FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Wow this would be a deal maker for sure! Go Oklahoma!



OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — An Oklahoma House committee on Tuesday approved measures designed to expand gun rights, including legislation that would allow residents with concealed weapons permits to bring their firearms into the State Capitol.


The House Judiciary Committee voted 9-6 for the measure and sent it to the House floor for debate and a vote. But opponents questioned the wisdom of authorizing residents to bring weapons into a building that is frequently the site of impassioned debate over public policy issues. Firearms are currently banned from the Capitol except for those carried by law enforcement officers.


“Why are we doing this? Are you serious?” Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, asked as the measure was presented by its author, Rep. David Derby, R-Owasso.


Derby said the Capitol is a public building and Oklahomans who have completed the training required to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon should be allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights in the building.
“Tell me why we should stop them?” Derby said.


The measure would allow anyone with a valid handgun license issued through the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, or a valid handgun license issued by another state, to bring their guns into the Capitol building through security checkpoints staffed by Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers and security officers that operate X-Ray and metal detection devices.


The committee approved an amendment that removed a provision from the bill that would have allowed people to bypass the security checkpoints after presenting a valid handgun license.


Law enforcement officers would not be authorized to remove or inspect any weapon or restrain any person carrying a properly concealed handgun without probable cause that a crime has been committed, according to the measure.
Opponents expressed concern that the bill could jeopardize the safety of everyone who works in or visits the State Capitol, one of the state’s most visited tourist attractions.


“This is serious for everybody in this room,” said Democratic Leader Scott Inman of Oklahoma City. Inman said armed state troopers already protect the safety of those inside the Capitol and suggested that the presence of additional armed people is not necessary.


Inman asked Derby if he would support legislation that would authorize Oklahomans with concealed carry permits to carry them into the Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City and board a plane. Derby said firearms regulations for commercial aircraft are the responsibility of the federal government, not the state.


Committee members also approved a bill by Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, that would lift the prohibition on allowing a concealed carry permit holder to leave the firearm in a locked vehicle in the parking lot of a public or private elementary or secondary school.


In addition, committee members passed a bill that would authorize state colleges, universities and technology centers to establish general policies for those with concealed carry permits to bring weapons on campus, instead of the current policy of providing written permission to each individual licensee.


A separate House committee on Tuesday approved a bill that would make it illegal for any federal employee or agent to enforce any U.S. regulations on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Oklahoma and remains within the state’s borders. The bill does not apply to firearms that take more than one person to operate or ammunition with exploding projectiles.


More: Oklahoma Bill Would Exempt State-Made Guns, Ammo From Federal Regulations « CBS DC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Posturing law only. SCOTUS has already ruled that state laws can be more restrictive than federal laws, but not more lenient. A state cannot exempt itself.
Posturing?? Think again, Oklahoma is the reddest state in the union.

If the SCOTUS ruled that state laws can not be more lenient than federal laws, please explain why Pot smoking states have legalized a Federally restricted drug?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
Yea that's all well and good but because progressive retards on the Supreme Court thought that growing wheat in your own backyard could be considered "interstate commerce," we have to live under federal legislators' rules with regard to gun policy. Justices Scalia and Kennedy then made it even worse with the Raich case that extended the brain-dead reasoning from the wheat case to every other product that could be created in one's garage and sold locally intrastate. I'm pretty sure if you asked the average American whether growing something in your backyard and selling it intrastate qualified as interstate commerce, that same average American would confidently state that it wasn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,109 Posts
YUp gotta love it.

Whatever law is most stringent... Except pot...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
703 Posts
If enough states & people push for this... goodbye NFA restrictions! NFA for any legal gun owner!

Bring on those suppressors, SBR's and machine guns!

:shock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Posturing?? Think again, Oklahoma is the reddest state in the union.

If the SCOTUS ruled that state laws can not be more lenient than federal laws, please explain why Pot smoking states have legalized a Federally restricted drug?
Do you even civics bro? Oklahoma can be as red as they want, every legislator in office in that state knows full well that the federal government can still enforce federal laws inside the state. With regard to marijuana, Washington and Colorado have not legalized anything. It is still a federal crime to possess and use marijuana. The feds can come into Colorado and enforce that federal law whenever they want, irrespective of the voters in Colorado saying "it's legal here!" Obama may have no interest in enforcing marijuana laws in Washington and Colorado, but if you think he's going to direct the ATF to turn a blind eye to machine guns in Oklahoma you are smoking some serious Colorado s###.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
Posturing?? Think again, Oklahoma is the reddest state in the union.

If the SCOTUS ruled that state laws can not be more lenient than federal laws, please explain why Pot smoking states have legalized a Federally restricted drug?
Literally, from the ground up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,230 Posts
Posturing?? Think again, Oklahoma is the reddest state in the union.

If the SCOTUS ruled that state laws can not be more lenient than federal laws, please explain why Pot smoking states have legalized a Federally restricted drug?
No state has actually legalized Pot for public use. They have instead decriminalized it. Basically they removed pot from being against state law, and they have chosen not to uphold the federal law. The feds could still come in and enforce it but they don't have the resources to do that.
So while OK cannot nullify, or make more lenient any federal law they can basically tell the feds to go Fornicate themselves and not enforce them.
Many states usually don't do this because the Feds can withhold state funds, but i doubt that will occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthPaul

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
The feds could still come in and enforce it but they don't have the resources to do that.
I would argue that Federal firearms nullification laws are a form of mass civil disobedience, and mactruck's one sentence above holds the key to why civil disobedience works if enough people take part in it. The lack of resources to capture, prosecute, and imprison those who break a law that enough consider unjust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
I would love to see a state go to war with the feds over guns like Colorado and Washington have with regard to marijuana.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
A separate House committee on Tuesday approved a bill that would make it illegal for any federal employee or agent to enforce any U.S. regulations on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Oklahoma and remains within the state’s borders. The bill does not apply to firearms that take more than one person to operate or ammunition with exploding projectiles.

I only found out about this weeks ago, and how it kinda died last year without getting the big no. It's on the same grounds as states that are letting weed become legal. Its called the firearms freedom act (FFA for short), and several states already have one, with Alaska having one of the best. For those of you who don't wanna read, it makes accessories (suppressors) legal, and all weapons (except machine guns) that are MADE IN OKLAHOMA with it clearly engraved or marked on the side of the gun, not able to be regulated by existing or future federal law.


Last Years:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14 ENGR/hB/HB2021 ENGR.PDF

This Years:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14 FLR/HFLR/HB2805 HFLR.PDF

EDIT: Here's the provisions that mean if its passed, OK means business:

G. 1. No official, agent or employee of the State of Oklahoma,
nor any dealer selling any firearm in the State of Oklahoma, shall
enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or
regulation of the government of the United States regarding any
personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is
manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the State of
Oklahoma and that remains within the borders of Oklahoma.
2. It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the
government of the United States, or employee of a corporation
providing services to the government of the United States to enforce
or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or
regulation of the government of the United States regarding a
firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured
commercially or privately and owned in the State of Oklahoma and
that remains within the borders of Oklahoma. Any person violating
the provisions of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be guilty
of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the
Department of Corrections for a term of not less than one (1) year,
or by a fine of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such
fine and imprisonment.


It seems like it would definitely be different that the states simply not enforcing a federal law as someone mentioned about marijuana earlier. This act clearly defends you if someone tries to enforce the federal law.

EDIT again while I'm on a role :wink:

I can't find the specific article, and it may have already happened. There's a man in Montana that really pushed for the FFA and was going to go into business making a rifle that would usually be subject to federal law, but the ATF told him no. Last I know, it went to the 9th district court and he's pushing for the supreme court now. He wants to be the guinea pig that tests how this will turn out for the rest of the states with FFA's. I am interested to see, but I don't put my faith in a few men to give us back our rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
Here is a thought, of course this will never fly, but I'd like to propose it anyway:

Create State bills with laws that make it illegal, with serious punishment, for the Federal/State Representatives and Senators from that state to propose, sponsor, and vote in favor of any law (Federal or local) which attempts to circumvent the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the state they were elected in, as read by the broadest definition of those Constitutions. Basically something to ensure their oath to uphold the base law of the land is respected despite their personal views and associations.

That way the individual States could punish their representatives for voting for things such as NSA spying and gun-control (many states have a less ambiguous version of the 2nd Amendment in their constitutions.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,310 Posts
For those of you who don't wanna read, it makes accessories (suppressors) legal, and all weapons (except machine guns)
This is the part that always gets me in these FFAs and the likes, they just can't let themselves go all the way with it. It should be called the Partial Firearms Freedom Act. Where does the Second Amendment differentiate in types of firearm's cycling? Why can the citizens of Oklahoma be trusted to have any type of weapon other than one that allows for multiple rounds to be fired by a single trigger pull?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,753 Posts
It's like all the others that have been passed, it's just a feel good law, it will change nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthPaul

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,310 Posts
I agree it will not stand so why not include full auto weaponry in the wording if it is just political posturing. Why are they saying screw all federal law restricting firearms in the state except we are OK (no pun intended) with federal law against machine guns. It just makes no sense. It seems like crawfishing a bit to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
That way the individual States could punish their representatives for voting for things such as NSA spying and gun-control (many states have a less ambiguous version of the 2nd Amendment in their constitutions.)
We have this already.

VOTING in the next election.

And I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "the broadest definition" of the Constitution. I am a Corrections Officer and have many convicted pedophiles in my unit, who I am sure would argue that their kiddie porn was protected by the 1st Amendment freedom of speech and the press. ALL Constitutional rights are subject to certain limitations, as SCOTUS has ruled, over and over again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Copperjacket
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top