SB129 - Unlicensed open carry bill passes Oklahoma Senate, moves to House

[JBURGII]

There was a committee amendment filed to this today. It turns the bill back into Concealed Carry with an open option.

However I did send an email to Rep Steve Martin with a question. One thing the CWL specifically does not allow is the "intentional display of the pistol". If someone open carries, then to me that seems like an intentional display of the weapon.

As a shall notify state, it does specifically say you only have to notify LEO if you are being arrested, detained, or routine traffic stop.

Got a reply from Rep Martin. He said he read it as keeping your firearm in your pocket or holstered.

This bill is set to be heard in committee, Wednesday April 6, at 10:30 AM Room 432A. This is the 2nd item on the agenda. Well first other than Welcome and Introduction.

Will they discuss/vote on the amendment first? Or is the amendment already considered part of the bill?

 

[Mirge]

According to OSA, SB129 is dead... sigh..

Public Safety Committee

2011-2012 Regular Session


SENATE BILL 129 Handgun - open carry
Osborn

DO PASS AS AMENDED BY CS FAILED

YEAS: 8 RCS# 51
NAYS: 9 4/06/2011
C/P : 0 11:11 AM


YEAS: 8

Bennett Jordan Peterson Tibbs
Cockroft Martin, St. Thomsen Vaughan


NAYS: 9

Cannaday Hoskin Ownbey
Cox Joyner Renegar
Hardin McAffrey Roan


CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE: 0

 

[JamesG]

It is my understanding, however, that the bill can be called for reconsideration in the committee OR can be brought to the floor despite being defeated in committee with the support of at least 1/3 of the full house. Is this not the case? Everyone please get busy contacting all the reps and the governor and let's do all we can to save this bill.

 

[Mirge]

No idea, I'm waiting on hrdware to chime in with his expertise & thoughts...

 

[hrdware]

No idea, I'm waiting on hrdware to chime in with his expertise & thoughts...

I have thoughts, but not so sure about expertise...lol.

Generally the order of things, is to vote on the amendment, then vote on the bill as amended. There was not call for that in this case because the amendment was a committee amendment, not an individual amendment to the bill.

In any case, SB129 is not quite dead yet.

The Public Safety Committee vote was on Do Pass As Amended. This vote failed, which means the committee retains possession of the bill. Had the committee voted on a Do Not Pass, then SB129 would have died.

This means that the committee can still work on the bill and take it up again next week. If the bill does not come out of the committee next week, a discharge petition may be filed to bring it to the House Floor. This discharge petition must be signed by 2/3 of the representatives (68 for an exact number).

If the Public Safety Committee votes Do Not Pass next week the bill is dead. If it doesn't get out of committee then a discharge petition (likely to fail again) would bring it to the floor.

 

[JamesG]

Just got a reply back from Rep. Martin.

James,

We are going to make a few changes and request reconsideration next week. If that fails, SB129 will be dead for this year. I am about 85% confident that we can get this to the floor.

Steve Martin

 

[77zach]

Why do the people elect freedom haters?

 

[Aknazer]

Just got a reply back from Rep. Martin.

could you ask what type of changes they are looking at making.

 

[JBURGII]

Agenda for Thursday, morning coffee... email, phone call, email, phone call, email, phone call, email, phone call, etc.. etc.. until I am hoarse and my fingers bleed.....

 

[Mirge]

Agenda for Thursday, morning coffee... email, phone call, email, phone call, email, phone call, email, phone call, etc.. etc.. until I am hoarse and my fingers bleed.....

:banana::banana::banana:

 

[JamesG]

could you ask what type of changes they are looking at making.

From Rep. Martin:

James,

I won’t be drafting the changes. The person who will be drafting them will make those decisions based on input she receives from committee members. I can tell you a few areas of concern raised in committee questions:

There is no required weapon retention training in the concealed carry curriculum. Fear was expressed that criminals could easily disarm a private citizen since trained law enforcement officers are often disarmed.

The bill doesn’t require locking holsters which could cause accidents or assist the aforementioned criminals in disarming the citizen.

Probably the most concern was expressed over the fact that a law enforcement officer would not be able to request to see the permit based solely on the fact that a person was openly carrying a firearm. This was also an issue last year when Rex Duncan was presenting the bill, but it passed over that objection at the time.

Understand that I don’t share these concerns, but I would like to have the ability to carry a decent sized pistol in something other than my pocket, so I am willing to address them.

Steve Martin

 

[Mirge]

From Rep. Martin:

I'm glad your representative actually seems to give 2 craps about it.

I'm not thrilled with the potential changes, but I would come to terms with them vs NO open carry.

 

[Aknazer]

Thanks James. I decided to email Rep. Martin directly with my issues. My biggest concern on that list is if cops were able to stop you and request to see your permit should you be OCing. I see something like that being abused by cops who don't approve of OC to then harrass LACs.

 

[Grapeshot]

Ah the citizen OC gun snatch raises its ugly head yet again.

While it is difficult to prove a negative, let's try one more time:

Show me one verifiable incident (w/cite) where a legally OCing honest person has ever been subjected to such anywhere in these United States in modern times. LEOs, security guards and military personnel are excluded.

Will it happen someday? Likely so, but when it does the resulting numerical odds (percentage/decimal value) will look something like .00001%.

Ask your legislators if they wish to protect that which does not need protecting - the .00001% of people - at the expense of the rest. It is just another "what if," blood in the street, OK corral line of thinking with zero reality.

 

[Aknazer]

I agree grapes but I'm torn. On one side I want to be able to oc with no strings attached but on the other I understand that might not be possible right away. Especially with what I've heard about some of the people in the house currently.

 

[jcizzle]

I'm with Aknazer. I'd love no stings but willing to have some form and fight to move onto step two next year rather than sitting here next year hoping for step 1 again.

 

[Grapeshot]

I agree grapes but I'm torn. On one side I want to be able to oc with no strings attached but on the other I understand that might not be possible right away. Especially with what I've heard about some of the people in the house currently.

I understand the desire , but how is it OCing "without any strings attached" when you are bound with wire? First get training in retention techniques, then have an approved retention holster, agree to be stopped and checked at will by LEOs - that is a nasty burden to exercise what should be your right. Next time around maybe a special permit for OC with additional qualifiers.

It can be more difficult to correct a bad law than it is to get it worked out in the beginning. Best place to change things is at the polls.

 

[Aknazer]

I understand the desire , but how is it OCing "without any strings attached" when you are bound with wire? First get training in retention techniques, then have an approved retention holster, agree to be stopped and checked at will by LEOs - that is a nasty burden to exercise what should be your right. Next time around maybe a special permit for OC with additional qualifiers.

It can be more difficult to correct a bad law than it is to get it worked out in the beginning. Best place to change things is at the polls.

I think you misunderstood me. One side is no strings attached and the other is with strings. Depending on what the strings are i might be willing to deal with them in order to chip away at the OC stigma and work towards no strings. For example I wouldn't be willing to deal with having officers stop me and asking to see my permit as that would be horribly abused by cops that don't like people ocing. While with the retention holster thing I think it's stupid but it would be a small thing to give up in order to advance gun rights.

I can also see how it's harder to fix a bad law than right a good law, but what about when a state isn't ready for the good law and so our only options are nothing or a few strings but overall advancement of the cause. Again it all would depend on what types of strings they were to try and attach and it obviously wouldn't be ideal.

 

[jcizzle]

Problem I haven't seen mentioned

Here's a problem I have with mandatory training that I haven't heard mentioned and am surprised it hasn't been brought up.

- Mandatory training means a false inflated demand on weapons retention classes.
- Due to the government caused inflated demand, prices on these classes skyrocket.
- Sometime in the next couple of years, legislators come to the rescue to save us from a false market they created and they set a cap limit on price of these classes.
- One more instance of govt officials regulating pricing in an industry has occurred.

Look to the early days of concealed carry. Is this not what happened?

 

[jcizzle]

maybe if we all go through retention training the way LEOs do, we can be responsible gun owners like these guys http://www.koco.com/news/20496721/detail.html