1911er
Regular Member
WARNING TROLL ALERT!!! TROLL ALERT!!! TROLL ALERT and I can smell that one from up here in washington
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
SB129 - Unlicensed open carry bill passes Oklahoma Senate, moves to House
- Thread starter hrdware
- Start date
WARNING TROLL ALERT!!! TROLL ALERT!!! TROLL ALERT and I can smell that one from up here in washington
I have heard the new OK AG might be a bit hard to nail down and I may need a 'sponsor' for the request for an opinion. They may not make an official opinion based on a request by 'just' a citizen, it has to hold the weight of an official request by a Representative, Mayor, DA, etc.. etc..
It was suggested that I get a petition to put this up for a referendum, probably for the next year. I am open to suggestions on this.. any input will be helpful. In the mean time, I am going to contact the AG's office to see if I can find out how they wish to view a request.
We are not done yet!
Aknazer
Regular Member
Well I would guess that first we try to get him to give an opinion on it. Maybe even include that given everything you have found so far and what everyone else has said that you're planning to do an OC gathering, and are simply after his official opinion before giving gathering a green light. If he still refuses to give an opinion then I see only two options.
1) Take everything either to the govenor or a rep who has shown to be pro-OC and get them to "sponsor" you to try and force the opinion. I would guess that this route would probably take a few months, but is safer than the next option.
2) Either schedule an OC gathering or go OCing by yourself. Given that OC is currently viewed as illegal I would expect the cops to get called at some point. Here you present all of the gathered information either to the cops or to a judge. This option is riskier because chances are someone will end up getting arrested and have to go in front of a judge.
Option #1 seems like potentially the safer route unless pretty much everyone in the needed positions refuses to "sponsor" it or give it an official opinion and tries to just stonewall until they pass a new law. Option #2 seems potentially riskier, but could also potentially yield faster results (AG was told the gathering would happen, it happens and results in an arrest, case gets dropped due to all of your gathered info, AG gives official opinion on the matter) or end with case law stating that OC is already legal (though that case law would likely take the longest). Either option looks better to me than simply waiting till next year when they will likely try to make OC require a CWL again.
If you want to go with option #1 and need to find a sponsor I can see about talking with Rep Martin, but I'm not sure if he promotes OC in general, or only OC for those with a permit. I would say option #2 looks a bit more like a last resort in order to try and stop the legislation from passing a law forcing people to have a permit, specific holster/training, etc.
EDIT: I don't think a referendum would be a good way to go as it could potentially allow antis that much more time to try and counter it or to try and restrict it in some way. Also it should be noted that my tact is somewhat lacking and so there might be a better way to go about it should he refuse to give an official opinion than simply trying to force his hand under the pretense of "here's what we're planning to do unless it's said to be flat out illegal." Which is basically what stating that we plan to to have a gathering or OC solo does (though it also shows a willingness for potential litigation should he refuse to properly clarify the law as it is felt that the law is on the OCers side). But those are the potential options I see should he try to refuse to give an official opinion.
Last edited:
Rep Wesslehoft if OC friendly. He was the author of HB1400. If you need a representative sponsor, you might give him a try.
gprod55
Regular Member
Rep. Terril
Rep. Randy Terril is also pro gun. He initiated HB2099 (Creating the Firearms Act) and HB2087 (Crimes and Punishment Carrying Concealed on College Campus). He could be a good one to contact.
Rep. Randy Terril is also pro gun. He initiated HB2099 (Creating the Firearms Act) and HB2087 (Crimes and Punishment Carrying Concealed on College Campus). He could be a good one to contact.
Aknazer
Regular Member
Well the week's over, curious if you managed to make any headway. Also have you thought about contacting any other OK 2A groups? It looks like the OK2A group would support this and their leadership might also be able to help deal with any stonewalling.
I am going to start small. I have a local leo who is going to sign on for a request to clarify OC as being legal, then we proceed to bigger fish if this hits a wall. I want to create a 'paper trail' as it were to document the progression of this endeavor.
I appreciate all the moral support and suggestions, working together we can keep things rolling.
Excellent reference, if my initial attempts fail at the local level, I will be contacting Rep Wesslehoff. I am trying to be patient and work with the system, but it can be frustrating, especially coming from an already OC friendly State! I feel nekkid..
Terril is on my list of contacts as well, if we keep pushing this through proper and friendly channels, we can keep moving towards OC that is concrete, not disputable.
I am working on a 'network' of OC / 2A friendly people and groups, trying to organize them into a more cohesive front from which to attack the problem. At least get them on the same relative page, we ran into too many people with too many versions of this bill which I believe contributed to the problem. A united front will help.
MR Redenck
Regular Member
Yep. Troll from the Oklahoma State Rifle Association.
I have noticed a lot in common with them and the Texas State Rifle Association.
TROLLS!!!!:cuss:
Aknazer
Regular Member
JBURGII do you think you could start posting like a weekly update on this? Could even be something as simple as "no progress this week" or "still waiting on X" just so that we can keep up on the status of this.
EDIT: Oh and we might want to move the discussion about this back over to the thread about OC already being legal just so that we can keep the info consolidated in one place.
EDIT: Oh and we might want to move the discussion about this back over to the thread about OC already being legal just so that we can keep the info consolidated in one place.
Last edited:
QuickOK
New member
Any further updates on the status?
If you are talking about a legislative OC bill, it is dead for this year.
balota
New member
They say hope springs eternal. I would hope that harassment stops (or even simple/cordial stops) would be documented in the police logs. If so, a person being harassed by one of those bad cops could keep a personal log of date/time, badge number, etc. When enough stops have occurred to make a credible case, file a complaint with the police department (internal affairs). Or, better yet, create some wording for an amendment to the legislation making such harassment a crime!
OK, one more crazy idea: Why not design an OC holster with a see-through pocket on the outside where the OC license can be displayed? That might reduce the credibility of even the simple/cordial stops. Of course, if the bad cop asks to see the license anyway, he could claim you were trying to draw on him. That can be resolved by having a display license and a wallet copy.
hermannr
Regular Member
I looked up the law and the OK constitution several weeks ago, it it struck me that the law is blatantly unconstitutional (state constitution) The law says no-one shall carry concealed or openly. The OK state constitution says you have the right to carry for self defence. Then in another section of the law is the provision for licensed CC. You cannot license a right. You can license a privilage. The OK Constitution says self defence is a right not a privilage. (you can look the stuff up, I don't have the references handy)
Just like in ID, OR and WA with similarly worded state constitutions, there is only one way to really fix your problem, that is through litigation. You do not have to be charged to have standing here...because there is a high probability that you would be charged with a crime under present OK law should you exercize this "right", you can gain standing that way. This is assuming you have some financial backing for the court fight. Best done with support from the AG. An AG opinion in your favor would be good, a State Supreme court ruling that the law is unconstitutional and void would be much better...
Just like in ID, OR and WA with similarly worded state constitutions, there is only one way to really fix your problem, that is through litigation. You do not have to be charged to have standing here...because there is a high probability that you would be charged with a crime under present OK law should you exercize this "right", you can gain standing that way. This is assuming you have some financial backing for the court fight. Best done with support from the AG. An AG opinion in your favor would be good, a State Supreme court ruling that the law is unconstitutional and void would be much better...
Aknazer
Regular Member
I've been saying this for awhile and most people I've talked with have agreed. But the issue is the bolded part and is why there is the fight to get the legislature to fix it. Every person that I've talked to has said that a court case would likely win, but that they can't afford it and the time it would take to go that route could end up being longer than getting the legislature to fix it due to the government's constant stalling in such cases.
I am curious though, do you know where I can find case law on the whole "you cannot license a right" thing. I've heard this multiple times and I am of the same thinking (if you license it then it isn't really a right), but I would like something more binding than my simple opinion when talking about it.
hermannr
Regular Member
You might want to check out some of these legal references: Brickley in Idaho is one I know.
"Courts have held on at least 20 reported occasions that an arms law was void because it impermissibly infringed the right to keep or bear arms. See, e.g., Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557 (1878); City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 501 P.2d 744 (Co. 1972) (en banc); People v. Nakamura, 62 P.2d 246 (Co. 1936) (en banc); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846); In re Brickley, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902); Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90 (1822); People v. Zerillo, 189 N.W. 927 (Mich. 1922); State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (N.C. 1921); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 485 P.2d 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971); In re Reilly, 31 Ohio Dec. 364 (1919); Barnett v. State, 695 P.2d 991 (Or. Ct. App. 1985); State v. Delgado, 692 P.2d 610 (Or. 1984); State v. Blocker, 630 P.2d 824 (Or. 1981); State v. Kessler, 614 P.2d 94 (Or. 1980); Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, 11 S.W.2d 678 (Tenn. 1928); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, (1871); Smith v. Ishenhour, 43 Tenn. (3 Cold.) 214 (1866); Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. App. 298 (1878); State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903); State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139 (W. Va. 1988)."
From "in re Brickley 70 P 609":
70 P. 609, wherein the Idaho Supreme Court found unconstitutional a local ordinance that prohibited the carrying of weapons within the city limits. The court there held such an ordinance to be a violation of the State constitution's right-to-arms clause which was substantially the same as the Illinois provision. The court in Brickley went on to say, "The legislature may, as expressly provided in our state constitution, regulate the exercise of this right, but may not prohibit it. A statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons would be a proper exercise of the police power of the state." (Brickley, at 599.)
Idaho has staewide unlicensed OC, So has WA and OR...all from similar rulings. Because of our state constitutions (which are very similar to OK's state constitution) regulation of OC is extremely limited, like to court house, jail, MH hospitals. OR just had the Oregon University system gun regulations overturned, and I wish we would do the same here in WA. The university has overstepped it's bounds and needs to be corrected. There is a case going on right now in ID over the same thing,
"Courts have held on at least 20 reported occasions that an arms law was void because it impermissibly infringed the right to keep or bear arms. See, e.g., Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557 (1878); City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 501 P.2d 744 (Co. 1972) (en banc); People v. Nakamura, 62 P.2d 246 (Co. 1936) (en banc); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846); In re Brickley, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902); Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90 (1822); People v. Zerillo, 189 N.W. 927 (Mich. 1922); State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (N.C. 1921); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 485 P.2d 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971); In re Reilly, 31 Ohio Dec. 364 (1919); Barnett v. State, 695 P.2d 991 (Or. Ct. App. 1985); State v. Delgado, 692 P.2d 610 (Or. 1984); State v. Blocker, 630 P.2d 824 (Or. 1981); State v. Kessler, 614 P.2d 94 (Or. 1980); Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, 11 S.W.2d 678 (Tenn. 1928); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, (1871); Smith v. Ishenhour, 43 Tenn. (3 Cold.) 214 (1866); Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. App. 298 (1878); State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903); State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139 (W. Va. 1988)."
From "in re Brickley 70 P 609":
70 P. 609, wherein the Idaho Supreme Court found unconstitutional a local ordinance that prohibited the carrying of weapons within the city limits. The court there held such an ordinance to be a violation of the State constitution's right-to-arms clause which was substantially the same as the Illinois provision. The court in Brickley went on to say, "The legislature may, as expressly provided in our state constitution, regulate the exercise of this right, but may not prohibit it. A statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons would be a proper exercise of the police power of the state." (Brickley, at 599.)
Idaho has staewide unlicensed OC, So has WA and OR...all from similar rulings. Because of our state constitutions (which are very similar to OK's state constitution) regulation of OC is extremely limited, like to court house, jail, MH hospitals. OR just had the Oregon University system gun regulations overturned, and I wish we would do the same here in WA. The university has overstepped it's bounds and needs to be corrected. There is a case going on right now in ID over the same thing,
Last edited: