|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
OK: Oklahoma doesn't need constitutional carry
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Oklahoma has a rich history of cultivating good guys with a gun. Many of our gun-owning citizenry have been granted an open or concealed carry license. Often professionally-trained via military or law enforcement, these citizens are often dedicated to safe responsible gun ownership and consider themselves preemptive first responders. Oklahoma supports them in this venture with a strong permitting system: a background check by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, safety training, and requirements for live-fire practice. Your Legislature is attempting to eradicate all of this. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/22/2019)
|
| Permitting System? Really!! Government would like to think that they can "Give" permission to exercise a Constitutional Right. A Socialist dream at best. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/22/2019)
|
| The whole nation is endowed with the fundamental right to carry, and it is unconstitutional in principle to place barriers on its exercise, the sole exceptions being legal minority status, violent criminal history and involuntary commitment. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
