• 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.

SB129 - Unlicensed open carry bill passes Oklahoma Senate, moves to House

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
jcizzle - Your link has nothing to do with either retention training or the present struggle for OC. It unnecessarily paints LEOs with an unfavorable broad brush.

We are supposed to be the good guys that play by the rules and use facts to offset/defeat the opposition. I don't see LEO bashing as accomplishing that.
 

jcizzle

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
20
Location
Edmond, OK
It show how govt specified training doesn't keep a gun in its holster. It is the maturity of the gun owner that does that. Our reps brought up training that LEOs take part in. I simply showed an example of how that training does not separate resposible gun owners from the irresponsible ones.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
It show how govt specified training doesn't keep a gun in its holster. It is the maturity of the gun owner that does that. Our reps brought up training that LEOs take part in. I simply showed an example of how that training does not separate resposible gun owners from the irresponsible ones.

The question never was about keeping a gun in the holster by the user or choosing to do the right thing..

Might have been better to use the aforementioned facts instead of looking to discredit LEOs - that is a two edged sword when offered to legislators. You give them the thought that if LEOs can't do the right thing, then how can the people be expected to perform.

Try things like this:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6597
 

gprod55

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
141
Location
Little Axe, Oklahoma
Retention

I was shown how to retain a weapon from being removed by someone with the idea of grabbing it from your holster by an ex Highway Patrol officer. Its just a matter of grabbing the wrist of the individual grabbing your gun. with a grip on the wrist and moving with him he will be unable to remove it. Further action can be taken with your free hand.
Believe me it works.
 

jcizzle

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
20
Location
Edmond, OK
You're right Grapeshot.

Now that I look back at my post. I see my frustration took unrelated issues and grouped them together. The same thing I get frustrated at legislators for doing and that makes my comment no better. I apologize for the bash.

By the way... unrelated: i see that even though I'm not the best at grammar and spelling, I'm even worse on my phohe. Lol
 

JamesG

New member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4
Location
Oklahoma City
Bottom line is that allowing LEOs to stop me and ask for my permit just because I OC and with no reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed is comparable to allowing LEOs to pull me over to check my driver's license just because they saw me driving a car. It's my understanding they can't do that unless they have some reason to believe I don't have a license or that some crime is being comitted. Why should it be any different for OC?
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Bottom line is that allowing LEOs to stop me and ask for my permit just because I OC and with no reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed is comparable to allowing LEOs to pull me over to check my driver's license just because they saw me driving a car. It's my understanding they can't do that unless they have some reason to believe I don't have a license or that some crime is being comitted. Why should it be any different for OC?

I pretty much said the same thing as part of my concern with that when I emailed Rep Martin. He emailed me back and asked for my number so that he could call me, but alas I missed the email and didn't get back to him until after 5pm so we'll see if he calls me tomorrow.
 

JBURGII

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
612
Location
A, A
Bottom line is that allowing LEOs to stop me and ask for my permit just because I OC and with no reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed is comparable to allowing LEOs to pull me over to check my driver's license just because they saw me driving a car. It's my understanding they can't do that unless they have some reason to believe I don't have a license or that some crime is being comitted. Why should it be any different for OC?

This is what our Brothers in California have to deal with during an e-check, it is my opinion that this creates an unneccesary safety risk, not even taking into consideration the lack of probable cause.
 

hrdware

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
740
Location
Moore, OK
It is my understanding that Rep Tibbs has said SB129 will get another hearing at next weeks committee meeting. As of yet, it has not made it onto the agenda.

And I agree that LEO should not be able to ask for a permit without RAS. Oklahoma is currently a required to notify state when you are stopped and CC. However if you have to do that when OC, that would be a pain....papers please. If that makes it into the bill, I think I would have to ask my reps to vote no. :(
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
I just got off the phone with my rep and he told me that the committee has decided not to hear it next week and that it is dead for the year. Additionally he said that the checking for a permit is likely to not go away and that there's a precedent for it thanks to game gardens being able to ask to see a permit when out fishing and the like. Which means we will need to be sure to fight to try and make sure that the next time it come around that you don't need a permit, or for JBURGII's thing to get the final approval that oc is already legal for all.

The reason they won't hear it is because they are worried about it setting a precedent.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Lobby heavy during the off season. Get to know your legislators personally. Give them solid, definitive information on states like Virginia where unlicensed OC is an accepted norm.
Back that up with data on armed citizens being generally safer that LEOs etc, etc.

And most of all vote and vote wisely. Campaign for the good guys/friends of freedom.
 

hrdware

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
740
Location
Moore, OK
I just got off the phone with my rep and he told me that the committee has decided not to hear it next week and that it is dead for the year. Additionally he said that the checking for a permit is likely to not go away and that there's a precedent for it thanks to game gardens being able to ask to see a permit when out fishing and the like. Which means we will need to be sure to fight to try and make sure that the next time it come around that you don't need a permit, or for JBURGII's thing to get the final approval that oc is already legal for all.

The reason they won't hear it is because they are worried about it setting a precedent.

That's kind of like saying a game warden can ask for your permit if they see you walking with a fishing pole. I think they actually have to catch you with the line in some water.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
That's kind of like saying a game warden can ask for your permit if they see you walking with a fishing pole. I think they actually have to catch you with the line in some water.

oh I don't agree with it, I was simply relaying what was told to me over the phone. There was more said that I didn't agree with that I can post later if people care, but I don't feel like trying to post it from my phone.
 

Mirge

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
73
Location
Broken Arrow, OK
oh I don't agree with it, I was simply relaying what was told to me over the phone. There was more said that I didn't agree with that I can post later if people care, but I don't feel like trying to post it from my phone.

Yes please post :)

I've been pointing people from OKShooters.com here as well.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Here's the rough outline of how the conversation went.

1) The bill is dead as they don't want to set a precedent. My guess would be that the precedent would be that they would simply vote on "amended" bills, never letting the original bill die until they manage to ram something through or waste a ton of time.

2) He believed that the only reason officers can't arbitrarily pull people over and check for license/insurance is because there's a law specifically against it (he didn't sound too sure that that was the case, that was just what he thought).

3) There was already precedence for checking for licenses when doing actively doing something as a game warden can check your permit when fishing/hunting.

4) He doesn't believe the issue of officers being able to check permits will go away next year. He said that he could learn to live with it and that he didn't really see cops abusing it. Basically he said that cops likely wouldn't stop you unless they had a reason because otherwise they would be constantly stopping people and the cops would never get anything done (he also related this to #1 in that even if cops could stop any car they wouldn't because they wouldn't get anything done). He also believed that it would be a real simple/cordial stop where the cop calls you over, you hand him your permit, and then you go on your way.

5) He talked about working on a bill for next year, but he naturally didn't give any specifics. He also said that he doesn't support any of the concerns that were raised even though he could deal with some of them if it meant he could open carry, though I didn't think to ask if he supported everyone being able to carry or only those with a CWL.


My biggest issue is naturally with #4 as I see it being abused by the people who don't support OC. I would also say that he is either a bit naive with what can happen when dealing with cops* as a regular citizen and not as a well known person (especially not as a legislator).

As for #3 I can see what he's saying. The act of carrying a fishing pole doesn't require a permit, but fishing does and so when fishing you could be checked for your permit (as fishing is the act that the permit allows). As the bill would have required one to have a CWL to carry, that means carrying would have been the act that is licensed and so by following the same logic as the fishing stop they could stop you to make sure you're licensed. Basically if fishing=act=check for permit, then OCing=act=check for permit.

cops* I said it like this because I know that a lot of them are fine, but it would be the few bad cops that make most of the harassment stops.
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
I feel bad for you guys. Looks like we'll get licensed OC here in Florida. More ammunition for you next year. I'm sure the few holdout states will have OC. What a shame that the Senate was so favorable, yet the House so fascist. Be sure to vote the jackboots out. And remember, republican pols are just jack booted thugs who like American flags and Apple Pie. Get to know the reps personally and discuss OC with them.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Basically if fishing=act=check for permit, then OCing=act=check for permit.

Extremely faulty logic/comparison.

Carrying fishing pole/not fishing = carrying holstered gun.

Using fishing pole for designed purpose = shooting gun.

While your here officer do you want to check to see if my vehicle is stolen, whether I am employed, if I have paid my taxes, if these kids are mine or if I might be a fugitive from justice? :banghead:
 

JBURGII

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
612
Location
A, A
I just got off the phone with my rep and he told me that the committee has decided not to hear it next week and that it is dead for the year. Additionally he said that the checking for a permit is likely to not go away and that there's a precedent for it thanks to game gardens being able to ask to see a permit when out fishing and the like. Which means we will need to be sure to fight to try and make sure that the next time it come around that you don't need a permit, or for JBURGII's thing to get the final approval that oc is already legal for all.

The reason they won't hear it is because they are worried about it setting a precedent.

With this bill being doa, I am ramping up production on my route through the AG's office. I am going to finalize everything tomorrow and get it ready to send. I have a couple of folks (law enforcement/legal pros) to sign on with their opinions so as to give it more weight.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Extremely faulty logic/comparison.

Carrying fishing pole/not fishing = carrying holstered gun.

Using fishing pole for designed purpose = shooting gun.

While your here officer do you want to check to see if my vehicle is stolen, whether I am employed, if I have paid my taxes, if these kids are mine or if I might be a fugitive from justice? :banghead:

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm saying I can see how they can make the arguement of precedence. You have to look at what the permit allows you to do. Permit A allows you to fish, and thus while fishing it is checked. Permit B allows you to open carry, and thus is checked while carrying. All of your other examples are simply hyperbole as none of them require a permit.

And if they are to try and make this sort of precedence arguement to allow for cops to check the permit then it is even more important to make sure that OCing doesn't require a permit.

With this bill being doa, I am ramping up production on my route through the AG's office. I am going to finalize everything tomorrow and get it ready to send. I have a couple of folks (law enforcement/legal pros) to sign on with their opinions so as to give it more weight.

Sounds good, hopefully by the end of May we can OC without too much concern of harassment; if not sooner.
 
Last edited:
Top