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

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.

Click to expand...

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Okay, excuse me, I misspoke. You do have the right to yell fire, if there actually is a fire, but FALSLY yelling fire in a theater is not protected speech, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), which was further narrowed by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) holding that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action, i.e. causing riots. At least that's how I interpret it.

The larger point was that you aren't subject to prior restraint to exercise free speech; one of your rights.

It's always been my understanding that if you don't like the way a lawmaker is doing his job, elect someone else next time. I don't trust politicians any further than I can throw them, I mentioned elected officials only because I do not expect this to be something that goes to a state-wide election, it will either pass or fail with our lawmakers. I, for one, hope that it does pass. Should it pass and if it contains the requirement that I receive a permit before I can carry openly, I am confident that I would qualify for same.

But what about those who don't qualify for the permit? Someone who smoked pot once 10 years ago or something? Do we have the right to tell them they can't protect their life and the life of their loved ones?

As far as elected officails; most of us at OCDO are quite politically active, trying to get the laws changed. If that doesn't work, we go through the courts.

Thanks to Oklahoma's Make my Dayand Stand Your Ground laws, there is nothing reventing you from keeping and bearing arms in your own home, or on your own property. I just don't see what the fuss is all about with requiring permits, unless you have a reason to think you wouldn't otherwise qualify. To also respond to Brass Magnet, there is nothing in the OklahomaStatutes that require you to have a permit to BUY a gun, provided you are not otherwise disqualified to do so.

Whether a permit is required (making it a privilege) or not. My greater point was addressing your previous post where you endorsed a permit system.

now, it's not only felons that do not qualify for conceal carry permits in Oklahoma, it also includes anyone under the age of 21; persons who are not United States citizens; anyone who has been adjudicated as incompetent; anyone undergoing treatment for mental illness, or having attempted suicide within the last 10 yrs; anyone convicted of the following misdemeanors: assault and battery, stalking, violation of protection order, any conviction relating to drug use or possession of drugs or domestic abuse. How do you propose to stop people falling into those groups from openly carrying? Is it right for the public to demand that those persons not be allowed to carry openly?

Why should someone have to wait for 21 to defend themselves? Why not 18? Why should the right be limited to U.S. citizens? Who says who's incompetent? What qualifies as a mental illness? What are the circumstances to the rest of the scenarios you wrote?

You've outlined perfectly whats wrong with the permit system. We shouldn't have to ask the states permission. If people get their gun rights disabled through specific due process, no problem, but if there is prior restraint, big problem.

You guys are not looking at the big picture here, relish the small victories first, then push for the bigger ones. Push to get the open carry with a permit first (if necessary), then push to remove the permit. I was absolutely shocked 15 yrs ago when this state allowed us to start carrying a concealed weapon in public (as long as they knew who you were via permits), now we're allowed to carry them into state parks. Hopefully, God willing, we'll soonbe allowed to carry openly. With or without a permit will be up to the lawmakers. I, for one, will be happyto jump through whatever hoops the state requires in order to legally carry my weapon in public, whether that be openly or concealed.

Would you allow your nail clippings to be put on file along with your fingerprints and full background? Would you tell them the serial number of every single firearm you own? Would you describe your past relationships to them? Would you allow them to implant an IF transmitter? Just how far would you go to beg the state to grant you that privilege?

Click to expand...

No, we all DON'T want freedom, just me a very few others.
Most want a police state, as long as it meets with their criteria.

Click to expand...

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Okay, excuse me, I misspoke. You do have the right to yell fire, if there actually is a fire, but FALSLY yelling fire in a theater is not protected speech, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), which was further narrowed by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) holding that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action, i.e. causing riots. At least that's how I interpret it.

It's always been my understanding that if you don't like the way a lawmaker is doing his job, elect someone else next time. I don't trust politicians any further than I can throw them, I mentioned elected officials only because I do not expect this to be something that goes to a state-wide election, it will either pass or fail with our lawmakers. I, for one, hope that it does pass. Should it pass and if it contains the requirement that I receive a permit before I can carry openly, I am confident that I would qualify for same.

Thanks to Oklahoma's Make my Dayand Stand Your Ground laws, there is nothing reventing you from keeping and bearing arms in your own home, or on your own property. I just don't see what the fuss is all about with requiring permits, unless you have a reason to think you wouldn't otherwise qualify. To also respond to Brass Magnet, there is nothing in the OklahomaStatutes that require you to have a permit to BUY a gun, provided you are not otherwise disqualified to do so.

now, it's not only felons that do not qualify for conceal carry permits in Oklahoma, it also includes anyone under the age of 21; persons who are not United States citizens; anyone who has been adjudicated as incompetent; anyone undergoing treatment for mental illness, or having attempted suicide within the last 10 yrs; anyone convicted of the following misdemeanors: assault and battery, stalking, violation of protection order, any conviction relating to drug use or possession of drugs or domestic abuse. How do you propose to stop people falling into those groups from openly carrying? Is it right for the public to demand that those persons not be allowed to carry openly?

You guys are not looking at the big picture here, relish the small victories first, then push for the bigger ones. Push to get the open carry with a permit first (if necessary), then push to remove the permit. I was absolutely shocked 15 yrs ago when this state allowed us to start carrying a concealed weapon in public (as long as they knew who you were via permits), now we're allowed to carry them into state parks. Hopefully, God willing, we'll soonbe allowed to carry openly. With or without a permit will be up to the lawmakers. I, for one, will be happyto jump through whatever hoops the state requires in order to legally carry my weapon in public, whether that be openly or concealed.

Click to expand...

sml wrote:

Click to expand...

It's always been my understanding that if you don't like the way a lawmaker is doing his job, elect someone else next time. I don't trust politicians any further than I can throw them, I mentioned elected officials only because I do not expect this to be something that goes to a state-wide election, it will either pass or fail with our lawmakers. I, for one, hope that it does pass. Should it pass and if it contains the requirement that I receive a permit before I can carry openly, I am confident that I would qualify for same.

But what about those who don't qualify for the permit? Someone who smoked pot once 10 years ago or something? Do we have the right to tell them they can't protect their life and the life of their loved ones?

Yes, the requirements Oklahoma imposes on individuals seeking permits need to be loosened, I'm not denying that. Felon laws in general need to be changed.As I said previously, if my daughter ever has any reason to be questioned by police while she is in my companyor that of my husband and we have our weapon with us, she'll go to jail for violation of her probation. As her probation officer puts it, theoretically she could "overpower me and take control of my gun"-- I'd like to see her try to overpower her daddy....LOL

As far as elected officails; most of us at OCDO are quite politically active, trying to get the laws changed. If that doesn't work, we go through the courts.


And BRAVO to you and groups like yours. Without you guys we'd never be allowed to carry guns in the first place. I would become involved locally if I didn't already have my hands full with an unemployed husband, an adult daughter who was forced to move back home with her 3yr old and another baby due next month.

Click to expand...

now, it's not only felons that do not qualify for conceal carry permits in Oklahoma, it also includes anyone under the age of 21; persons who are not United States citizens; anyone who has been adjudicated as incompetent; anyone undergoing treatment for mental illness, or having attempted suicide within the last 10 yrs; anyone convicted of the following misdemeanors: assault and battery, stalking, violation of protection order, any conviction relating to drug use or possession of drugs or domestic abuse. How do you propose to stop people falling into those groups from openly carrying? Is it right for the public to demand that those persons not be allowed to carry openly?

This information was taken, not necessarily verbatim, from the SDA Handbook, http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2009.pdfand no, I don't agree with all of it, but I also don't see the harm in some of it.

Why should someone have to wait for 21 to defend themselves? Why not 18? Yes, you ought to be able to protect yourself and your loved ones at the age of 18, if you can fight and die for this country at 18, you damn sure ought to be able to drink a beer in a bar or legally own and carry a firearm.

Why should the right be limited to U.S. citizens? Why shouldn't that right be limited to US citizens? If you are not of this country but are here legally, then yes, by all means, enjoy the rights and privileges of Americans, but if you're here illegally, then you are a criminal, plain and simple.

Who says who's incompetent? What qualifies as a mental illness? Both these questions would be up to a court to decide, obviously it would include people under guardianships since they have already been declared incompetent, but mental illness.

What are the circumstances to the rest of the scenarios you wrote? The other scenarios should at least have time limits on it. If you haven't been in trouble for XX number of years, then your rights to carry a firearm are restored. Another scenario that I didn't outline above is anyone with a VPO against them are prohibited from lawfully carryinga concealed weapon, so long as the VPO is in effect. When that VPO expires, your rights to lawfully carry concealed are restored.

You've outlined perfectly whats wrong with the permit system. We shouldn't have to ask the states permission. If people get their gun rights disabled through specific due process, no problem, but if there is prior restraint, big problem.

I never said the system was perfect, it has huge gaping flaws in it and I'm not smart enough to have an answer to each and every scenario. I'm simply stating my opinion as a law abiding citizen, taxpayer, wife, mother and grandmother, looking only to keep her family safe to the extent that I am able and I just don't see how I can do that if everybody with mental instability issues orwithviolent criminal histories are able to openly carry a firearm wherever they choose.

Click to expand...

You guys are not looking at the big picture here, relish the small victories first, then push for the bigger ones. Push to get the open carry with a permit first (if necessary), then push to remove the permit. I was absolutely shocked 15 yrs ago when this state allowed us to start carrying a concealed weapon in public (as long as they knew who you were via permits), now we're allowed to carry them into state parks. Hopefully, God willing, we'll soonbe allowed to carry openly. With or without a permit will be up to the lawmakers. I, for one, will be happyto jump through whatever hoops the state requires in order to legally carry my weapon in public, whether that be openly or concealed.

Would you allow your nail clippings to be put on file along with your fingerprints and full background? Any person convicted of a felony in Oklahoma (I don't know about other states in the US) is required to have their DNA on file. If the State wants my DNA, they only have to go as far as my doctor's office. The State and the Feds already have my finger prints, first time was for my conceal carry permit, along with a background search, second time was when my husband adopted my daughter, he had to submit to fingerprinting again along with two separate extensive background searches, and the last time I renewed my driver's license, I had to give my thumb print, which is now on the back of my license. Any informationthe government wants to know about you, they already know......it's really scarey how much information the US Attorney's office and the federal probation office put in a pre-sentence investigation report---my office does some federal criminal defense work

Would you tell them the serial number of every single firearm you own? I thought they already had that through the gun store where you purchased the weapon, and after all the hell and sand I had to go through to get the serial number of the 40 cal Baretta that was stolen out of my car last year, all the serial numbers of the guns we own are posted on the inside of my gun safe, my palm pilot, and my computer.

Would you describe your past relationships to them? Would you allow them to implant an IF transmitter? Just how far would you go to beg the state to grant you that privilege? This is where you get into the realm of violation of civil rights. There are enough civil rights groups out there that this theory wouldn't even get a foothold. I know many people have a bad opinion of the ACLU, but they would be leading the movement against it.

Click to expand...

We are looking at the big picture. Some of us disagree about how to get there in the end but we all want freedom to one extent or another. It has in fact worked in some places to start with stricter laws and get them slowly less strict. But changing the laws takes years, years that some people pay for with their lives. So others believe it's better to try to get it all ASAP.

The big picture as I see it, is to allow all the LAC (Law abiding citizens) to defend themselves without having to jump through hoops. The hoops that we don't have to jump through with our other rights.

I agree with you, butyou have contridicted youself right here. Allowing all LACs to defend themselves withoutjumping through hoops isperfect, wonderful, would be utopia if it worked, but who is a LAC?Someone without any black marks on their record? Or can some black marks exist, just not SOME black marks? Who gets to decide which black marks can exist and still be considered LAC? This is exactly why I think some controls need to be in place.

Click to expand...

Look at all the other states that allow open carry without a permit. Do you hear of open carriers shooting people? Here in Arizona, thousands of people open carry. Never have I heard of even one person (muchless a number that would be statistically meaningful) accidentally shooting someone else. Doesn't that tell you something? Do you really think citizens of Oklahoma are less trustworthy or less intelligent than citizens of Arizona?

Click to expand...

If we do get the OC ..i think that there should be some sort of training needed....you should need a ccw to open carry..or else everyone who is not trained would carry... I am not against OC but...I know some people who shouldn't......

SEMPER FI...

Click to expand...