open carry

So far, three bills related to firearms (that I could find, at least), have been slated to be introduced when the session starts up again in February. As the session approaches and wears on, I will try to keep this updated.

HB 2193

HB 2193 by Rep. Jason Murphey doesn't really need a whole lot of discussion. It simply proposes to amend firearm storage laws to include ammunition. This is presumably to prevent employers and other entities from being able to enforce policies that prohibit the storage of ammunition rather than just the storage of a firearm in locked vehicles in parking lots. What good is that gun that you carry without ammunition, after all?

Here's a transcript (not 100% word for word, but accurate) of the first part of the video above where Rep. Sue Tibbs refuses to allow SB129 to be heard in the House Public Safety Committee. This is the exchange between Rep. John Bennett and Rep. Sue Tibbs.

Bennett: ...on the original agenda, Senate Bill 129 was on there but its no longer on the agenda. Are we not going to hear that bill today?

Tibbs: We are not!

OK2A writes that Rep. Sue Tibbs is considering allowing SB129 to be heard again in the House Public Safety Committee on Wednesday. Apparently, committee members thought there were a few problems with the bill that they supported last year.

First, they were voting on an amended version that was identical to last year's open carry bill. One problem they had was the lack of an LEO notification requirement when carrying openly. However, the bill retained the same requirement that applies to concealed carry applied it to however you choose to carry your firearm (page 41).

I thought I'd take a little time to sort out who changed their vote on open carry on the House Public Safety Committee since the Committee Substitute was identical to last year's HB3354.

Rep. Pam Peterson (R) voted against HB3354 last year. While serving on the committee this year, she voted to recommend passage of the identical committee substitute. Was this vote a true vote, or was it insurance because it was known prior to the vote that the substitute would fail?

By a vote of 8-9, the Oklahoma House Public Safety Committee has chosen to not recommend that SB129 be passed in the House of Representatives. The vote was with the committee substitute which would have changed SB129 from a Constitutional open carry bill to a licensed open carry bill.

The Oklahoma Rifle Association has a new statement on its website about SB129 - the best open carry bill we have available in Oklahoma at this time. Here's a screenshot in case they flip again:

No documentation or results of this "constructive dialogue" are available as far as I am aware. However, you might recall that the ORA recently made many unfounded claims in an open letter to legislators about the current version of this bill that showed an obvious lack of understanding of gun laws (both state and federal). By the way, letter is available here.

In addition to OK2A's support of HB1647 as a so-called open carry bill (without the Virgin amendment), the Oklahoma Rifle Association has come out against SB129. Here's part of the letter sent by the ORA to your representatives:

In a very late session, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed HB1647. It was passed with title intact and with an amendment by Rep. Emily Virgin (D).

In addition to the language requiring a defendant to articulate a reasonable fear of bodily harm upon arrest for unlawful carry by carrying a firearm openly, the Virgin amendment also requires a protective order to be in place.

Rep. Mike Reynolds (R) spoke on the floor multiple times about this bill being what gun owners want for open carry in Oklahoma. He's wrong. Gun owners who support open carry want open carry decriminalized, some with a license and some without. This bill only provides a defense to a criminal charge.

That defense is the ability to articulate a "reasonable fear of bodily harm" to the arresting officer or the prosecuting District Attorney. What constitutes "reasonable" to one person may not be "reasonable" to another.

The discharge petition for House Bill 1647 has received enough signatures to discharge the bill from committee and directly to the House floor. If you'll recall, this is the bill that would place an undue burden on citizens of Oklahoma to prove that they have reasonable fear of bodily harm in the event they choose to carry a firearm openly. OK2A claims that this is "open carry language".

Contact your Representative and urge them not to pass this bill without an amendment to remove that language.

The petition has been attached to this post.

I caught a retweet by Peter J. Rudy from a Tulsa World reporter that the Senate was considering open carry. I was under the impression that all Senate open carry bills had been molested and disposed of in committees. I did a little checking through all of the Senate floor amendments from the last two weeks and came across one by Senator Steve Russell and Representative Leslie Osborn submitted on March 3rd.

It appears that SB129 passed with the floor substitute 36-8. However, it appears it passed with a stricken title, which means that it will still need to return to the Senate in the event that the House also passes the bill.