up harming another, we have what appears to be a court system to resolve the matter.
What you're advocating is not at all a free society, but a police state, as long as you get to decide just how MUCH of a police state it is.
 

sml

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
6
Location
OKC, ,
imported post

We all have the right to freedom of speech too, but not the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.

We have the right to follow any religion we choose, but not the right to allowour children to die if our religion forbids medical intervention.

I have no problem with the right to keep and bear arms, in fact, I think the government has infringed too much on that right with the assault weapon ban and such. I think a person has the right to own any weapon they choose to own. If I wanta full auto AK-47 to use for home protection, I ought to be able to do so. I don't, however, think I have the right to walk down main street with it slung over my shoulder.

I do think that there should be certain restrictions in place for people who wish to carry openly in a public place, those restrictions being: A. that they safely know how to use it, and B. that they have not been convicted of a violent felony, i.e. permits.

Maybe my view of the world and what is right and wrong is severly screwed up because I have worked for a criminal defense lawyer far too long (23 yrs). I've seen too many wife beaters, armed robbers,drugdealers, murders, and child molesters, not to think that some restrictions should be in place to make it more difficult for the "bad" people to be able to continue with their criminal lifestyle.

If that offends you, then vote against the measure. See, that's the beauty of it, neithermy opinion, nor yours matter. It's up to our elected officials to determine what's in the best interest of the public.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Actually, you DO have the right to yell "fire."
Do you really not know that?

Depend on "elected officials" to determine what's best?
LOL, you just convinced me of how much you've yet to learn.

Hope you do, unlike most here.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

The penal/criminal codes already have punishments for criminal acts, with or without guns. Do we really need to infringe the only right that shall not be infringed into oblivion? Prior restraint laws only harm law-abiding citizens, and are unconstitutional.
 

bob42

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1
Location
, ,
imported post

As a resident of Oklahoma and holder of a concealed carry permit, I agree that open carry would do a lot to deter crime. That being said, there are some people who are legally allowed to possess firearms who might give the rest of us a bad name. Some of the 'rednecks' from the sticks marching down Main Street with a 'six-gun' on each hip would be rather scary for some folks.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

sml wrote:
We all have the right to freedom of speech too, but not the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.
What MEM is saying in his own way is that you certainly do have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater; but there are consequences to your actions.

By allowing the state to require us to get permits and such for guns it changes it from a right into a privilege. As N6ATF pointed out; this is called "prior restraint". out of the entire bill of rights guess what prior restraint is applied to?

If prior restraint was applied more to the first amendment you would need a permit to ungag yourself before talking just because you could yell "fire" in a crowded theater. A permit to buy a pen because it could be used to write something inflammatory.

You don't need a drivers license to buy a car. But you could certainly buy one and run someone down with it. Maybe we should require a permit to buy a car?

It's not your right or mine to tell people what they can and can not do, but if they do something that tramples on our rights there are consequences to their actions. With each right comes a corresponding responsibility.

Rights should only be disabled with specific due process. That's what the courts are for. And as for felons.... the government just has to change what is a felony and suddenly a felony conviction for driving 56 mph in a 55 mph zone takes away your right to bear arms.
 
Top