Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: House determined to kill Open Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member russcook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    114

    Angry House determined to kill Open Carry

    The House leadership appears to be set against Open Carry.
    An attempt to get the discharge petition to the floor so the bill
    could be debated and voted on was squashed by the Floor Leader
    and the House Chairman.

    There appears to be SOME question regarding how to deal with
    a dischare petition.

    See the recorded video here:


    http://okhouse.granicus.com/MediaPla...=2&clip_id=210
    Morning session
    At 1:20:23 in the video

    When this video ends, the afternoon session begins automatically.
    At 1:49:11 in the video
    At 1:50:51
    At 2:21:00 to 2:26:30
    At 4:08:00 to 4:28:42

    I was so angry by the end of it all that I could have chewed nails.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    I have been saying for awhile that House leadership is against this.

    It is my belief that they passed it last session because they new it would be vetoed. The Gov. Fallen used it as part of her running platform. She said she would sign it if it made it to her desk. No the House leadership is doing everything they can to keep it off her desk.

    SB129 is a better OC bill that passed out of the Senate. It will be interesting to see how the House handles this bill.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    580

    Angry

    It's all a bunch of political garbage IMO. They are supposed to represent us not be against us. We want it and they don't.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Is this them trying to kill the Senate OC bill?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Posts
    73
    subscribing.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Is this them trying to kill the Senate OC bill?
    No, the Senate bill has not yet been introduced to the House yet. Just them trying to kill their own OC bills. Oh, and also the one that would allow active duty and vets to get a lifetime CWL.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    No, the Senate bill has not yet been introduced to the House yet. Just them trying to kill their own OC bills. Oh, and also the one that would allow active duty and vets to get a lifetime CWL.
    I especially would have liked a lifetime CWL.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by russcook View Post

    There appears to be SOME question regarding how to deal with
    a discharge petition.
    My question is, how do we go about getting a list of the folks who voted to uphold the "decision(?) of the chair?" Whatever that decision was............

    It was a recorded vote. Where do we go to get the details?

    We need to hold these jokers' feet to the fire. They think they can get by with this BS because we're nothing but dummies. Well, THIS dummy wants to confront them individually................

    -jwcusa-

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744

    The proof is in the procedural crap

    It's about 11:45 at night and the house just passed HB1647.....but don't do the dance of joy just yet, lets dig through the big pile of crap that is our government at work.

    As introduced, this bill had a line that allowed open carry for those that had a "reasonable belief of bodily harm". It also provided a lifetime CWL for veterans and active duty personnel.

    This bill died in committee.

    This bill was the subject of a discharge petition that did receive the correct number of signatures...68.

    The discharge petition was filed in the clerks office Tuesday 3/15 at approx 10:30 am.

    At 3:25pm it was placed in the general order for available consideration on Wednesday 3/16, 3:25 PM.

    Sometime before Wednesday 3/16 3:25 PM, Amendments were filed, meaning consideration could not take place until Thursday 3/17, 3:25 PM.

    On Wednesday 3/16 at 10:30 PM a motion was made and passed to suspend rules and consider the bill early.

    The first amendment, which was to strike the OC clause, was withdrawn.

    On to amendment 2, which would have removed the section about OC and replaced it with other language about restoring gun rights to convicted felons after serving there sentence. For some reason Rep Bennett (the author of the bill) wanted to accept this amendment. There were objections and a vote ensued. The amendment failed.

    There was a motion to Move the question. (No more amendments and vote on the bill). The motion passed.

    Now on to the bill....right??? Wrong. Since the bill in it's current form would have allowed for OC, Floor Leader Sullivan said that since there was a fiscal impact that no-one brought up, the motion to Move the question should be rescinded. So then came the debate. At this point Rep Bennett debated against rescission, quoting the 2A and saying it was our right and to vote against the political machine and political pressures. During Rep Sullivan's debate for the rescission, he stated that some of the 68 members who signed the discharge petition were misled. Therefore Rep Reynolds asked the chair to remind the Floor Leader to not impute other members in his debate. Reb Bennett tried to get Sullivan reprimanded but could not bring the motion to the floor as debate was going on. The vote to rescind passed.

    If this wasn't good enough, Floor Leader Sullivan, then moved that the advancement of the bill from the general order should be rescinded as well. Meaning the bill would go back on the general order to be available for consideration after 3:25 of Thursday 3/17. This failed.

    Next, one of Floor Leader Sullivan's buddies made a motion to strike the title of the bill due to the fiscal impact. A bill can not become law without a title. This motion failed.

    No back to the bill and the last amendment, this amendment added text to the OC clause so that only those who had requested an Emergency Order of Protection or had been granted one would be allowed to open carry. Rep Bennett accepted this as a friendly amendment and it was accepted without issue.

    The bill then was voted on and passed from the house.

    So thanks to working late and not thinking, along with political crap, the house now has a bill that allows only those who have filed for an Emergency Order of Protection, or have been granted an Emergency order of Protection the ability to OC in the state of OK. Hopefully the Senate will fix 1289.6 and allow all citizens to openly carry. For some reason though, I don't see the House and Senate agreeing on this and it all going down in flames.
    Last edited by hrdware; 03-17-2011 at 10:05 AM. Reason: Corrected time

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by jwcoopusa View Post
    My question is, how do we go about getting a list of the folks who voted to uphold the "decision(?) of the chair?" Whatever that decision was............

    It was a recorded vote. Where do we go to get the details?

    We need to hold these jokers' feet to the fire. They think they can get by with this BS because we're nothing but dummies. Well, THIS dummy wants to confront them individually................

    -jwcusa-
    You could probably get that information from the House Clerk's office.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Washita County, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    Since the bill in it's current form would have allowed for OC
    Wrong.

    Open carry would still be a criminal act. All the bill added was a defense against Unlawful Carry. That defense is a "reasonable fear of bodily harm" that must be articulated to the arresting officer and/or to the prosecution.

    This was not a good bill to support. Based on the arguments made by some Representatives (namely Reynolds), I would give the benefit of the doubt that most legislators did not know exactly what they were voting on. There was quite an uproar about some of them possibly being mislead by those circulating the discharge petition. The claim was that Oklahoma gun owners supporting open carry wanted this particular bill. I can't find a single open carry support who finds the language of HB1647 acceptable once they learn what the so-called open carry language actually is.

    In my opinion, anyone who supports HB1647 (with or without the Virgin amendment) as an "open carry" bill does not support open carry in Oklahoma. I seriously doubt the motives of the organizations and that were pushing the discharge petition on open carry grounds with the language in the bill.

    Rep. Derby filed a Notice of Motion to Reconsider. Because today is the deadline for bills to be heard in the chamber of origin, today is the only day that motion can be made instead of the usual 3-day period.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Altenhofel View Post
    Wrong.

    Open carry would still be a criminal act. All the bill added was a defense against Unlawful Carry. That defense is a "reasonable fear of bodily harm" that must be articulated to the arresting officer and/or to the prosecution.
    I disagree on this point. Section 1289.6 lists Conditions Under Which Firearms May Be Carried. It says nothing about a defense against 1272. We can argue semantics and technicalities, but the end result is the same....citizens would be allowed to open carry if they had a "reasonable fear of bodily harm".

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Altenhofel View Post
    This was not a good bill to support. Based on the arguments made by some Representatives (namely Reynolds), I would give the benefit of the doubt that most legislators did not know exactly what they were voting on. There was quite an uproar about some of them possibly being mislead by those circulating the discharge petition. The claim was that Oklahoma gun owners supporting open carry wanted this particular bill. I can't find a single open carry support who finds the language of HB1647 acceptable once they learn what the so-called open carry language actually is.

    In my opinion, anyone who supports HB1647 (with or without the Virgin amendment) as an "open carry" bill does not support open carry in Oklahoma. I seriously doubt the motives of the organizations and that were pushing the discharge petition on open carry grounds with the language in the bill.

    Rep. Derby filed a Notice of Motion to Reconsider. Because today is the deadline for bills to be heard in the chamber of origin, today is the only day that motion can be made instead of the usual 3-day period.
    I agree with this part. I have never supported or liked the "reasonable fear" clauses in any of the proposed legislation. It is to subjective.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Washita County, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    I disagree on this point. Section 1289.6 lists Conditions Under Which Firearms May Be Carried. It says nothing about a defense against 1272. We can argue semantics and technicalities, but the end result is the same....citizens would be allowed to open carry if they had a "reasonable fear of bodily harm".
    The citizen would have the burden of proof that they had "reasonable fear of bodily harm".

    21 O.S. 1272 states "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry upon or about his or her person, or in a purse or other container belonging to the person, any pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle whether loaded or unloaded...except this section shall not prohibit...The carrying or use of weapons in a manner otherwise permitted by statute or authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act[.]"

    21 O.S. 1289.6 serves as a list of defenses against Unlawful Carry of an unconcealed firearm. All of these exceptions are evident on the surface. A reasonable fear of bodily harm is not generally evident on the surface unless the threat is immediate. This leaves it up to the citizen to articulate their reasonable fear of bodily harm and a court to rule that fear as "reasonable".

    So by default, merely carrying a firearm openly would still be a crime. A citizen would still have to prove in court that they met the reasonable fear provision which would cost them a few hundred dollars in attorney fees each time.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Altenhofel View Post
    The citizen would have the burden of proof that they had "reasonable fear of bodily harm".

    21 O.S. 1272 states "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry upon or about his or her person, or in a purse or other container belonging to the person, any pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle whether loaded or unloaded...except this section shall not prohibit...The carrying or use of weapons in a manner otherwise permitted by statute or authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act[.]"

    21 O.S. 1289.6 serves as a list of defenses against Unlawful Carry of an unconcealed firearm. All of these exceptions are evident on the surface. A reasonable fear of bodily harm is not generally evident on the surface unless the threat is immediate. This leaves it up to the citizen to articulate their reasonable fear of bodily harm and a court to rule that fear as "reasonable".

    So by default, merely carrying a firearm openly would still be a crime. A citizen would still have to prove in court that they met the reasonable fear provision which would cost them a few hundred dollars in attorney fees each time.
    I have stated I am not arguing "defense" vs "allowed" it's pointless.

    I also agree that burden of proof of "reasonable fear" is a bad thing. There are 4 reps that have filed amendments to HB1796 and those amendments have "reasonable fear" clauses. I emailed all 4 of those reps asking for clarification of "reasonable fear" and have heard nothing from them.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Washita County, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    5
    The "reasonable fear" clause is acceptable as an addition in the context of HB1796. In that case, it provides an emergency option of sorts for those who do not have the luxury of waiting 30-90 days for a permit.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Altenhofel View Post
    The "reasonable fear" clause is acceptable as an addition in the context of HB1796. In that case, it provides an emergency option of sorts for those who do not have the luxury of waiting 30-90 days for a permit.
    They are identical to the original clause that was in Bennett's bill.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Washita County, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    They are identical to the original clause that was in Bennett's bill.
    Yes, the clause is the same. But those floor amendments are ADDING to the bill, not replacing the language already in there.

    In other words, in addition to a handgun license for open or concealed carry, there would also be a provision to serve as an option for open carry during a personal emergency without a license.

    Anyway, HB1796 is practically dead. Tibbs still doesn't have a Senate author, the Leadership wants out by 6PM, and most of the Senators have gone home for the week.

    That means our only options are to push our Representatives hard on SB129 or push our Senators to strike Section 1 of or amend HB1647.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Altenhofel View Post
    Yes, the clause is the same. But those floor amendments are ADDING to the bill, not replacing the language already in there.

    In other words, in addition to a handgun license for open or concealed carry, there would also be a provision to serve as an option for open carry during a personal emergency without a license.

    Anyway, HB1796 is practically dead. Tibbs still doesn't have a Senate author, the Leadership wants out by 6PM, and most of the Senators have gone home for the week.

    That means our only options are to push our Representatives hard on SB129 or push our Senators to strike Section 1 of or amend HB1647.
    Regardless of if the "reasonable fear" clause is original or added to, it is still bad language IMO.

    It is now 11:08 on Thursday, 3/17/2011 and the House just adjourned.

    1796 is officially dead. The house voted yesterday to allow the Senate to have today off. So now it is down to fixing HB1647 or get SB129 passed.

    Personally I don't see our reps passing SB129. It is going to the Pub Safety committee in the house and I would be willing to bet that Rep Tibbs will not give it a hearing.

    HB1674 can probably be amended in the Senate, but I doubt the House will accept the amendments. I hope suitable replacements can be found for Sullivan at his next election in 2010. Tibbs and Steele are term limited out in 2012.
    Last edited by hrdware; 03-18-2011 at 12:27 AM. Reason: typos

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744

    Video Link

    Here is a video link to the way HB1647 was brought up and played out.

    Link to the video

    Under the video scroll down and select the last item to watch it all unfold for your self.

Posting Permissions

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