Skip to comments.We support a right to bear arms, but you donít have to show them off in plain sight(OK)
Posted on 04/07/2012 10:55:20 PM PDT by marktwain
We fully support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. However, the possible expansion of Oklahomas open carry laws for handguns is off target.
Whats the status of the legislation? The House of Representatives recently approved a bill to allow anyone who has completed conceal and carry qualifications to be able to openly carry weapons.
Then the bill was sent to the Senate, where an amendment that may eliminate the requirement for a conceal and carry license was added. However, state Sen. Patrick Anderson, R-Enid, believes a bill that allows only those with the conceal and carry license to openly carry weapons will be approved by the Senate.
State Rep. John Enns, R-Enid, said his biggest fear is that a few guys will walk into a Starbucks and freak out a bunch of people. Good point, representative. Do you really need to be dangling a firearm on your hip when you order an iced single venti mocha, no whip? We also agree with Enid Police Chief Brian ORourke that weapon security is a safety concern.
We asked readers their thoughts on the proposal at EnidNews.com. In our unscientific poll, a whopping 62 percent agreed with openly carrying handguns in public. In contrast, 20 percent said such a law would lead to more gun violence. And 18 percent said if they wanted to see guns in holsters, theyd watch a Simpsons movie. (To quote the famous commercials from the 1980s, Taint likely!)
We appreciate your online votes, but we respectfully disagree with the majority. Most Oklahomans are pro-gun, but this isnt the Wild West. At the risk of dodging bullets, we dont think everyone should be walking around like Quick Draw McGraw with their guns in holsters.
Apparently they think they are smarter than 62% of the public and don’t really need to represent them anyway.
But I want to see liberals throw a hissy fit so yeah, I wanna see guns out in the open.
Placating the paranoid; a typical milk-toast issue.
I have no problem with this providing it’s unenforceable.
Thank you no.
The Sioux Fall Argus leader published my name as a concealed weapons permit holder. O gee thank you.
I will keep my weapon concealed. Out of sight, out of mind
John Enns is my representative and is usually very pro gun. I guess I need to go visit him.
Yet, when in public, I would feel more at ease if it were plainly visible who was armed.
I don't understand the logic of requiring those bearing arms to conceal them.
Rather, it should be prohibited to conceal a firearm one is carrying.
Idaho and Colorado are both open carry states, and I’ve never noticed any “wild west” type gun slinging.
Do you really need ...
That is a phrase that pops up in liberal writing frequently. It’s not the bill of needs, folks, it’s the “Bill of Rights”
When I open the snap the holster leans to let me access the gun.
I will keep my weapon concealed. Out of sight, out of mind
As will I. That is my choice and we should be able to choose. If someone else wants to open carry, go for it.
I find it most puzzling that many of those who oppose open carry becoming law are quite often those who are the most vociferous as "pro-choicers" on the woman's "right to choose" to kill her pre-born baby. I don't ascribe this view to you, Figment, but merely an observation on the world. I do, however, suspect this view may apply to the Enid newspaper, the source of this nonsense in the OP.
The source also falls prey to the language of the Brady Bunch with the "Wild West" and "Quick Draw McGraw" usages in the editorial. While that exposes their inability to think for themselves, it also allows me to laugh when they wish to be described as "independent journalists". About the only things they are independent of are reason and logic.
As an Oklahoman, I really have hard time understanding why OK law cannot be aligned to allow open carry as is in the law of over 40 other states.
At any rate, it would be a convenience to be able to carry openly - plus, it would allow you to scope out potential back up. I suppose the flip side is that LEOs would have a field day checking up on folks to ensure those who had the Right taken away don't carry openly too in order to fit in on the way to the illegal withdrawals...
That is my choice and we should be able to choose. If someone else wants to open carry, go for it.
In Illinois we don’t have the right to do either. We are the only backward state in the union.
However, don’t break into my house at night - it will be the last house you ever break into.
When I was posting, I was hoping no one would confuse that phrase with the pro abortion crowds use of it.
>I support the Second Amendment, but do not myself own a firearm.
>Yet, when in public, I would feel more at ease if it were plainly visible who was armed.
>I don’t understand the logic of requiring those bearing arms to conceal them.
>Rather, it should be prohibited to conceal a firearm one is carrying.
That’s exactly what NM’s Constitution says:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
Or *It's okay for Negroes to reside within the city limits, so long as they stay off the streets.*
Absolutely you should be able to carry openly. I simply choose not to. Someone brought up the point of LE having to check everyone they encounter who open carries. That is a good point. Just because someone open carries doesn’t mean they are legal to carry at all. It presents some obstacles