Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: HB1796 - Concealed Carry with Open Option: a referendum

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

    HB1796 - Concealed Carry with Open Option: a referendum

    Text of HB1796

    This is actually a legislative referendum. This means that if passed it would go to a vote of the people in the next general election.

    This is Concealed Carry with an Open option. If approved by the people, it would go into effect Jan 1, 2013 (yes 2013 is correct).

    This is scheduled for hearing Wednesday March 2, 2011.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Posts
    73
    Sure is a long wait.

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

    It passed the house public safety committee

    This bill passed the house public safety committee.

    The bill would allow for open carry with a permit.

    The amendment to the bill would require the open holster to have some kind of locking mechanism such as a thumb strap.

    The bill would put this to a vote of the people on the 2012 general election. Rep Tibbs said she wanted all the people to vote since it affected everyone. Really it only affects those who wish to exercise their right to openly carry.
    Last edited by hrdware; 03-03-2011 at 11:36 AM. Reason: used incorrect word

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Little Axe, Oklahoma
    Posts
    137

    Angry

    Why must we wait? This is Sue Tibbs way of nullifying the movement and controlling open carry until 2013. This bill is not condusive to the public. If it has to go to a vote of the public then It should be brought to a special vote immediately. Just her way of saying not now maybe later. This plays into the hands of the anti gun people. Allows them time to mount an offesive against the 2nd ammendment and gun control.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by gprod55 View Post
    Why must we wait? This is Sue Tibbs way of nullifying the movement and controlling open carry until 2013. This bill is not condusive to the public. If it has to go to a vote of the public then It should be brought to a special vote immediately. Just her way of saying not now maybe later. This plays into the hands of the anti gun people. Allows them time to mount an offesive against the 2nd ammendment and gun control.
    I agree. Hopefully someone in the house, or more likely the senate will make some much needed amendments to this before it passes.

    To play the devil's advocate though putting it in a general election will ensure that more people will show up to vote (probably to vote it down) than if it was held in a special election. But hey, contact your rep and see if they want to amend this when it gets to the house floor to make it a special election vote.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744

    On the right road again

    HB1796 has been scheduled on the House Calendar. It is up for consideration beginning on 3/14. It has to be dealt with by the 17th (if I read the legislative calendar correctly). This bill has had an amendment filed to it that changes it from a referendum to a bill - meaning no vote of the people, if the house and senate pass it, it goes to the governor to sign.

    If you are interested in open carry, or just plain ole giving people the choice to exercise their 2A rights, contact your representative and ask them to support this bill with the amendment.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Posted this same stuff in 2 threads since they are converging.

    As of March 9, 2011, 9:30PM there are 9 amendments pending for this legislation.

    4 Amendments wish to remove the voting of the people next November and make it a legislative decision. I agree with these amendments.

    4 amendments wish to put a burden on the OCer to show a "...reasonable fear of bodily harm." I disagree with these as "reasonable fear" is subjective.

    1 amendment (by rep Derby) dumps the entire bill and makes Oklahoma a constitutional carry and makes anyone with a gun buster sign legally liable for anything that happens to an unarmed citizen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derby Amendment
    “SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1291 of Title 21, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

    Oklahoma shall be a Second Amendment state. All citizens have the individual right to keep and bear arms for his or her protection.

    Persons or entities who prevent a citizen from exercising his or her individual Second Amendment rights are assuming the liability for protecting such citizen.

    Any citizen of Oklahoma may request an endorsement on his or her Oklahoma driver license to serve as a concealed carry permit for recognition in this state and other states.”
    I support the Derby Amendment as well. When you contact your reps, please express which amendments you support and which you don't.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    I REALLY like the Derby amendment.

    Who ever wants the "reasonable fear of bodily harm" amendments needs to be removed from office. Idjiots.
    Last edited by OldCurlyWolf; 03-09-2011 at 11:44 PM.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    I REALLY like the Derby amendment.

    Who ever wants the "reasonable fear of bodily harm" amendments needs to be removed from office. Idjiots.
    Oh come on, all you would have to do is say that since you never know when crime will strike and cops aren't around 100% of the time you're reasonably scared that at some point it could happen to you.

    But seriously, that is a pretty retarded amendment. I'm all for the constitutional carry amendment.
    Last edited by Aknazer; 03-10-2011 at 12:03 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Posts
    73
    I'm confused on the reasonable fear part. Does that mean you must carry concealed until you feel threatened... then you can "flash" your firearm? lol

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirge View Post
    I'm confused on the reasonable fear part. Does that mean you must carry concealed until you feel threatened... then you can "flash" your firearm? lol
    Most likely means that should you OC you need to have a reasonable fear in order to OC. So for example a body guard or some other non-LEO security. Which means I need to slightly edit my sarcastic comment to make more sense.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Most likely means that should you OC you need to have a reasonable fear in order to OC. So for example a body guard or some other non-LEO security. Which means I need to slightly edit my sarcastic comment to make more sense.
    Ahh that makes more sense. And it sucks.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744

    Reasonable fear...

    is to subjective. The paranoid person always has reasonable fear because everyone is always out to get them, but then if they feel this way they have to many mental issues to be carrying a gun. It could be said that the average citizen does not have reasonable fear in their daily lives (unless they habitually walk down dark allies at 1am with hundred dollar bills hanging out) because statistically speaking a normal person has a very small chance to ever be involved in an incident.

    Officer: Why are you openly carrying? What are you afraid of?
    Citizen: Because there are bad people and you can't protect me 24/7.
    Officer: I'm here now, no need for OC. Cover up as you now how no reasonable fear.
    Citizen: *covers up*
    Officer: May I see your CWL?
    Citizen: I don't have one because I OC.

    You get the idea. Burden of proof for reasonable fear is a bad bad thing.

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

    Rain on your parade

    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    I REALLY like the Derby amendment.

    Who ever wants the "reasonable fear of bodily harm" amendments needs to be removed from office. Idjiots.
    Well, after doing some additional research, I don't know how well I like the Derby Amendment. Part of the amendment that I didn't post is a repeal to most of the current gun laws and I didn't feel like looking at them last night, so I did this morning.

    The Derby Amendment would repeal (from what it looks like) all of the Oklahoma firearm restrictions with the exception of firearms being owned by convicted felons. While this sounds like a good idea, lets take a look at some things it would make legal because there would be no law against it:

    Title 21-Section 1272
    Unlawful carry would be removed. Therefore allowing the carry of the following weapons: dagger, bowie knife, dirk knife, switchblade knife, spring-type knife, sword cane, knife having a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife, blackjack, loaded cane, billy, hand chain, metal knuckles, or any other offensive weapon.

    Title 21-Section 1272.1
    Carrying firearms where liquor is consumed. Would allow people to carry in locations that serve alcohol as more than 51% of business.

    Title 21-Section 1273
    No restriction on giving firearms to minors.

    Title 21-Section 1277
    No more restricted places (other than those with gun buster signs)

    Title 21-Section 1278
    No restriction on Unlawful Intent to Carry. You could now legally carry a gun with the intent to use it on another person for a reason other than self defense.

    Title 21-Section 1279
    Misdemeanor Pointing a firearm. You could legally point your gun at someone for no reason.

    Title 21-Section 1289
    All of 1289 - The Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971, including Carrying weapons under influence of alcohol, state preemption, the protection of the deadly force section (1289.25).

    Title 21-Section 1290
    All of 1290 - The Oklahoma Self Defense Act.

    So while it may look like a good thing, I am now second guessing this amendment. I think some of this is a, "you want to be like AZ, then lets be like AZ and get rid of all the gun laws" type response instead of a logical approach to what should and should not be allowed. Because of these repeals, I don't see this amendment going anywhere.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    Well, after doing some additional research, I don't know how well I like the Derby Amendment. Part of the amendment that I didn't post is a repeal to most of the current gun laws and I didn't feel like looking at them last night, so I did this morning.

    The Derby Amendment would repeal (from what it looks like) all of the Oklahoma firearm restrictions with the exception of firearms being owned by convicted felons. While this sounds like a good idea, lets take a look at some things it would make legal because there would be no law against it:

    Title 21-Section 1272
    Unlawful carry would be removed. Therefore allowing the carry of the following weapons: dagger, bowie knife, dirk knife, switchblade knife, spring-type knife, sword cane, knife having a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife, blackjack, loaded cane, billy, hand chain, metal knuckles, or any other offensive weapon.
    Doesn't bother me. The law wouldn't of stopped criminals from doing this regardless and if it makes a law-abiding-citizen feel safer than whatever. It simply appears as a way to charge someone with multiple charges for a single action (such as this, unlawful intent, and something else like burglary or attempted burglary) rather than simply making the base crime carry a strong enough sentence.

    Title 21-Section 1272.1
    Carrying firearms where liquor is consumed. Would allow people to carry in locations that serve alcohol as more than 51% of business.
    Doesn't bother me so long as it's still illegal to carry while intoxicated. Also so long as bars can post no-gun signs or no-gun while drinking signs. If I go to a bar with friends but am not drinking then I don't see why I shouldn't be able to carry in there (especially if choose to CC).

    Title 21-Section 1273
    No restriction on giving firearms to minors.
    Are there any federal laws that state how old you have to be to have a handgun? I'm too worried about a minor having a rifle/shotgun, it's more about the minors in gangs with handguns that would concern me. Also part of this seems to be putting the onus on the parents to do their job and on the stores to have store policies to not sell to minors (similar to how Wal-Mart won't sell M-rated games to people under 17...and I know cuz I've been carded by them before). But as I said, with the handgun part it would be an issue once the minor already has the weapon on the street.

    Title 21-Section 1277
    No more restricted places (other than those with gun buster signs)
    This is a good thing imo. Any place with a secured entrance (such as stadiums) can easily post the signs. And any place that doesn't have a secured entrance means that a restricted place is just a criminal's playhouse since they aren't going to follow the law anyways.

    Title 21-Section 1278
    No restriction on Unlawful Intent to Carry. You could now legally carry a gun with the intent to use it on another person for a reason other than self defense.
    My only question is, how would an LEO prove someone had an unlawful intent to carry right now? The only way I can see (but INAL) is either they directly state they plan to use the weapon in some type of crime or to try and intimidate people. But in that situation you could likely charge them on something like attempted X with a deadly weapon anyways. My question would be, what type of intimidation laws are there.

    Title 21-Section 1279
    Misdemeanor Pointing a firearm. You could legally point your gun at someone for no reason.
    I can see this being an issue, but on the other side if someone pulled their gun for "no reason" then they risk being shot by anyone else around that's carrying. At the very least I'm sure the person the gun is being pointed at could charge them with something along the lines of harassment or intimidation. Overall I would agree that I don't like this being repealed but it gets into a gray area of how much government oversight do you want to tell you how to handle your weapon. Common sense things like this also give a foothold to other things that gun control advocates view as "common sense."

    Title 21-Section 1289
    All of 1289 - The Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971, including Carrying weapons under influence of alcohol, state preemption, the protection of the deadly force section (1289.25).
    I don't know enough about this to comment, but removing the carrying while intoxicated part already looks like a bad idea.

    Title 21-Section 1290
    All of 1290 - The Oklahoma Self Defense Act.
    Once again don't know enough about this specific section to comment on. Looks like I need to do some research!

    So while it may look like a good thing, I am now second guessing this amendment. I think some of this is a, "you want to be like AZ, then lets be like AZ and get rid of all the gun laws" type response instead of a logical approach to what should and should not be allowed. Because of these repeals, I don't see this amendment going anywhere.
    I don't think the amendment will go anywhere either, but overall it doesn't seem too bad. I think it needs a few tweaks or would require a few additional laws after it passed (such as clearing up the issue with minors having weapons w/o parental oversight and carrying while intoxicated), but it would be interesting if it passed.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Norman, OK
    Posts
    1
    Just received an interesting email from my rep Aaron Stiles regarding this bill, since it goes to a vote of the people, if it's defeated by the people, it cannot be brought up again for 10 years according to the Oklahoma Constitution.

    ETA: hope if the bill is heard, the amendment to make it a legislative decision is approved.
    Last edited by Third; 03-16-2011 at 09:45 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Third View Post
    Just received an interesting email from my rep Aaron Stiles regarding this bill, since it goes to a vote of the people, if it's defeated by the people, it cannot be brought up again for 10 years according to the Oklahoma Constitution.

    ETA: hope if the bill is heard, the amendment to make it a legislative decision is approved.
    I did not know that. It makes sense that they would want it to go to the people to fail just for that reason.

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

    Play Taps

    This bill is dead.

Posting Permissions

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