Open Carry: Oklahoma scores partial victory

[Garrette]

Yep, same for me. I have no problems with background check regulation. Keep guns away from violent felons. I do have a problem that felonies for non violent reasons get lumped in. I have a friend who was abandoned by his parents when he was 16 who wrote a ton of bad checks, mostly for food, and continues to this day to not be able to vote or own firearms for his indiscretion (he has long since made restitution). Sure there are ways to get his rights back, they all involve a good deal of money.

I also have problems with some of the seemingly arbitrary restrictions on weapons. The assault ban is a good example of emotional legislation with little to no rational reasons. Some weapons that look scary get restricted, while others that are actually more capable are ok becuase they are not evil looking black guns that you can attach a knife to.

I would love to have an SBR (short barreled rifle) I have a bad back, and love light weight short quick pointing rifles. But I really dont want to go through the hassle, and be on a list somewhere.

I am in complete agreement.

That is strange, I wonder if that is a state thing. I know if I go get sights put on my hand gun and leave the gun with them I do not have to get a BG check to pick it up, is it only for certain durations(over a year, month)? Never heard of that myself. Then again Ive never tried to sell a gun on consignment.

I suspect (but only suspect) that it was simply an abundance of caution. I imagine they had a regular lawyer they consulted, and when the background checks became necessary the lawyer advised them to take a broad interpretation of what it meant to sell a gun. I imagine the thought process went something like this:

Selling means transferring ownership.
Ownership means possession.
He gave me a gun to sell which means I have possession, therefore I have ownership.
He wants the gun back which means I have to give him possession.
Ergo, I am virtually selling it.

Another gun shop might interpret it a bit more loosely and be just as correct.

Note: I speculate all the above without done one whit of research regarding how the law is worded, so judge its value accordingly.

 

[Resume]

In my experience, most gun rights advocates do not object to some regulation of gun ownership (those who do object are not a tiny percentage, but they are not the majority).

I don't mind regulation, either, just as I don't mind the regulation of vehicles. I would mind if I were told I cannot own or sell a car, though, just as I would mind if I were told I had to pay a yearly tax on my handguns (like we have to pay a yearly registration fee for our vehicles).

The arguments, then, are generally about the degree of regulation as opposed to the existence of it.

The FOID card system in Illinois is a pain in the ass imo. Mine has expired twice and neither time was I sent a renewal 60 days in advance as they claim to do. I was very lucky not to be in violation of the law.

 

[tomwaits]

From the brief time when I was in Europe, if I ever told someone I was from Chicago they would go "OOHH! Chicago!" and then they would make this motion:

Since the '20's Chicago has made many attempts to get rid of this reputation but has had no success. There's no easy solution. I'd love to get rid of them all but that's impractical. Even so, the personal Mutually Assured Destruction that open carry implies makes me even more uncomfortable. Damn this country's not-so-distant frontier origins!

 

[CORed]

Second amendment says arms not guns. People just decided that what it said was stupid and what it mentioned was something else.

See everyone is for some arms being outlawed and some not, it is all where you draw the line.

Well yes. Of course, at the time the second amendment was passed, the most dangerous "arm" would have been a large muzzle-loading cannon, rather than a strategic nuclear warhead. If the founding fathers had anticipated the development of nuclear weapons, or even of machine guns, they might have worded it a little differently.

 

[BStrong]

Well yes. Of course, at the time the second amendment was passed, the most dangerous "arm" would have been a large muzzle-loading cannon, rather than a strategic nuclear warhead. If the founding fathers had anticipated the development of nuclear weapons, or even of machine guns, they might have worded it a little differently.

At the time the Second was written, the writers were well aware of the different technology at the time - ie: Flintlock v. matchlock, battery guns (multi barrel multi shot weapons) cannon, moratr etc.

They made no differentiation between types, caliber or weight of shell.

The writers meant for the citizens to be armed like the standing military of the time as a counterbalance against military tyranny.

No - this does not mean that the guy down the block has a BLU 82, but it does mean (imo) he can have a M4.

 

[crimresearch]

Well yes. Of course, at the time the second amendment was passed, the most dangerous "arm" would have been a large muzzle-loading cannon, rather than a strategic nuclear warhead. If the founding fathers had anticipated the development of nuclear weapons, or even of machine guns, they might have worded it a little differently.

Chain shot... Grape shot... enfilade guns that could fire dozens of rounds in a second (the earliest form of 'machine guns'), had already been developed, and the Framers were well aware of what 'arms' meant, having just been through a war.

Being rational, they were also well aware that by using the broadest possible category of 'arms', instead of narrower language, they were *not* making anything infinite or unlimited.

 

[Xulld]

There's no easy solution. I'd love to get rid of them all but that's impractical. Even so, the personal Mutually Assured Destruction that open carry implies makes me even more uncomfortable. Damn this country's not-so-distant frontier origins!

What does that even mean? Are you really implying that by carrying a gun openly you are going to create a situation where everyone dies?

Yea, you are going to have to unpack your rationale of that for me . . .

 

[Lithrael]

Even as a person who's not a huge fan of guns, I do support open carry, as it seems to me that open carry is more conducive to the purpose of having a gun with you in the first place than concealed carry is.

 

[crimresearch]

Even as a person who's not a huge fan of guns, I do support open carry, as it seems to me that open carry is more conducive to the purpose of having a gun with you in the first place than concealed carry is.

Last I checked, the purpose of a gun was simply to put holes in things. Period.

What purpose do you think is enhanced by open carry?

 

[Xulld]

Last I checked, the purpose of a gun was simply to put holes in things. Period.

What purpose do you think is enhanced by open carry?

Its easy (vs worrying about concealment), and thus more likely to be done. It is IMHO more comfortable as well. It is also faster to draw, less likely to get tangled on a garment and thus more reliable.

An article I found here that talks about the trend of women getting involved in OC.

http://edsfiles.us/article/girlswithguns.pdf

 

[Howie Felterbush]

I suspect (but only suspect) that it was simply an abundance of caution. I imagine they had a regular lawyer they consulted, and when the background checks became necessary the lawyer advised them to take a broad interpretation of what it meant to sell a gun. I imagine the thought process went something like this:

Selling means transferring ownership.
Ownership means possession.
He gave me a gun to sell which means I have possession, therefore I have ownership.
He wants the gun back which means I have to give him possession.
Ergo, I am virtually selling it.

Another gun shop might interpret it a bit more loosely and be just as correct.

Note: I speculate all the above without done one whit of research regarding how the law is worded, so judge its value accordingly.

I work in a huge gun store (at any given time we probably have around ten thousand guns in the building, fewer during presidential elections ). We have to inventory our guns every other week. The gun store you were dealing with may have inventoried your gun as theirs (since it was in their store and they were responsible for it) and reported it as so to the ATF. Then, when it left their posession, there had to be a 4473 filled out.

Just guessing. We don't sell on consignment, so I have no real experience with this situation, but I know how picky the feds are.

 

[Xulld]

Just guessing. We don't sell on consignment, so I have no real experience with this situation, but I know how picky the feds are.

For sure, and no one wants 10 years for a lack of caution.

 

[lionking]

Just the ones that have been posted over, and over, and over, and over.

Do you have a point?

One day you might just try to be a little civil to people. Just the once. You might find that people respond in kind rather than ignore your posts.

 

[Ranb]

One day you might just try to be a little civil to people. Just the once. You might find that people respond in kind rather than ignore your posts.

You might try taking some of your own advice. Making an unfounded accusation like you did earlier in this thread is not how we discuss critical thinking in a friendly and lively way.

Ranb

 

[crimresearch]

One day you might just try to be a little civil to people. Just the once. You might find that people respond in kind rather than ignore your posts.

People stick their fingers in their ears and ignore, when they don't want to learn anything.
They shout things down when they don't want *other* people to learn anything.
When they are uneasy, they make up strawmen, and project that the people presenting facts 'aren't civil'.

Asking a question in one thread, and when someone takes the time to give a thoughtful, well researched answer, running away and coming back later asking the same cookie cutter question, isn't an accident.
That sort of pooh flinging is nothing more than trying to drown out rational thought, and JREF is saturated with it.

Why does dragging down discourse with these same tired old games deserve so much respect that no one should call it out when it happens, but actual discourse doesn't?

People getting killed with firearms isn't an internet game to score points with for me. It is a serious social problem, and one that needs to be talked about using accurate and rational assessments.
Posts that derail useful discussions by simply regurgitating the same old obdurate sound bites (which have been repeatedly debunked), do nothing to help solve anything.

 

[arthwollipot]

The arguments, then, are generally about the degree of regulation as opposed to the existence of it.

Right. Sometimes it's easy to forget that.

 

[Lithrael]

Its easy (vs worrying about concealment), and thus more likely to be done. It is IMHO more comfortable as well. It is also faster to draw, less likely to get tangled on a garment and thus more reliable.

This, and also it removes the crime-drama scenario of being in a tense situation, reaching into your jacket for a phone and someone deciding you are reaching for a gun, since there is a gun right there on your hip.

In the Trayvon Martin case, open carry is one of a thousand things that could have averted the tragedy. No matter what really happened that night, if Martin had known for sure that Zimmerman had a gun on him I bet you dollars to doughnuts there would never have been a fight.

 

[crimresearch]

This, and also it removes the crime-drama scenario of being in a tense situation, reaching into your jacket for a phone and someone deciding you are reaching for a gun, since there is a gun right there on your hip.

In the Trayvon Martin case, open carry is one of a thousand things that could have averted the tragedy. No matter what really happened that night, if Martin had known for sure that Zimmerman had a gun on him I bet you dollars to doughnuts there would never have been a fight.

Thank you for clarifying.

For myself, I would balance those possible factors against someone deciding to shoot you in the back in order to take your purse or wallet, because they see you carrying.

 

[Xulld]

Thank you for clarifying.

For myself, I would balance those possible factors against someone deciding to shoot you in the back in order to take your purse or wallet, because they see you carrying.

You know I worried about this at first when I started to carry openly. So I tried to find statistics about people carrying openly being shot/assaulted for their weapons. The only ones I could find were for police officers (not surprisingly being that they are the largest group carrying openly) it is not very common, and then we have to wonder how often is the assault not to secure the firearm, but to kill a cop.

I think ambushing armed people is a risky affair and even if large numbers of folks carried openly I think it would remain a statistically unlikely event, even more so than needing the weapon to begin with.

But this is mostly speculation on my part. I wish we had better statistics.

 

[RandFan]

You know I worried about this at first when I started to carry openly. So I tried to find statistics about people carrying openly being shot/assaulted for their weapons. The only ones I could find were for police officers (not surprisingly being that they are the largest group carrying openly) it is not very common, and then we have to wonder how often is the assault not to secure the firearm, but to kill a cop.

I think ambushing armed people is a risky affair and even if large numbers of folks carried openly I think it would remain a statistically unlikely event, even more so than needing the weapon to begin with.

But this is mostly speculation on my part. I wish we had better statistics.

I never understood carrying a fire arm. I've given some thought about it. When I first started to hear about carry laws I thought it was paranoia. But then I thought for most it was simply being prudent, kind of like putting on my seat belt when I get into a car. It's not something I would do but I don't think it's necessarily irrational.

I don't know if you carry openly (if you stated so and I missed it then I'm sorry) and this isn't meant as a slight. I've no idea what your reasons and motivations are. From my perspective, I would feel like I was projecting to everyone else either my insecurities or my desire to intimidate. A gun isn't a seat belt. Given that there are 300 thousand thousand people in America and that less than 10 thousand a year, on average, that are killed in America by a hand gun, I don't get it.

Again, not a sleight, not calling for changes in the law. And I love guns, I really do. It's just that open carry seems to me more as a fetish and not prudence. I just don't understand.