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/2011/04/1...ry-killed-in-public-safety-committee-meeting/

russcook said:

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/2011/04/1...ry-killed-in-public-safety-committee-meeting/

Click to expand...

FIRE everyone of those sorry good for nothing @$#!%#^^$! :cuss:
My hats off to the young man with the camera. "You busted the fool's chops". :banana:

Wow, contempt of constituents. What jerks. I hope this video gets out so people can see the arrogance of their Representatives.

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.

russcook said:

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/2011/04/1...ry-killed-in-public-safety-committee-meeting/

Click to expand...

Holy crap, Queen Tibbs! I expected the next words out of her mouth to be, "Off with 'is 'ead!"

gprod55 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I share your utter disgust.... could not be more pissed.

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.

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.

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.

Motofixxer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Here is the exact wording:

Section 2-26 of the Oklahoma Constitution said:

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.

Click to expand...

I feel like that old lady has never been told "no" in her life.

Patriot2A said:

I feel like that old lady has never been told "no" in her life.

Click to expand...

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

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

russcook said:

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/2011/04/1...ry-killed-in-public-safety-committee-meeting/

Click to expand...

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

RickWolfe said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

MM_45 said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1

Fire them!! Fire them ALL!!!!

RickWolfe said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

RickWolfe said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Kingfish said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Aknazer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.