Three proposals to expand Second Amendment rights in Oklahoma were voted out of committee this week and will be considered by the full House of Representatives. As a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment I am happy to see these. Still, I was struck by how people will allow emotional rhetoric to override common sense.
The first is HB 1796, which would allow citizens with a concealed carry permit to openly carry guns. For me, support of this law has more to do with practicality than a desire to show off a weapon. I’m sure that some people would be willing to carry openly. But I suspect that most of the concealed carry license holders in the state would be like me. I would still carry concealed, but I wouldn’t fret over it as much.
Currently, the law requires that I keep my firearm covered and out of public view. I am constantly aware of the pistol on my hip and take extra care to ensure it is covered. This law would ease my concerns somewhat by removing the fear that I might be cited if my pistol is accidentally exposed. Considering the fact that this is a Second Amendment issue, I would expect the bill to go before the legislature to be passed then signed by the governor.
However, the chair of the House Public Safety Committee, Rep. Sue Tibbs, R-Tulsa, has decided that passing a law to allow citizens to engage in an activity the U.S. Constitution says is a God-given right isn’t good enough. She believes that we should all vote on it.
Rep. Sue Tibbs
Her reasoning? Well, as she was quoted in The Daily Oklahoman, “This bill touches every life in Oklahoma. I felt the people have the right to decide this issue.”
I’ve read this quote several times and I still don’t know what it means. Does the law require every citizen to carry guns? Does it require every person who carries a gun to make sure that every person within earshot knows they have a gun? I don’t really know the answers to those questions, but I do know a few other things.
I know that the Second Amendment is a right the men who drafted the Constitution felt was so important that they put it on paper. I know they didn’t include any provisions for suitable times and places to restrict that right and they didn’t think that our God-given rights could or should be subject to public whims via the ballot. Which right will we vote on next?
Will the First Amendment be up for grabs? Will we put the Tenth Amendment on the ballot to see if maybe folks really want the federal government to take over everything and freeze the states out? If we’re going to start voting on amendments I propose that we vote on the Sixteenth Amendment. True it’s not part of the bill of rights. But, if you want to see some voter turnout I think you couldn’t do any better than to put the income tax on the ballot.
That will never happen and neither should this vote on open carry. Open carry is part and parcel of the Second Amendment. The legislature should approve the law and allow law-abiding citizens exercise the right that has been denied them for too long.
Rep. John Enns
I believe that law-abiding citizens who have given the state no reason to believe they will commit a crime should be able to carry a firearm anyplace they decide to. I can hear the howls of protest already.
“Why that’s insane,” the anti-gun zealots exclaim. “If you let people carry guns at schools or into churches or amusement parts or (gasp) airliners, they would go crazy and kill everyone.”
That’s an emotional response that may sound good, but like Tibbs’ claim that her law would affect every person in Oklahoma; it has no basis in fact. Unfortunately, it is also the philosophy driving opposition to the next two bills. Both have to do with guns in educational facilities. Neither bill would result in the problems opponents claim will arise, but that doesn’t stop the handwringing and finger wagging.
HB 1652, by Rep. John Enns R-Enid, would allow weapons on CareerTech campuses, as long as they are locked in vehicles. HB 2087 by Rep. Randy Terrill R-Cleveland, would allow members of college faculties and staffs that have concealed carry licenses to carry guns on campus. Not surprisingly educators oppose both bills and in an equally unsurprising move they are pulling out safety as their motivation.
Roger Webb, president of the University of Central Oklahoma and a reported gun owner, told The Oklahoman and allowing faculty and administrators to carry weapons would make colleges and universities dangerous places.
“Anytime you introduce more guns to a college campus we know you are going to have a more unstable condition,” he was quoted as saying. That same logic is used by those opposed to allowing gun owners to store their weapons in their cars on CareerTech campuses.
So, exactly how does Mr. Webb know the situation would be more unstable? What, if any, studies have been done that support this position?
Rep. Randy Terrill
I disagree with Mr. Webb based on the studies I’ve seen that indicate that when law-abiding citizens are armed, crime decreases. I disagree with Mr. Webb because, even though no studies specific to college campuses have been done, at least as far as I know, recent news reports seem to indicate disarming students may not be working.
For the madman bent on destruction, the only person who is safe in a gun-free zone is the guy carrying the gun. In all the school shooting incidents I have read about, those who complied with the school rules were left to cower in fear as the criminal who cares nothing for the rules killed victims at will. Mr. Webb’s ridiculous statement is reminiscent of those who opposed shall-issue concealed carry when it was introduced in Florida.
At that time people just knew, much like Mr. Webb, that if citizens were allowed to carry guns they would begin settling all disputes with gunfire. The terms “Wild West,” “Dodge City,” and “blood in the streets” were mainstays of the anti-gun fanatics. Those predictions never came true.
Perhaps one day we’ll be able to separate our emotions from this debate and see the facts for what they are. Law-abiding citizens can, and should be trusted to exercise their rights responsibly. And, punishing the law-abiding doesn’t protect them from the law breakers. It only makes them victims.
I don’t think anyone needs to vote on that.
Related Posts
Thursday, January 24, 2013 -- 2nd Amendment And The States
Saturday, April 13, 2013 -- Coburn Defends Vote To Hear Gun Control Bill
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 -- Gun Control Idiocy And Personal Responsibility
Sunday, January 20, 2013 -- Guns Across America Rallies Support For 2nd Amendment- Thursday, April 18, 2013 -- Gun Owners Are Not Evil
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 -- President Obama To Announce New Gun Control Initiative
The same things were said about Florida and Texas. The CCW laws were passed and the murder rates dropped.
We elect people to represent us in government not so that every law must be decided by referendum.
Excellent post.
I completely disagree with most of what you’ve written but I thought you wrote it quite well. However, you really lost me when you declared open-carry a God-given right…seriously???
Yes, seriously. In the Declaration of Independence the founding fathers wrote, “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights . . .” Then, in the Constitution, they listed many of those rights. One of which was the right to keep and bear arms. So, it is, according to the founders of our nation, a God-given right.
That’s an amazing leap from the Declaration to the Constitution. By definition a God-given right is one that is handed down to man by God. A God-given right cannot be declared my man or a written document. Those rights are self-evident and inalienable. And I’m pretty damn sure the right to carry a handgun on your hip was not amongst the rights with which God endowed man. You do your entire lucid argument a disservice by defending this indefensible position.
I’m not sure why referencing the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution together is such an “amazing leap.” They are the documents the founding fathers used to set up our system of government. I understand the concept of being endowed by God. I don’t believe the founders thought they were giving anyone any rights that they didn’t already have. They were simply putting down on paper what those rights are. It’s true that they didn’t say “the right to carry a handgun on your hip” was a specific right. However, they did say the right to life is a right. By a very short extension they wrote the Second Amendment to ensure citizens had a way to defend that right against anyone who would take it from them. I believe they also wanted to ensure that citizens would be able to do that with any possible means which is why they used the term “arms” rather than “guns” or “firearms.” I’m sorry if you were upset by my response, but I will stand by it. You did your argument a disservice by deciding to curse at me.
Being able to protect yourself is a God given right. In nature, without government, man can use the best tools he may devise to protect himself from human and beast alike. It is only when Government moves in that those rights are taken away from him.
Of course its a “God given right”! All rights are God given. Who else is there to give rights? The government? The Dec of Ind says that the government gets its just powers from the consent of the governed. Therefore the government doesn’t have what people don’t give it, and we don’t have what God didn’t give us.
Sue Tibbs told a small group in her office yesterday, when asked about the veterans carry bill that is parallel to this one, “well Timothy McVeigh was a veteran, too and I wouldn’t trust any of THEM”
That’s what it’s all about, She doesn’t trust anyone but the police.
Suppose this does go to a vote of all the state, and fails. Will the SDA be repealed as well?
We already have open carry in the US constitution, it’s the second amendment.
Imagine the outcry if the first was restricted like the second.
regards,
Robert, Did you actually hear Rep. Tibbs make this statement? Who else was there and will you or they go on the record? I have contacted her office and they are planning to respond. If she did say this, she deserves the right to defend it. If she didn’t, she deserves an apology. I will let you know what she says when I hear from her or her office.
I spoke with Rep. Tibbs on Friday afternoon. She admitted to mentioning that Tim McVeigh was a veteran. However, she categorically denied ever saying that she didnt trust veterans. She said that she doesn’t recall the specific discussion the writer mentioned. But, she has argued against granting veterans lifetime concealed carry licenses because they are merely human. Ms. Tibbs repeatedly expressed her respect and admiration for our veterans and their service – she pointed out several times that her husband is a veteran – but she also pointed out that they are not perfect. Most veterans come home and become responsible, law abiding citizens, some do not. That is not a reflection on all veterans it is simply a matter of fact. As she pointed out, Tim McVeigh was a veteran. It is her contention that the veterans who are responsible, law-abiding citizens would not mind complying with the same laws that non-veterans do to renew their CCLs periodically. “I really appreciate what every single veteran has done for me in keeping me safe and keeping my country safe,” Ms. Tibbs said. “I did not say that I don’t trust any of them.”
I am glad you were able to clarify Rep. Tibbs statements. Thanks for following up on this.
How do you suggest that we make decisions based on fact. If this were how we did things, we wouldn’t be $14T in debt!
Don’t confuse the issues with the facts.
Good post
I will have the the lady it was spoken to contact you, she will absolutely go on record.
The only thing keeping us free at this point is the 2nd Amendment. Our founders understood that this would be one of our biggest threats.. the loss of our ability to defend ourselves..
Michael, this quote from you is a great truth:
“Law-abiding citizens can, and should be trusted to exercise their rights responsibly. And, punishing the law-abiding doesn’t protect them from the law breakers. It only makes them victims.”
We, the law abiders, routinely lose rights because others have abused them – usually with no consequences.
Criminals know we cannot defend ourselves and so the door of opportunity is thrown wide open. I’d like to take a vote on how we handle these abusers when they do commit crimes against humanity. Forget the juries who never get the full story and the activist judges. Let the people decided on the punishment and make it a law. Think of the time we would save, and no longer would the gangs and rapists think they could beat the wrap. First, their chances of dying while committing the crime would rise to 50/50 because we are carrying in a comfortable manner, and second, they’d think twice because the punishment wouldn’t allow them a jail cell with a mobile phone and something to snort.
Great article.
Excellent article, Michael. I agree with your reasoning about the open carry law going on the ballot. There really is no reason for that to happen. Not to just repeat what you have written, but when we start voting on our rights, where will that lead and where will it stop?
Concerning the statements by Mr. Webb, I find it more than a little insulting that he thinks allowing guns on a campus will automatically make it a more unstable environment. I would like to see him try to prove that nonsensical, emotional theory, but he will not because he can not. It has no basis in fact.
Absolutely correct!
“When law-abiding citizens are armed, crime decreases.” Our country was founded on the right to bear arms. When they take your sidearm, you should be able to purchase a tank. Check out Kennesaw GA. It is compulsory to own a firearm. It also has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation!
We win this argument on a Constitutional basis. And, as in so many other arguments, we win the factual battle as well. More guns=less crime. It works everywhere it’s tried.
I personally don’t know why we continue to have this debate about guns. The 2nd amendment protect these rights period. I understand that there are leftist forces that wish to take this right away, but as I said the constitution and numerous statements by the founders on the right to bare arms and the intent of the 2nd amendment should be enough.
Trackbacks: