...but the fact is, gun grabs happen very rarely considering the amount of time people openly carry in other states...
I would change this to say something along the lines of "but the fact is, gun grabs are so rare that one is statistically more likely to win a lottery or two than to be the target of a gun grab." Maybe even throw in the chances of winning a lottery (in decimal format as I think seeing all of those zeros will help drive the point home) so that they have an even better idea of just how small the chance is for a non-LEO to be targeted.
While talking about retention, at approximately 1:07:10, Representative Omby asks if other states require retention training. That I can find in other statutes, no other state makes a specific requirement of retention training. It may be covered in the training class but is not mentioned in statute.
I would change the bolded part to say something more along the lines of "there is no known retention training requirement for OCing in any state that allows its citizens to OC." This is more authoritative and makes you sound more assertive and sure of your response. Also remember that there's only a handful of states that require a permit to OC (and then it's only a CC permit where all of the mandatory training is on CCing). With how you have it worded it makes it easier for an anti to try and dismiss it.
Another bill made reference specifically to a firearm had to be in a belt holster. I do not believe any open carry statute should dictate the position of holster, only it must be in a holster. Requiring a belt holster, completely rules out the use of a drop leg holster that can be attached to the belt, and strapped around the upper thigh. These can provide an easier draw position for some people as well as being more comfortable that on the belt.
Another issue is that they now have to define what a "belt holster" is. Does the belt have to go through eye-holes, or can it be a simple clip (not that I would want a simple clip for an OTW holster, but if for whatever reason I'm using my ITW CC holster to OC this could become an issue)? Would a paddle-holster count since they are designed to simply go over a belt but not have the belt 100% secure it? etc.
Around 2:11:50, Major Rhodes comments that bad guys don’t open carry, and his is afraid that if open carry passes, they might. This has not been the situation in other states, the bad guys continue to illegally conceal their weapons. San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Sgt. Dave Phelps was quoted in the San Bernardino Sun on September 6, 2010 as saying “[G]ang members aren’t know to open carry.”
Maybe bring up how even the Tucson shooter had concealed his weapon up until it was time to start firing. Or how criminals almost never use holsters (I've never heard of one using a holster, but I'm sure a few have) and how they are worried about drawing attention to theirselves even if it is legal to OC.
Around 2:22:53, Major Rhodes mentions that in his mind, concealed carry is a tactical advantage because the firearm is hidden, and the guy with the gun could be the first one shot.
Open carry also has it’s own tactical advantage in that it takes less time to draw from an open holster than a concealed holster. There is no data to support the open carrier being the first person shot. People don’t look for firearms on law abiding citizens, they expect to see them on law enforcement and people in uniform. That is why the law enforcement or people in uniform are the first ones shot during altercations with criminals.
I would say the reason why LE get shot first is because it is their job to interact with and try to stop criminals. The person in uniform is directly between the criminal and their freedom and they put theirselves in that position. An OCing LAC isn't going to go out and try to put theirselves in that type of position, but rather are simply trying to defend theirself (and maybe others, but that depends on the situation). There is also the fact that an OCing LAC is an unknown that can't be reliably planned for, while a security type person is something that is known when casing a place and can be planned for.
Open carry is also a deterrent to crime. There have been documented cases where criminals have seen law abiding citizens openly carrying and have left the establishment. The most notable is the Waffle House in Kennesaw, GA., where armed robbers were arrested outside while they were waiting for four armed citizens to finish eating and leave.[/quote]
This is another spot where you can plug in the whole thing about OCers not being targeted for crime/gun grabs and again how one is more likely to win a lotto than be targeted for crime while OCing. Also maybe add in how the lack of documented cases is because when something is deterred the prevented crime is almost never reported. I would also suggest going to gunfacts.info and putting in the info about convicted felons avoiding people with guns (look at the "Myth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crime" for the info).
As other states looked at Oklahoma’s Concealed Carry law and make it their own, I think Oklahoma can look at other states laws for ideas and customize it to Oklahomans wants and needs. From reading reports from other states, many states law enforcement simply pass by someone openly carrying unless they receive a call about a person with a gun. This requires an officer to respond. Responses can very from simple observation to questioning the individual as to what they are doing.
An officer doesn't HAVE to respond. I don't have the case law to quote, but there have been multiple cases that have stated that the police don't have to defend any one person. Also some states have started training their 911 operators to ask questions like "what is the man doing" when they get a MWAG call. That way the operator can explain that a person not brandishing a weapon and simply walking around with a holstered gun is not a crime and thus help prevent wasting both the LACs time and the responding LEO(s) time.
Allowing open carry can be tricky the way Oklahoma law is currently written. Many states allow open carry simply because there is no law against it. Oklahoma has a law that specifically disallows this practice then lists exceptions as to when it is OK.
I would state how these laws (1272 and 1289.6) are unconstitutional and directly conflict with Section II-26 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Specifically "The right of a citizen to keep and
bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property...shall
never be prohibited..." but yet the quoted laws directly prohibit the carry of weapons with no exemption for self defense as the Constitution calls for. Yes the Constitution states that they can "regulate" the carrying of weapons, but these laws don't regulate, they simply prohibit.
While I support the practice of open carry and would love to see Oklahoma become a constitutional carry state or the illegal act be stricken from statute, I believe there is to much fear about firearms for this to happen at this time. It is the same fear of blood in the streets that was brought up 15 years ago when concealed carry was passed. I believe that for an open carry bill to pass now, it should be tied to the Self-Defense Act and permit.
My concern with the bolded part is that an anti can take that and use it to try and push the OC subject off to a later date by stating how "well people are scared of OC and so OK just isn't ready for it yet." The "fear of blood" has been proven wrong time and again and we should call it out for the farce that it is. IMO we should also push for what we want at the start while understanding that we will likely need to compromise. If we start off compromising then when the other side calls for compromise we either end up even further from our goal, or we look rigid and unwilling to work with the others even though we started off with a compromise.
Overall I would say it's a good letter though.
