Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Video of SB129 Open Carry being killed in the House Public Safety Committee meeting

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

    Video of SB129 Open Carry being killed in the House Public Safety Committee meeting

    Wednesday, April 13, 2011, an effort was made to reconsider SB129 to authorize open carry.
    The committee chairman, Representative Sue Tibbs, would not hear the bill.

    http://ok2a.wordpress.com/2011/04/14...ittee-meeting/

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by russcook View Post
    Wednesday, April 13, 2011, an effort was made to reconsider SB129 to authorize open carry.
    The committee chairman, Representative Sue Tibbs, would not hear the bill.

    http://ok2a.wordpress.com/2011/04/14...ittee-meeting/
    FIRE everyone of those sorry good for nothing @$#!%#^^$!
    My hats off to the young man with the camera. "You busted the fool's chops".

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Wow, contempt of constituents. What jerks. I hope this video gets out so people can see the arrogance of their Representatives.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

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

    Angry Disgusted

    After having high hopes that this state would go to open carry and to be let down by some republicans no less just simply disgusts me. I guess Rep Tibbs is getting what she wants by making us wait another year. She can no longer affect the outcome after next year as she has served the maximum she is allowed. She can then join the sheeple and be one of the targets for thugs. S#!+ another year of concealing. If this wasn't a great state I would consider moving to a more progressive state like Arizona.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by russcook View Post
    Wednesday, April 13, 2011, an effort was made to reconsider SB129 to authorize open carry.
    The committee chairman, Representative Sue Tibbs, would not hear the bill.

    http://ok2a.wordpress.com/2011/04/14...ittee-meeting/
    Holy crap, Queen Tibbs! I expected the next words out of her mouth to be, "Off with 'is 'ead!"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by gprod55 View Post
    After having high hopes that this state would go to open carry and to be let down by some republicans no less just simply disgusts me. I guess Rep Tibbs is getting what she wants by making us wait another year. She can no longer affect the outcome after next year as she has served the maximum she is allowed. She can then join the sheeple and be one of the targets for thugs. S#!+ another year of concealing. If this wasn't a great state I would consider moving to a more progressive state like Arizona.
    I share your utter disgust.... could not be more pissed.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Neoconis Americanis strikes again! Remember, being a republican means less than nothing.

    OC is 0 for 2 this year with Arkansas and Oklahoma. We're a senate floor vote away from passing licensed OC here in Florida. If OC passes next week (we'll know the 27th, 28th, or 29th) the chance of the other red shall issue states going green or gold in the next few years is significantly enhanced. States copy each other.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    972
    Hmm if that was an accurate quote of the OK Constitution, that is a bit badly worded. Arms shall not be prohibited, but the state shall legislate the carry.
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 04-20-2011 at 01:52 PM.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    580
    Simply garbage. They are elected to be for the people NOT AGAINST them. I have another year on my orders here in Oklahoma and would love to see OC legal here before my time is up. I may have to push for orders back to Virginia.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    Hmm if that was an accurate quote of the OK Constitution, that is a bit badly worded. Arms shall not be prohibited, but the state shall legislate the carry.
    Here is the exact wording:
    Quote Originally Posted by Section 2-26 of the Oklahoma Constitution
    SECTION II-26. Bearing arms - Carrying weapons.
    The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Orange County, Va
    Posts
    54
    I feel like that old lady has never been told "no" in her life.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by Patriot2A View Post
    I feel like that old lady has never been told "no" in her life.

    Its almost like trying to talk to a 3 year old.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    1

    I am all for an open carry law, but not this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by russcook View Post
    Wednesday, April 13, 2011, an effort was made to reconsider SB129 to authorize open carry.
    The committee chairman, Representative Sue Tibbs, would not hear the bill.

    http://ok2a.wordpress.com/2011/04/14...ittee-meeting/
    I truly believe any open carry law should do little more than supersede the "conceal" portion of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, leaving everything else intact.

    Licensing ensures that a person openly carrying a firearm understands when a gun may or may not be used, where it can or can't be carried and how to handle/operate firearms safely. It also confirms that the carrier has passed a thorough Federal background check.

    This law was like doing away with driver's licenses. Making the public assume every driver is insured, can drive safely and understands the traffic laws. So, if we require a license to operate a vehicle on public roads, why wouldn't we require a license to carry a loaded weapon in public?

    The combined cost is just $200 for the initial license and prerequisites. It's good for five years, and costs less than half that for renewals. I believe it is a very reasonable expense for public safety. Whether to actually carry open or concealed is subjective to the individual. As a CCL holder myself, I would still prefer concealed. However, it would be nice not to have to worry anymore about it accidentally showing. Being able to take my jacket off in a restrauant wouldn't be bad either.

    Rick

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Duncan, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by RickWolfe View Post
    I truly believe any open carry law should do little more than supersede the "conceal" portion of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, leaving everything else intact.

    Licensing ensures that a person openly carrying a firearm understands when a gun may or may not be used, where it can or can't be carried and how to handle/operate firearms safely. It also confirms that the carrier has passed a thorough Federal background check.

    This law was like doing away with driver's licenses. Making the public assume every driver is insured, can drive safely and understands the traffic laws. So, if we require a license to operate a vehicle on public roads, why wouldn't we require a license to carry a loaded weapon in public?

    The combined cost is just $200 for the initial license and prerequisites. It's good for five years, and costs less than half that for renewals. I believe it is a very reasonable expense for public safety. Whether to actually carry open or concealed is subjective to the individual. As a CCL holder myself, I would still prefer concealed. However, it would be nice not to have to worry anymore about it accidentally showing. Being able to take my jacket off in a restrauant wouldn't be bad either.

    Rick
    Well RickWolfe driving a vehicle is a privilege not a right and owning and carrying a gun is a right not a privilege and you shouldn't need to have a license to exercise a right.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by MM_45 View Post
    Well RickWolfe driving a vehicle is a privilege not a right and owning and carrying a gun is a right not a privilege and you shouldn't need to have a license to exercise a right.
    +1

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Fire them!! Fire them ALL!!!!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by RickWolfe View Post
    I truly believe any open carry law should do little more than supersede the "conceal" portion of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, leaving everything else intact.

    Licensing ensures that a person openly carrying a firearm understands when a gun may or may not be used, where it can or can't be carried and how to handle/operate firearms safely. It also confirms that the carrier has passed a thorough Federal background check.

    This law was like doing away with driver's licenses. Making the public assume every driver is insured, can drive safely and understands the traffic laws. So, if we require a license to operate a vehicle on public roads, why wouldn't we require a license to carry a loaded weapon in public?

    The combined cost is just $200 for the initial license and prerequisites. It's good for five years, and costs less than half that for renewals. I believe it is a very reasonable expense for public safety. Whether to actually carry open or concealed is subjective to the individual. As a CCL holder myself, I would still prefer concealed. However, it would be nice not to have to worry anymore about it accidentally showing. Being able to take my jacket off in a restrauant wouldn't be bad either.

    Rick
    So then how about we make a licence to be able to talk in public since they could incite a riot or something. Or how about a licence that says you can't be unreasonably searched as you've passed a background check and what not.

    As stated a licence for a right is stupid, as are a lot of our gun laws. Training is a good thing and should be offered, but it shouldn't be mandatory. Besides then you rum into subjective issues of just what should be required, just as how permit fees are subjective and can be used to be restrictive by unscrupulous people jacking up the cost. Having to pay $300 for your initial five years and 100 every five years after that adds up over the life of a person and doesn't actually do anything to make people safer; its just a needless cost to the member.


    Oh and you sound like some of the other ORA trolls that have rolled through here with their single posts and then never posting again.
    Last edited by Aknazer; 04-28-2011 at 05:38 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by RickWolfe View Post
    This law was like doing away with driver's licenses. Making the public assume every driver is insured, can drive safely and understands the traffic laws. So, if we require a license to operate a vehicle on public roads, why wouldn't we require a license to carry a loaded weapon in public?
    Ok, I can live with that. To match your requirements:
    1) At age 15 a person may take a written test for a fee of $20 on basic firearm laws, safe firearm handling, etc.
    a) The 15 year old may now carry any small arm openly or concealed anywhere and everywhere in the nation as long as they are accompanied by an adult.

    2) At age 16 a person may take a written test for a fee of $20 on basic firearm laws, safe firearm handling, etc. There will also be a very basic live fire test.
    a) The 16 year old may now carry any small arm openly or concealed anywhere and everywhere in the nation.

    3) At age 18 a person may take an additional test that may include live fire to own, and carry ALL arms.

    4) At age 14 a person may take a written test for a fee of $20 on basic firearm laws, safe firearm handling, etc. There will also be a very basic live fire test.
    a) The 14 year old may now carry any small handgun (.38-9mm or less) openly or concealed anywhere and everywhere in the nation.

    #4 is resembling a motorcycle license...I don't know if it is still the case but when I was 14 you could get a motorcycle license for 250cc and under.


    Every 5 years the license is renewable at a cost of $20.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    Ok, I can live with that. To match your requirements:
    1) At age 15 a person may take a written test for a fee of $20 on basic firearm laws, safe firearm handling, etc.
    a) The 15 year old may now carry any small arm openly or concealed anywhere and everywhere in the nation as long as they are accompanied by an adult.

    2) At age 16 a person may take a written test for a fee of $20 on basic firearm laws, safe firearm handling, etc. There will also be a very basic live fire test.
    a) The 16 year old may now carry any small arm openly or concealed anywhere and everywhere in the nation.

    3) At age 18 a person may take an additional test that may include live fire to own, and carry ALL arms.

    4) At age 14 a person may take a written test for a fee of $20 on basic firearm laws, safe firearm handling, etc. There will also be a very basic live fire test.
    a) The 14 year old may now carry any small handgun (.38-9mm or less) openly or concealed anywhere and everywhere in the nation.

    #4 is resembling a motorcycle license...I don't know if it is still the case but when I was 14 you could get a motorcycle license for 250cc and under.


    Every 5 years the license is renewable at a cost of $20.
    My issue with this is that you're still charging people for the ability to be able to exercise a right. And once you start licensing a right it turns into a privledge.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    My issue with this is that you're still charging people for the ability to be able to exercise a right. And once you start licensing a right it turns into a privledge.
    I was not serious. It is an example to show the absurdity of comparing requiring a license to drive and a license to bear arms. No infringement is acceptable on that which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED upon.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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