• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Oklahoma Senate repeals permit requirement for open carry

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Passed both chambers? Doesn't that mean it was delivered to the governor?
It passed one chamber, then was amended in the other, so a conference had to be called for both chambers to work out any differences. From what I can tell there were no poison pills or anything major that should have killed the bill. The conferences usually involve 5 or so from each chamber. How they're chosen I don't know (although pretty sure it isn't random).
 

OpenCarryMike

Newbie
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
1
Location
Oklahoma
Constitutional Carry (Open) Oklahoma

So, Mike... Maybe you can help me out here. What is the current status of Oklahoma House Bill 3098 "Constitutional Carry (open)"? At what point is it in its legislation? Has it been sent to Governor Fallen for her Signature? I have Google Searched this question, and can not seem to find an answer.





http://www.newson6.com/story/31781544/bill-allowing-open-carry-without-training-passes-oklahoma-senate
-----
OpenCarry.org comment: Most states do NOT require a permit to carry handguns openly. See map at http://www.opencarry.org/.../map-open-carry-of-a-properly... showing that 30 states require no permit to open carry handguns. If anything is a right under the second amendment, it's the right to carry handguns openly. Rights cannot be limited by licensing schemes and other measures of prior restraint. Learn more about the open carry of properly holstered handguns and OpenCarry.org. And carry on!
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
So, Mike... Maybe you can help me out here. What is the current status of Oklahoma House Bill 3098 "Constitutional Carry (open)"? At what point is it in its legislation? Has it been sent to Governor Fallen for her Signature? I have Google Searched this question, and can not seem to find an answer.
Hopefully next time someone is keeping an eye on the legislature who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I don't know whether Bloomberg, the Thunder, or someone else made them weak in the knees but they blew it, BIG TIME.
 

hrdware

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
744
Location
Moore, OK
It passed one chamber, then was amended in the other, so a conference had to be called for both chambers to work out any differences. From what I can tell there were no poison pills or anything major that should have killed the bill. The conferences usually involve 5 or so from each chamber. How they're chosen I don't know (although pretty sure it isn't random).
Conference committees here are a great way to kill bills and everyone gets to say they supported it. The house passed the bill. The amendment the senate made was to remove the title of the bill. Bills without title cannot be passed. No other changes were made. The amended bill passed out of the senate and went back to the house. Of course the house rejected the amendment so it went to conference. Once it got to conference, several people that originally supported the bill changed their votes due to pressure from Department of Public Safety and Higher Education.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Conference committees here are a great way to kill bills and everyone gets to say they supported it. The house passed the bill. The amendment the senate made was to remove the title of the bill. Bills without title cannot be passed. No other changes were made. The amended bill passed out of the senate and went back to the house. Of course the house rejected the amendment so it went to conference. Once it got to conference, several people that originally supported the bill changed their votes due to pressure from Department of Public Safety and Higher Education.
So there's some weasels I see. Hopefully they push for full Constitutional Carry next session.
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
What else should we have to announce about ourselves and obtain explicit permission from homeowners before our otherwise welcome entrance is not a crime?

No, the proper way to handle this is either through standard trespass law without any special attention to lawfully possessed firearms, or--if firearms are going to get some special attention--the default position must be that a general invite makes entrance while armed lawful unless the resident(s) gives notice that guns are not permitted.

Utah's 76-10-530 handles this quite well IMO:


76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.

(1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Firearm Act, after notice has been given as provided in Subsection (2) that firearms are prohibited, may not knowingly and intentionally:
(a) transport a firearm into:
(i) a house of worship; or
(ii) a private residence; or

(b) while in possession of a firearm, enter or remain in:
(i) a house of worship; or
(ii) a private residence.

(2) Notice that firearms are prohibited may be given by:
[various means...]

As for businesses open to the public....same rules ought to apply to law-abiding gun carriers as apply to any other potentially unpopular minority group including racial/ethnic groups, religious or political affiliation, sexual orientation, sexual identity, gender, etc and so on.

Charles
I guess theres been to much brainwashing over time, because Christians are to be armed Jesus ordered us to sell your coat and
buy a sword if you don't have one. Luke 22:36 Remember also "Thy rod and staff will comfort thee" in the 23 Psalm.
So this "Don't bring guns into the gatherings is false teachings".
Infact in the early Christian gatherings if you did not bring a gun of some kind you were fined 30 shekels. Early American history !
The sword was the best close combat weapon of that time, today its the handgun Think about it :)
Robin47
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,818
Location
White Oak Plantation
Don't suppose you can provide a single, verifiable citation of this actually happening can you?

After all, in theory, bad guys might target OCers to eliminate first....

Charles
I seem to recall that you support holding a business civilly liable if you are disarmed as a condition of entry and then injured due to a crime. Do you not support a similar burden placed on homeowners that have invited you into their home and forbid your firearm.

After all, in theory, a homeowner could, in good faith, attempt to protect you, because he disarmed you as a condition of entry, and then you accidentally get injured...
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I seem to recall that you support holding a business civilly liable if you are disarmed as a condition of entry and then injured due to a crime. Do you not support a similar burden placed on homeowners that have invited you into their home and forbid your firearm.

After all, in theory, a homeowner could, in good faith, attempt to protect you, because he disarmed you as a condition of entry, and then you accidentally get injured...
Finally responding to a question from 6 months ago? Kind of a necro thread isn't it?

Is this an admission that you cannot provide a single example of a homeowner being held liable for the lawful self-defense conduct of a guest?

A simple concession, or even ignoring the question entirely would be far more becomming than such a clumsy attempt to obfuscate through misdirection.

I draw a distinction between a man's church/home, and a business open to the public. Please do not attempt to conflate the two. I have most recently stated my positions in these areas in this very thread. To wit:

utbagpiper said:
Given notice, I'll give the highest deference to a man's castle and his holy ground. If you want me to remove my hat, or don a yarmulke, remove my shoes, lower my voice, shout in praise, or not bring a firearm inside, I'll respect your wishes...one way or another. But I expect the resident or church to take the initiative to give reasonable notice. I just don't see any reason why I should have to probe and ask about whether a perfectly normal, lawful, lifesaving item is permissible or not....except for some poorly crafted laws in certain jurisdictions that need to be repealed.

As for businesses, I'm not going to happily accept being required to sit at the back of the bus, or being refused service simply because I choose to be lawfully armed. I don't expect my homosexual colleagues to have to call ahead and check to see whether they and their partners will be welcome to hold hands or otherwise behave as a couple like any heterosexual couple would, while in the establishment. I don't see any reason why I should expect any less accommodation and tolerance for my holstered handgun, whether OCd, CCd, or CCCd that particular day.

Laws that mandate me to get prior permission, or that allow business owners to discriminate against me are every bit as offensive as would be laws allowing business owners to discriminate against a same-sex couple holding hands ("You can be homosexual, you just can't act on it in this business").
I welcome sincere conversation, even honest disagreement.

Shall we avoid looking for reasons just to argue or prove one of us right and the other wrong?

Charles
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I guess theres been to much brainwashing over time, because Christians are to be armed Jesus ordered us to sell your coat and
buy a sword if you don't have one. Luke 22:36 Remember also "Thy rod and staff will comfort thee" in the 23 Psalm.
So this "Don't bring guns into the gatherings is false teachings".
Infact in the early Christian gatherings if you did not bring a gun of some kind you were fined 30 shekels. Early American history !
The sword was the best close combat weapon of that time, today its the handgun Think about it :)
Robin47
I don't necessarily disagree with you.

But one of the things I find quite offensive is when some atheistic, pinky commie liberal presumes to tell me what I must believe or do based on his reading of the Bible.

I try to avoid doing that with others.

I believe a Christian is one who accepts Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God. I believe a Christian seeks to follow the example of Christ's life and to live his teachings; and who accepts Jesus as his Savior and Redeemer.

I think most everything beyod that has a lot of room for personal interpretation and understanding. The vast majority of members of the many different Christian demoninations are all acting in good faith and sincere belief despite various differences in doctrinal beliefs, practices, and policies among all those denominations.

I'm not about to suggest that someone is less Christian than another simply because he worships on Saturday rather than Sunday or vice versa. I'm not about to tell my Quaker friends (small pun intended, I hope taken in the spirit of good taste and brotherly love) that they are less Christian than another because of their pacifist views. I certainly don't appreciate it when someone tries to tell me that the Biblical command to "turn the other cheek" requires me to submit myself and family to criminal violence.

A fine case for being prepared and defending oneself can be made from the Bible. So too, can a fine case for pacifism. And I'm well past the age of feeling qualified to act as judge on which of those is acceptable to God under which circumstances.

I do my best to respect others' peaceful religious beliefs and ask only that they return the courtesy. One way or another, I'll abide gun policies at churches with or without legal backing, just as I'll abide dress codes or other behavioural standards...one way or another.

Best regards.

Charles
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,534
Location
here nc
CCJ, et al., forgive the length but any attempt at brevity loses the overall context concerning the quote out of context quote constantly cited about bibical reference of bearing arms.

this biblical reference cited once again is being completed misinterpreted so let us investigate this into correct historical context instead of wrapping ourselves around a singular quote out of the situation where it was uttered.

Cited in isolation, the verse suggests that swords and violence are a possibility. It seems as if all of the disciples should go out and buy one each. After the death and burial of Jesus, they would have to face the world alone without him, so they thought.


However, what happens to the apparent meaning of the verse when it is not read in isolation, but in context? Did Jesus really wield a sword and want all of the disciples to buy one each?


Exegesis of Luke 22:36
The historical context of Luke 22:36 demonstrates that for three years Jesus avoided making a public, triumphal entry of his visits to Jerusalem because he understood that when he set foot in the holy city in this way, he would fulfill his mission to die, in a death that looked like one of a common criminal, just as Isaiah the prophet had predicted hundreds of years before (Is. 53:12). He needed to complete his work outside of Jerusalem.


Now, however, Jesus finally enters the city famous for killing her prophets (Luke 13:33-34), a few days before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, all of which he predicted. Religious leaders were spying on him and asked him trick questions, so they could incriminate him (Luke 20:20). These insincere questions, though they were also asked before he entered the city, increased in frequency during these compacted tense days. But he answered impressively, avoiding their traps. Despite the tension, each day Jesus taught in the temple, and crowds gathered around him, so the authorities could not arrest him, for fear of the people. Then Judas volunteered to betray him, saying that he would report back to the authorities when no crowd was present (Luke 22:1-6).


As Passover drew near, Jesus asked some of his disciples to prepare the Last Supper (most likely the Seder). He elevated the bread and the wine, representing his body and blood, which was broken and shed for the sins of the world in the New Covenant (Luke 22:17-20). However, during the meal, Judas slipped out to search for the authorities because he knew that it was the custom of Jesus to go to the Mount of Olives to pray (Luke 21:37), and that night would be no different.


At this point we pick up the textual context of Luke 22:36 (bold print). He is eating the Last Supper on the night he was betrayed.
Luke 22:35-38 says:
35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
They said, "No, not a thing."
36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."
38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"It is enough," he replied. (NRSV)
The textual context reveals at least two truths. First, Jesus contrasts his ministry before his arrival in Jerusalem with the tense few days in Jerusalem when spies and the authorities themselves were seeking to trap him. Does the tension play a part in understanding why he told his disciples to go out and buy swords? This is answered, below. Second, he says that he would be arrested and tried as a criminal, as the prophecy in Is. 53:12 predicted. Does this have anything to do with swords? Do criminals carry them around? This too is explained, below. Jesus may have a deeper meaning in mind than the violent use of the swords. What is it?


Violent use of the swords
Jesus says to the disciples to buy swords, but when they show him two, Jesus says the two are enough. The first direction, the literal one, is inadequate for two reasons.


First, the obvious question is: two swords are enough for what? Are they enough for a physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus’ arrest a disciple (Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant (Malchus according to John 18:10) of the high priest. Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword, "No more of this!" and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49-51). Resisting arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords.


Second, were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and to impose the new Jesus movement in a political and military way? Jesus denounces this purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities are in the process of arresting him: "Am I leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?" The answer is no, as he is seized and led away (v. 54).


So the physical interpretation of Luke 22:36 (the two swords were intended to be used) will not work in the larger context. Two swords are not enough to resist arrest, to pull off a revolt of some kind, or to fully protect themselves in the Garden of Gethsemane.


The contextual meaning of the swords
In contrast to the literal interpretation of using swords physically, the following interpretation works smoothly in context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.


First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords—no more than that—represent the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, as we just saw in the literal interpretation, above, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword.


Second, "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’" (Luke 22:37). By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus’ reference to Isaiah’s prophecy (53:12). He was destined to be arrested like a criminal, put on trial like a criminal, and even crucified like a criminal (but his arrest, trial, and execution were based on false evidence. He did nothing but good.) Yet, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43). What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough—to fulfill this prophecy. Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ’s arrest, prophecy would not have been accomplished smoothly and without hindrance. Jesus says that he could call on twelve legions of angels to protect him, meaning he is destined by God to die; he was not permitted to stop even the mighty Roman Empire from fulfilling its role (Matt. 26:53). That is why Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its place (Matt. 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after the disciple cut off an ear, "No more of this!" (22:51).


The third and final nonliteral interpretation says that Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach nonphysical, universal truths, and the same is possibly true of the two swords. This interpretation of clarification is supported by Matt. 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." As seen in this article on Matt. 10:34, in context he does not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide it up nonphysically. And it is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus’ meaning of "sword" as nonliteral, in the two parallel passages of Matt. 10:34 and Luke 12:51. If Luke does this in 12:51, then why would he not shift slightly the meaning of "sword" in 22:36-38?

ipse

 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,818
Location
White Oak Plantation
Finally responding to a question from 6 months ago? Kind of a necro thread isn't it?

Is this an admission that you cannot provide a single example of a homeowner being held liable for the lawful self-defense conduct of a guest?

A simple concession, or even ignoring the question entirely would be far more becomming than such a clumsy attempt to obfuscate through misdirection.

I draw a distinction between a man's church/home, and a business open to the public. Please do not attempt to conflate the two. I have most recently stated my positions in these areas in this very thread. To wit:


I welcome sincere conversation, even honest disagreement.

Shall we avoid looking for reasons just to argue or prove one of us right and the other wrong?

Charles
I am not able to find a single documented instance of a guest being disarmed and then attacked then holding a home owner liable for his injuries. Given the nature of our fellow citizens, I being held personally liable for my good faith effort is a very real possibility.

Your position is known and continues to be a source of confusion to me as to why a church/home would be held to a different standard if self defense is important to you. The statute you cited proves convenient for your position.

We disagree on private businesses to be sure.

You are consistent in your selective respect for private property rights.
 
Top