"Gun rights group" opposes open carry

http://www.kfor.com/news/sns-ap-ok-xgr--opencarry-opposition,0,3706094.story

What is this garbage? "Gun rights group" my hairy bum. Read the ridiculous argument this group is making. It's the same kind of "logic" one would expect from the Brady bunch.

Some real "gun rights" group(s) need to expose these phonies and their absurd position and explain why open carry must be a legal option for those that carry a firearm.

i oppose gun right groups who oppose open carry.

Here's an interesting thread on Oklahoma Shooters Assn. forum about this:

http://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?115673-Oklahoma-Rifle-Association-ORA-opposes-open-carry

From the first link:

ORA President Don Scott says the group is opposing the measure because the purchase of handguns by anyone under 21 is a violation of federal law and that allowing citizens to carry rifles and shotguns into businesses or on the street will create "an atmosphere of hostility and distrust." Scott also cited concerns that law enforcement officers have with the proposal.

Click to expand...

My comment posted on the article:

Mr. Scott isn't very knowledgable, is he?
It's perfectly legal for someone 18-21 to buy any gun; they just can't do it from a federally-licensed dealer... (you know, the ones who have to run background checks to make sure people aren't felons or mentally incompetent or don't have restraining orders?) Instead, young adults have to buy in private sales, where sellers cannot do a background check even if they want to.

Second, doesn't OK have concealed carry? If so, people are already carrying. (And of course, criminals do whatever they want.) Add to that the (almost) complete lack of any problem with the practice in any of the umpty-leven other states that don't prohibit open carry. (And most of those problems are caused by police not knowing the laws they're hired to enforce.) I OC pretty much daily. Most people don't notice, and the ones that do aren't alarmed, even in banks.

And the concerns of law enforcement don't mean a thing. If they keep up on developments in their professional field, they know that the FBI says criminals don't carry openly, & citizens who carry guns for defense OCers are very very rarely involved in committing a crime.

Besides, I've known of maybe 3 people who have OCd a rifle or shotgun - usually to make some kind of point, once because that was the only workable way to exercise his RKBA in the situation.

No one ever said the ORA was terribly bright.

First was all the internal fighting they had trying to decide if OC or CC was better. Does this really matter for a gun rights group? I think not.

And what about those persons under the age of 21 who receive a firearm as a gift? Still legal for them to posses after the age of 18.

Glad I never gave this group any money.

Wow. And here I thought the TSRA set the standard for ridiculous fears of political backlash from anti-gunners. Turns out the Okies are even worse!

HaHa!!! :lol:
Now im not so jealous of you Oklahoma's.
Your state firearms association is no different than the one we have right here in Texas. The TSRA's lobbyist has been doing nothing but opposing open carry in Texas because she doesnt approve of it. "She said it's not civil to show your gun's". :cuss:

Looks like Oklahoma needs to do what Texan's did. Something like lonestarcdl.org. :banana:
Stop giving your money to people who have no desire to help your right to carry. :banghead:

How sad! Even Ca has OC! it may be a restricted in some ways and gone by the end of the year but Dame. A gun group thats anti gun.

Have to wonder if the sponsor of this proposal would consider moving straight to Constitutional Carry and how that would impact chances of passage.

I understand baby steps, but I also understand one giant leap for Oklahoma.

Compliment all of you for not attacking ORA directly, but instead deriding their faulty logic and message.

You never know what will happen.

In OK, a bill has to have a title on it before it can become law. Before this bill was sent to the House, the Senate removed the title. Now if the House makes any changes, the Senate still gets to approve the changes before putting the title back on the bill.

So far the House Public Safety Committee has not scheduled a hearing on the bill.

ive had a run in with some people on a cc forum. These people dont get it. ask them where they would stand when they make the flag socially unacceptable, the libs are working on that one now, they have pretty much succeeded in doing it with the cross. These people are just gun owning sheep. Im sure they have their white flags ready for judgement day.

"Jim,
Thank you for your letter. At this time the ORA is opposing only one bill, SB129 which would allow 18 year olds to carry shotguns or rifles on slings in cities and into businesses with out a background check or training. Read SB129 and see if you don't agree this is bad legislation.
Sincerely,
Dale Schuster
Vice President
ORA "

This is in response to a request for clarification on their position.

Here's the letter I just sent to the ORA, let's see how he responds:


Subject: Lying, Misleading, or Just Plain Uninformed?

Mr. Scott,

I recently read your letter that is in opposition to SB129. In it you state that it is against federal law for anyone under 21 to buy a handgun. This statement is wrong. Anyone that is 18-20 can buy a handgun in a private sale in states where private sales are legal. The federal law says that you simply must be 21+ to buy a gun from a federally lisenced dealer. But most gun sales in the U.S. don't go through FLDs, and are instead sold by private sellers. As Oklahoma is one of the many states that allows the private sale of guns that also means that it is already legal for an 18-20 year old to buy a handgun in Oklahoma. Additionally it is also legal for an 18-20 year old to be given a handgun as a gift from a relative.

Additionally your comments about the OC of long guns and shotguns doesn't appear to be grounded in fact, but rather in either fear or ignorance. People almost never openly carry these weapons in states where it's legal (unless they're doing it to make a point), and it takes far longer to actually pull out and shoot a properly carried rifle/shotgun than a handgun. Also there's the fact that criminals don't care about the law (look at all the gun crime in "gun free zones") and that they generally try to conceal their weapon even when it's legal to OC (even the Tucson shooter attempted to CC his weapon until he was ready to start firing). And finally I'm curious as to how you come to the conclusion that the carrying of rifles and shotguns will create an "atmosphere of hostility and distrust." Besides the fact that I stated earlier in that people almost never OC rifles/shotguns, why should a RIGHT be infringed upon because of someone else's fear? It would be better to educate these people than give into their fear. And since this OC could create an "atmosphere of hostility and distrust" does that mean we should restrict the first amendment as well since words regularly create such an atmosphere of hostility and distrust?

In closing I would ask that you at least correct your statement about the selling of handguns to reflect what the actual law says about selling them. If you are truely a supporter of the second amendment then I ask that you rescind your previous statement and that you base your future comments on actual fact and law instead of other people's fears.

Sincerely,
Chris Rezanka

Jim,
First and foremost, there is no ulterior motive as you put it.
It was the ORA (not a certain "gun mart" in OKC who tries to take the credit) who wrote, sponsored, (with the help of Senator Frank Shurden) passed the Oklahoma SDA in 1995 and supported the pro CC changes in the years after.
We are the sponsors of the "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your ground" laws now on the books in Oklahoma. We are "PRO-GUN"!

(Reverend, I'm getting a little tired of past lies fabricated by many who never "walked the halls"with or supported the ORA but attempt to take the credit for passage of pro-gun legislation in Oklahoma so, please forgive me if I sound a little "put out" over this.)

OK,
I'm not concerned with what other states with OC are doing at this time ORA is concerned with Oklahoma. Here's what SB129 says about 18 year olds and OC. The key is the subsection A Section 1277 (Oklahoma Title 21)

Obviously 18 year olds are not OC here at this time but, SB129, if it becomes law will allow it.
Jim, Please understand, I've had 38 years experience reading these proposed bills and interpreting what they will and will not do. It isn't rocket science. A legislator once made the statement, "Look at legislation not for the good it will do but for the harm it can do if enforced improperly".

Below are the three sections of SB129 will allow 18 year olds to OC into businesses and on the streets.


First: A person shall be permitted to carry loaded and unloaded shotguns, rifles and pistols, open and not concealed and without a handgun license

Second: . When carried in a holster that is wholly or partially visible or in a scabbard, case or with a sling designed for carrying firearms that is wholly or partially visible and the person is eighteen (18) years of age or older. Any person who carries a firearm in the manner provided for in this paragraph shall be prohibited from carrying the firearm into any of the places prescribed in subsection A of Section 1277 of this title; or (the underlined portion is proposed new law)

Third: For any legitimate purpose not in violation of the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971, Sections 1289.1 through 1289.17 of this title or any legislative enactment regarding the use, ownership and control of firearms. (the strike through above is to be removed from existing law)

It will happen, don't take my word for it. Take SB129 to your attorney, see what they tell you.

Sincerely
Dale Schuster





(The msg that prompted the above response.)

Mr. Schuster,

Thank you for your respone, I appreciate you taking the time to address my concerns. In regards to sb129, I have read the bill, I have also lived in unlicensed open carry states and have not seen any evidence of 18 year old citizens OCing long guns into businesses. Do you have any evidence that this may happen or that it already has happened with negative results?
On the surface, your concerns about this bill appear to be irrational. I suspect there may be an ulterior motive, do you have any valid reason for not supporting this bill other than 'what if' scenarios?

Sincerely,
Rev. Jim Burgin II

Grapeshot said:

SNIP I understand baby steps, but I also understand one giant leap for Oklahoma.

Click to expand...

Are you sayin' its time for a wind to come sweeping down the plain?

Citizen said:

Are you sayin' its time for a wind to come sweeping down the plain?

Click to expand...

I sure am Curly.

The OK2A Response

Here is a copy of the letter that OK2A.ORG sent to the house of representatives last week.

OK2A.ORG said:

Members of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association (OK2A) were disappointed to see a recent letter from the Oklahoma Rifle Association (ORA) in opposition to pending legislation to permit open carry of firearms in the state of Oklahoma. The organization stated three reasons for their opposition, all of which were either legally incorrect or lacking supporting evidence.

The first argument was that those under 21 could not legally purchase a handgun. The truth is that it is legal for a person of age 18 years and above to purchase a handgun, rifle or shotgun from another private individual (not a licensed dealer) in the same state. It is legal for a person of age 21 years and above to purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer.

Their second argument alleges that citizens carrying openly will create an atmosphere of hostility, distrust, and fear. No supporting evidence was given to support that claim. It’s the criminals with firearms you CAN’T see that you should fear.

Their final argument is that law enforcement officers could mistake an armed citizen as a criminal and use unnecessary deadly force. Again, no facts are given to support the argument. Forty‐three other states allow open carry. ORA provided no statistics regarding lawfully armed citizens being mistakenly shot by law enforcement officers. If it were a problem, we wouldn’t have 43 other states, including California, which allow some form of open carry (see map at http://www.opencarry.org ).

These are misguided and nonfactual arguments offered by a few to restrict the Constitutional rights of the many.

The Oklahoma Second Amendment Association supports the free and unfettered exercise of ALL Constitutional rights. These are the rights that make us American citizens – not subjects.

We strongly urge everyone to demand their State Representatives support SB 129 and restore our Constitutional rights.

Visit the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association at http://www.ok2a.org.

Click to expand...

@JBURGII
I guess I don't see the problem with 18 year olds open carrying since that seems to be your biggest hangup. So, are you saying that the age should be raised to 21? 25? 30? 45? Or maybe you're simply one of the folks that likes to perpetuate the lie that 18 yr olds are still just "kids" and give them no responsibility and therefore encourage irresponsible behavior.

Maybe we should consider ALL 18 year olds as kids with no "legal" rights and subtract their right to vote, stop requiring them to pay taxes and sending them overseas to fight for your right to limit their rights.

I'm now in my 30's but by the time I reached my 21st birthday, had already been married 3 years, was 4 years into the Army, owned a home, held a full and part time job, had no debt and was just being informed of my first child on the way, but hadn't legally drank a beer and wasn't able to carry a gun.

Wouldn't you know it that is when my pregnant wife and I were approached by a drunk outside a restaraunt as we were leaving since he was upset there was a wait and we had already eaten. He was much larger than my 5'8 165lb frame at the time so luckily, there was another larger citizen willing to step in and help protect me since I as a 20 year old was not allowed by law to protect myself and pregnant bride.

It has to be one way or the other, either 18yr olds are adults and have the same resposibilities along with same rights or they are kids and we relieve them of the resposibility if we take their rights.

jcizzle said:

@JBURGII
I guess I don't see the problem with 18 year olds open carrying since that seems to be your biggest hangup. So, are you saying that the age should be raised to 21? 25? 30? 45? Or maybe you're simply one of the folks that likes to perpetuate the lie that 18 yr olds are still just "kids" and give them no responsibility and therefore encourage irresponsible behavior.

Maybe we should consider ALL 18 year olds as kids with no "legal" rights and subtract their right to vote, stop requiring them to pay taxes and sending them overseas to fight for your right to limit their rights.

I'm now in my 30's but by the time I reached my 21st birthday, had already been married 3 years, was 4 years into the Army, owned a home, held a full and part time job, had no debt and was just being informed of my first child on the way, but hadn't legally drank a beer and wasn't able to carry a gun.

Wouldn't you know it that is when my pregnant wife and I were approached by a drunk outside a restaraunt as we were leaving since he was upset there was a wait and we had already eaten. He was much larger than my 5'8 165lb frame at the time so luckily, there was another larger citizen willing to step in and help protect me since I as a 20 year old was not allowed by law to protect myself and pregnant bride.

It has to be one way or the other, either 18yr olds are adults and have the same resposibilities along with same rights or they are kids and we relieve them of the resposibility if we take their rights.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's JBURGII who has an issue with 18 year olds, but rather that was the response of the ORA and that it's the ORA who doesn't think 18 year olds should be able to carry.

And I agree with you. Either 18 year olds are old enough to be adults and should be afforded all of things that come with it (voting, drinking, carrying of weapons, etc), or we raise the age of being an "adult" and treat people under that age as if the aren't adults.

jcizzle said:

@JBURGII
I guess I don't see the problem with 18 year olds open carrying since that seems to be your biggest hangup. So, are you saying that the age should be raised to 21? 25? 30? 45? Or maybe you're simply one of the folks that likes to perpetuate the lie that 18 yr olds are still just "kids" and give them no responsibility and therefore encourage irresponsible behavior.

Maybe we should consider ALL 18 year olds as kids with no "legal" rights and subtract their right to vote, stop requiring them to pay taxes and sending them overseas to fight for your right to limit their rights.

I'm now in my 30's but by the time I reached my 21st birthday, had already been married 3 years, was 4 years into the Army, owned a home, held a full and part time job, had no debt and was just being informed of my first child on the way, but hadn't legally drank a beer and wasn't able to carry a gun.

Wouldn't you know it that is when my pregnant wife and I were approached by a drunk outside a restaraunt as we were leaving since he was upset there was a wait and we had already eaten. He was much larger than my 5'8 165lb frame at the time so luckily, there was another larger citizen willing to step in and help protect me since I as a 20 year old was not allowed by law to protect myself and pregnant bride.

It has to be one way or the other, either 18yr olds are adults and have the same resposibilities along with same rights or they are kids and we relieve them of the resposibility if we take their rights.

Click to expand...

The first section of my post was an e-mail to me from the OSA, my e-mail to them, which is posted at the bottom, is what prompted their reply.

I am in a continuing, civil discourse with Mr. Schuster from the OSA on their positions and actions associated with this bill and will post relevant portions as I can.

Rev. Jim