As someone who tends to anger people on a regular basis I am not a fan of this.

They will just shoot their computer screen lol

Again, the primary assumption and assertion I was speaking to that's been repeated several times is those who are opposed to open carry are doing so out of fear as if that argument is automatically trumped by someone else's desire to carry a weapon for whatever reason (fear.) Who is afraid when your answer to a perceived problem is to strap on a loaded weapon, not to mention one in plain sight of everyone you come in contact with?

As I said, it's a decency and standard of behavior and interaction issue for many of us but the gun toters like to demonize their opposition by stereotype and branding them as hysterical, scared nelly's who wet the bed.
Could it have anything to do with the repeated fear mongering that remains unsubstantiated by any historical, documented evidence to support the hyperbolic prognostications?

BB:

As I said, it's a decency and standard of behavior and interaction issue for many of us but the gun toters like to demonize their opposition by stereotype and branding them as hysterical, scared nelly's who wet the bed.

It's funny, I keep seeing the same arguement used against those for open carry. Can't have it both ways. Want to logically and soundly discuss the issue, or just insult those on the other side?

I have been thinking a lot today about the Martin/Zimmerman case where the young boy was gunned down by the neighborhood watch participant. The whole thing is so sad. In reading about it I have to think about how so much of human history's greatest wars and atrocities were probably caused by poor communications and misunderstanding. To the young black teen he saw a man following him, possibly with a firearm exposed, whom he probably saw as an attacker. To the man he saw someone he believed might have been casing the neighborhood and according to the 911 calls and his owns words Zimmerman saw someone who was "up to no good." Perhaps this had to do with race. Perhaps it was the hoodie the young man was wearing, which by the way if the photos of the boy are any indication were probably Hollester brand... not exactly a mainstay of gangs or troubled youth. Probably one or the other attacked the other assuming the other was out to get them, a struggle ensued and Zimmerman shot Martin.

The real issue isn't the concealed carry law: it's Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. No one is talking about it, but this is why the police aren't acting. They have to have probable cause in that state to arrest Zimmerman... the law says if you're out in public and feel threatened, you can use deadly force. He's told the police he felt threatened and thought he was acting in self defense. According to Florida law, the onus is on the police to find cause that this wasn't the case. This is the ultimate outcome of that law. He'll probably walk.

In the Zimmerman case, my money says that they are taking their time in bringing charges. If they can't find any evidence the kid actually posed a reasonable threat I bet charges are filed. It may take days, weeks or even months, but I bet that's the path it takes.

On NPR today the police spokesman did finally confirm that this has to do with the Stand Your Ground law. Their hands may be tied... not sure. I agree though, they must be looking over every shred of evidence and this law to see if they have any wiggle room at all.

Ok, I found the Florida statute. It's an interesting read:

Florida Justifiable Use of Force (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html)

"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

So he's going to say that he believed he was in a fight for his life... doesn't sound like he has to prove it actually was a fight for his life, just that he feared it, and it also sounds like the fear can be based on the other guy having a weapon or just his hand to hand brute force. I am guessing that the big question the police are looking into is the first part of that sentence and whether or not Zimmerman was engaged in an unlawful activity when he started pursuing Martin. If his actions weren't illegal, and he thought he was threatened then I'm guessing the homicide is probably legal in Florida. That really doesn't seem right, so I hope not.

"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.".

This is the same wording as Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law.

This is the same wording as Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law.

Really? Yikes.

I think in the end Zimmerman is going to have a hard time convincing anyone that after he approached an unarmed youth that he was attacked and felt reasonably in fear for his life.

Like our local DA's office said, even if this law had been around prior to the Ersland case, it would not have effected filing charges against him. Of course, I think the video was the ultimate reason charges were filed - and there appears to be no video in the Zimmerman case.

Really? Yikes.
Title 21, Section 1289.25 Paragraph D:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Really? Yikes.

OK, I'll bite. Why yikes?

I think in the end Zimmerman is going to have a hard time convincing anyone that after he approached an unarmed youth that he was attacked and felt reasonably in fear for his life.

Like our local DA's office said, even if this law had been around prior to the Ersland case, it would not have effected filing charges against him. Of course, I think the video was the ultimate reason charges were filed - and there appears to be no video in the Zimmerman case.


It's going to be interesting to see how this turns out. Zimmerman was told by 911 not to follow the young man but he not only followed him he got out of his vehicle with a loaded gun and followed him. http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/19/opinion-trayvon-martin-not-george-zimmerman-was-engaged-in-self-defense/?hpt=hp_t1

It's going to be interesting to see how this turns out. Zimmerman was told by 911 not to follow the young man but he not only followed him he got out of his vehicle with a loaded gun and followed him. http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/19/opinion-trayvon-martin-not-george-zimmerman-was-engaged-in-self-defense/?hpt=hp_t1

Problem is, with the other half of the incident dead and no video, we will only get one side of the story. I still think charges are soon to follow. Or, at least it will fall on the hands of a grand jury (if they have grand juries in that area - not all do).

Problem is, with the other half of the incident dead and no video, we will only get one side of the story. I still think charges are soon to follow. Or, at least it will fall on the hands of a grand jury (if they have grand juries in that area - not all do).

I think a wrongful death suit is in Zimmerman's future too.

Sanford, Florida (CNN) -- A girl who overheard part of an incident involving Florida teenager Trayvon Martin can help prove he was killed "in cold blood," an attorney for Martin's family said Tuesday.

The girl, who was dating the 17-year-old, "completely blows (George) Zimmerman's absurd self-defense claim out of the water," Benjamin Crump said at a news conference.

He said the girl -- who does not wish to be identified -- "connects the dots" to describe what happened that day when she lays out what she overheard while on the phone with him.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

I'm armchair Qb'ing a situation I've only read about, but I'm thinking this one may not end up as local hero barely survives.

There's something that just doesn't quite sit right about a semi-sorta neighborhood watch chap, with a watch program that says don't carry for us, constantly calling 911 on his patrols over time and then on a fateful night, ignoring advice from 911 to not pursue and pursuing with a mindset of 'those [bleeps] always get away.' And rut rho shaggy, turns out it may not be simply the word of the shooter after all.

This has some markers to suggest a tv movie made from the available info might just play out more than a wee bit like Big Game Hunter than it would Saving Zimmerman.

OK, I'll bite. Why yikes?

It's obvious... I don't know that this is the case, but let's go ahead and assume that the Sanford Police Department is acting in good faith and is genuinely confused/doesn't feel that it has any evidence that rises to the level of probable cause to arrest Zimmerman, and that is because of the Stand Your Ground Law. If we have the same law, and that confusion/barrier is real, then that means someone here could do the same... act aggressively, and then when someone responds to defend themselves kill that person in cold blood and get away scott-free. That is what I find concerning.

The OKC equivalent would be you're strolling along in Bricktown taking in the sites by yourself when suddenly you notice someone following you... you think they're a bum or someone up to no good. You turn around and the guy is up in your face asking you who you are and what you are doing there. Maybe he puts his hands on you. You are afraid for what this guy is going to do; he has his hands on you; so you throw a few punches to get free and/or make him go away. In response he pulls out a gun and kills you. The police arrive and he tells them whatever... he was just asking for some money, he was trying to tell you something, he thought you were up to no good, etc... that he just walked up to see what you were all about and you started throwing punches at him and he was cornered and his life felt threatened. Clearly you were the aggressor and were out to kill him, so he was just defending himself. Unfortunately it was late and no security cameras or witnesses saw anything. There are fleeting reports of what some people think they heard. Seems like the same scenario to me. If we have the same law here and the same logic that is so far holding up in Sanford, FL were to hold up here then the murderer in this story gets away. I find that very disturbing.

Now it could be that the Sanford Police Department is not acting in good faith, or it could be that they are incompetent and don't understand the so-called "aggressor clause" of that law. If that ends up being the case then I will be less concerned about that law. But then we as a society have to deal with the fact that the family's racism claims may be justified, or that the police force there is horribly, horribly incompetent. I suppose the bigger question that comes out of that is whether or not this was just an isolated incident in a nice upscale suburban community, or if some of these issues might be more widespread across suburbia nation-wide. These implications are also disturbing.

I think the fact that this case is so shocking highlights how rare of an occurrence this type of event is. From what I've read, Zimmerman appears to have had a chip on his shoulder for some time. Clearly, he was not in fear of his life, having continued following the victim. The kid wasn't armed and his claim of self defense seems a bit thin. I don't know what the issue is with the police department though.

I think the fact that this case is so shocking highlights how rare of an occurrence this type of event is. From what I've read, Zimmerman appears to have had a chip on his shoulder for some time. Clearly, he was not in fear of his life, having continued following the victim. The kid wasn't armed and his claim of self defense seems a bit thin. I don't know what the issue is with the police department though.

More than likely the former police department.

The Zimmerman case is really an interesting point. Zimmerman seems to be the aggressor from the beginning. Based on the wording of "Stand my ground" laws Martin, if he had been armed, stood a better chance of being covered by the law. He was going to a relatives residence so he had right to be in the area and he was approached by an armed person meaning to do him harm. Too bad he wasn't old enough to legally carry a weapon. I agree with Brian, I see Zimmerman eventually going down for this one. It's just a matter of the prosecutor getting all the ducks in a row.

This throws in a whole new wrinkle and I'm not sure I like where this is heading.


http://newsok.com/oklahoma-house-bill-would-allow-concealed-carry-permits-for-oklahomans-who-voluntarily-seek-mental-help/article/3665010

This throws in a whole new wrinkle and I'm not sure I like where this is heading.


http://newsok.com/oklahoma-house-bill-would-allow-concealed-carry-permits-for-oklahomans-who-voluntarily-seek-mental-help/article/3665010

That article is written very poorly. Essentially what the new bill does is prevent successful treatment of PTSD from being a disqualifying event.

That article is written very poorly. Essentially what the new bill does is prevent successful treatment of PTSD from being a disqualifying event.

This.

Here's the text of the bill as of its reading on the senate floor. Underlined text is what has been added:



In addition to the requirements stated in Section 1290.9 of this title, the conditions stated in this section shall preclude a person from eligibility for a handgun license pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title. The occurrence of any one of the following conditions shall deny the person the right to have a handgun license pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act. Prohibited conditions are:


1. Ineligible to possess a pistol due to any felony conviction or adjudication as a delinquent as provided by Section 1283 of this title, except as provided in subsection B of Section 1283 of this title;

2. Any felony conviction pursuant to any law of another state, a felony conviction pursuant to any provision of the United States Code, or any conviction pursuant to the laws of any foreign country, provided such foreign conviction would constitute a felony offense in this state if the offense had been committed in this state, except as provided in subsection B of Section 1283 of this title;

3. Adjudication as an incompetent person pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Mental Health Law, Section 1-101 et seq. of Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes or an adjudication of incompetency entered in another state pursuant to any provision of law of that state or adjudication as an incompetent person in accordance with the following:


a. a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease:


(1) is a danger to himself or herself or to others, or

(2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs,

b. a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case, or

c. a finding of incompetency to stand trial or a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to Articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a and 876b.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit licensing of any person, veteran or nonveteran, who has been successfully treated for post-traumatic stress disorder or who does not meet the conditions in this paragraph;

(The remainder of the bill is unchanged).

I'm actually not that wild about the proposed change. Maybe someone who has a mental defect shouldn't have the right to a concealed license. If I read what I just posted correctly their mental condition now must rise to the level of a declaration of mental illness by a court.

I don't think the NRA and the wingers in the Okie Leg will be satisfied until kindergarteners are armed. We'll have more guns than people in the US, if we don't already. An entire generation will be taught that using deadly force is the best way to resolve conflict. Shrug. It is what it is.

So where's my right to bear arms? I would like to have a few shoulder-fired missiles and grenade launchers. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee me this right?

^^^^^^^
Yeah that whole Bill of Rights thing just sucks, doesn't it? Maybe we should just repeal 'em. That'd fix those freedom lovin' SOBs sumfin' good.


I'm actually not that wild about the proposed change. Maybe someone who has a mental defect shouldn't have the right to a concealed license. If I read what I just posted correctly their mental condition now must rise to the level of a declaration of mental illness by a court.
Yeah, but what other method would you use to determine whether someone is "defective"? The medical privacy laws would preclude it from being reported by those undergoing treatment, wouldn't it?

I don't think the NRA and the wingers in the Okie Leg will be satisfied until kindergarteners are armed. We'll have more guns than people in the US, if we don't already. An entire generation will be taught that using deadly force is the best way to resolve conflict. Shrug. It is what it is.

So where's my right to bear arms? I would like to have a few shoulder-fired missiles and grenade launchers. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee me this right?

What is meant by the term, "foaming at the mouth".

^^^^^^^
Yeah that whole Bill of Rights thing just sucks, doesn't it? Maybe we should just repeal 'em. That'd fix those freedom lovin' SOBs sumfin' good.


Yeah, but what other method would you use to determine whether someone is "defective"? The medical privacy laws would preclude it from being reported by those undergoing treatment, wouldn't it?

Right now the form itself requires you to disclose whether or not you've been treated for mental illness, voluntary drug rehab, etc. (see pages 3 and 4):

http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/sda%20application%20and%20brady%20supplement.pdf

I am guessing that those questions would be yanked from the form since they are no longer relevant if this bill passes. Although somewhat on the honors system, if someone else were to report a person who hadn't filled out the form correctly, or if there were some incident at a later time involving the licensee and at that time it was discovered they had a mental issue, there would at least be a path for the OSBI to revoke the license and potentially prosecute the person. If this happens I don't think that is a possibility at all anymore unless that something rises to a court order level. That just doesn't strike me as such a great idea in a post-Trayvon world... e.g. doesn't seem like they are thinking through all of the possible ramifications. You're right though going that route would be less subjective.

I have to say that is possibly the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. I just don't think our legislature is actually that stupid.

I have to say that is possibly the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. I just don't think our legislature is actually that stupid.
Coming from someone with an illicit drug as a username.

having lived in phoenix for 23 years, open carry is not a big deal. in a metro with 4+ million people i've only seen people open carry a dozen times or so. most of those sightings were bikers on the freeway with an AR-15 slung across their back. The big open carry controversy was when Obama came to the Phoenix Convention Center for a speech and people were outside in the city streets openly carrying their weapons. What did Phoenix PD do? nothing, because they weren't breaking any laws. nobody got shot. with open carry, there isn't going to be anarchy in the streets with people having gun fights. i like open carry because it gives an option if you do carry and you won't get in trouble if you accidentally show your gun while carrying concealed.

I have to say that is possibly the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. I just don't think our legislature is actually that stupid.

Yes. They're that stupid.

Yes. They're that stupid.

In fact, I am frequently astounded at just how repeatedly stupid these people, who presumably have some higher education, can be. I'm amazed Southpark hasn't picked up some of our legislators pet projects.

There is no conflict issue here between amendments. A person's right to speak is just as valid with or without the Second Amendment. However, it behooves a person to use judgement where one chooses to speak. I don't recommend screaming at a policeman during a traffic stop. Also, inciting violence or false fire alerts also aren't really good ideas. You may have the right but you also have the consequences for your actions. Open carry is a "right" which is not to be construed as a "permission". Reasonable people know the difference between the two. No permit or license is required for a "right". Whether you like it or not. The mere act of "living" exposes every citizen to some degree of danger from a multitude of sources. Not just guns. To relinquish a right will not reduce that danger. Only self protection can minimize the danger but not eliminate it. You can be sure of one thing if you or your family is attacked and that is "the police will arrive in just enough time to fill out the paperwork and figure out what happened". You know where you or your family will be don't you? Ask yourself a question. If a poll were conducted on current felons in jail involving "guns", how many felons do you believe would be in possession of an authorized concealed carry permit or license. I assure you, the need for a permit or license never crossed the felons mind and I doubt you would find one or two (if any). Think of open carry as the constitution saying it is ok for you to protect yourself and your family from harm without being prosecuted by the law. It takes on a totally different perspective doesn't it? Don't be hasty to give away rights that your ancestors died for!

... I'm amazed Southpark hasn't picked up some of our legislators pet projects.

The bulk of the local stupidity lacks a humor component.

The bulk of the local stupidity lacks a humor component.

Southpark needs to go to http://bubbaworld.com

There is no conflict issue here between amendments. A person's right to speak is just as valid with or without the Second Amendment. However, it behooves a person to use judgement where one chooses to speak. I don't recommend screaming at a policeman during a traffic stop. Also, inciting violence or false fire alerts also aren't really good ideas. You may have the right but you also have the consequences for your actions. Open carry is a "right" which is not to be construed as a "permission". Reasonable people know the difference between the two. No permit or license is required for a "right". Whether you like it or not. The mere act of "living" exposes every citizen to some degree of danger from a multitude of sources. Not just guns. To relinquish a right will not reduce that danger. Only self protection can minimize the danger but not eliminate it. You can be sure of one thing if you or your family is attacked and that is "the police will arrive in just enough time to fill out the paperwork and figure out what happened". You know where you or your family will be don't you? Ask yourself a question. If a poll were conducted on current felons in jail involving "guns", how many felons do you believe would be in possession of an authorized concealed carry permit or license. I assure you, the need for a permit or license never crossed the felons mind and I doubt you would find one or two (if any). Think of open carry as the constitution saying it is ok for you to protect yourself and your family from harm without being prosecuted by the law. It takes on a totally different perspective doesn't it? Don't be hasty to give away rights that your ancestors died for!

I agree. Open carry will not mean everyone gets engage everyone they perceive will be a threat. It will mean you will have to explain why you used deadly force. 1. The other person had a weapon with intent to use it. 2. The person had a clear physical advantage over you and they had you cornered with no other means to protect yourself. 3. They are assaulting you and won't stop. If you kill because you were just scared. You will go to prison.

By the way you need to know how to use a gun otherwise it will be useless in a life or death situation. I know most people have seen Pulp Fiction where John Travolta and Samuel Jackson are hitmen there to settle a score. The roommate runs out and empties a revolver in their direction and they are unharmed. They return fire and kill the guy. That happens more then people believe. You have to know how to hit the target and when you shoot someone they don't die instantly unless you hit them in the right place.

The majority of people value life and they won't use a gun without knowing how to properly use it. They know if they don't what they are aiming at they could kill someone else. Personally. I would rather live in an environment were peace loving people were armed instead of one were peace loving people were restricted to calling the police. Who unfortunately show up five to ten minutes after the bad guy leaves.

Banning guns and personal ability to carry will be about as effective as the drug laws in this country. It does not matter who you are or where you are. Somebody you know has a drug connection to get whatever you want. It's just a matter of building trust. More people use than not most are able to cover their drug use by restricting use to weekends or around trusted friends.

It will mean you will have to explain why you used deadly force. 1. The other person had a weapon with intent to use it. 2. The person had a clear physical advantage over you and they had you cornered with no other means to protect yourself. 3. They are assaulting you and won't stop. If you kill because you were just scared. You will go to prison.

I think 'open carry' and 'stand your ground' opinions are becoming a bit too merged in some people's minds. The above quote may be your impression of stand your ground, but it certainly is not how the law is applied in other states - and even when it is applied that way - juries often interpret it with far less stringency.


In Texas a man was allowed to leave his home and confront men who were unarmed and robbing his neighbor's unoccupied home. He shot the robbers in the back as they fled. No charges filed.

In Florida a man chased down a guy who stole his car stereo. The robber was unarmed and allegedly swung the bag of car stereos at the robbery victim. The victim then took his knife and stabbed the robber to death. No charges filed and no witnesses to back up the 'he swung a bag of stereos at me.'

A drunk Pennsylvania man knocked on the wrong door and window late one night and the homeowner shot and killed him through the window. The drunk man thought he was at his girlfriend's house. No charges filed (though technically still under investigation).

In Wisconsin a 20-year old young man hid on a neighbors porch after a party he was at was busted by police. While the police were still at the party scene, the neighbor shot and killed the 20-year old when he saw him on his porch. Charges will not be filed.

The list goes on and on.

I'm not against open carry or stand your ground. But people need to realize the real consequences of such legislation.

Banning guns and personal ability to carry will be about as effective as the drug laws in this country. It does not matter who you are or where you are. Somebody you know has a drug connection to get whatever you want. It's just a matter of building trust. More people use than not most are able to cover their drug use by restricting use to weekends or around trusted friends.
I don't know if I would say most. Maybe most in a certain demographic age group or category. But, I agree with you that banning guns is not an effective way to eliminate crime. As the saying goes, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

SB1733 an open carry bill is on it's way to the governor for her to sign.

Can you not support the 2nd amendment while being reasonable about it? Why is open carry needed? NRA and the like have gone overboard.

Apologize if this is has already been posted elsewhere.

That officer conducted himself very professionally and seems to have a good sense of humor. So often we see just the negative, it's kind of nice to see this sort of reaction from time to time.

Good cop. Gives me an idea about expressing my first amendment rights. I think I'll start a photo website...The People Who Open Carry.

I guess I still don't get the reason it might become a problem. To carry, concealed or open, requires going through a particular process to receive a permit. So prior to this law, the permitted person next to you might have a concealed piece. After it is signed, the permitted person next to you might have a concealed piece OR s/he might have a visible piece (or perhaps both.)

Just remember .. guns don't kill people. Bullets, well, that's a whole nuther story.

That officer conducted himself very professionally and seems to have a good sense of humor. So often we see just the negative, it's kind of nice to see this sort of reaction from time to time.

I have mixed feelings about the officer. After he made contact with the citizen I think he was indeed very professional, courteous and even likable - a combination I have rarely encounter from OCPD, but often do with Del City and MWC PD.

My concern was.... did he stop the citizen simply because he was open carrying? If so, I have issue with that considering its an open carry state. I don't care that he was in public with a gun - that matters not unless someone called 911 and reported the person acting in a suspicious manner or if the officer witnessed something other than the holstered weapon.

I don't want officers being able to stop me, detain me and question me for engaging in perfectly legal activities.

But, if they are going to, I want it to be that officer.

I have mixed feelings about the officer. After he made contact with the citizen I think he was indeed very professional, courteous and even likable - a combination I have rarely encounter from OCPD, but often do with Del City and MWC PD.

My concern was.... did he stop the citizen simply because he was open carrying? If so, I have issue with that considering its an open carry state. I don't care that he was in public with a gun - that matters not unless someone called 911 and reported the person acting in a suspicious manner or if the officer witnessed something other than the holstered weapon.

I don't want officers being able to stop me, detain me and question me for engaging in perfectly legal activities.

But, if they are going to, I want it to be that officer.



It's too bad OCPD doesn't encourage or train their officers to act in the same type of professional manner as the officer in the video. That would never happen in OKC. Most officers I have run into are total smartasses that think they are hot shyt because they carry a badge. OCPD reminds me of small town cops. I have been to many other larger cities and have been out all hrs. of the night and see police cars but do not see them hasseling people just because they have nothing better to do in the early morning hrs. You can't even go our for a drive after 2.00am without police cars swarming all around just looking to hassle someone. I just don't like how these police officers in OKC act. They all seem to act the same. God forbid you get stopped by some rookie. If this law passes I think I will do the same thing as the fellow on the video just to see how these cops around here handle it.

... If this law passes I think I will do the same thing as the fellow on the video just to see how these cops around here handle it.

Best to have a backup recording at the same time. The last time OCPD stopped me I was simply recording audio with the phone in my pocket and they took it, turned the screen on, unlocked it (no password required), and then hit stop on the audio recording app. And yes, that is clearly an illegal search of my property. Fortunately, I always have a second recorder recording. I've since changed my phone to require a password to be unlocked.

This makes us look like a bunch of reneck gun-toting hicks. So what else is new? We've got Sally Kern too.

This makes us look like a bunch of reneck gun-toting hicks. So what else is new? We've got Sally Kern too.

Really? Then we are in good company and growing.... http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html

That makes me think about when I was in banking many years ago here in Oklahoma. I and a number of others had a gun within reach just underneath of our desks (not my idea at all). I have no idea if that was legal at the time (late 70's early 80's).

I have mixed feelings about the officer. After he made contact with the citizen I think he was indeed very professional, courteous and even likable - a combination I have rarely encounter from OCPD, but often do with Del City and MWC PD.

My concern was.... did he stop the citizen simply because he was open carrying? If so, I have issue with that considering its an open carry state. I don't care that he was in public with a gun - that matters not unless someone called 911 and reported the person acting in a suspicious manner or if the officer witnessed something other than the holstered weapon.

I don't want officers being able to stop me, detain me and question me for engaging in perfectly legal activities.

But, if they are going to, I want it to be that officer.

He clearly states at the beginning that he had gotten a lot of calls about the guy. It was his duty to check it out.

He clearly states at the beginning that he had gotten a lot of calls about the guy. It was his duty to check it out.

And I clearly stated that I have an issue with citizens being stopped and detained by police for following the law. There is zero mention than anyone called and claimed the citizen was doing anything illegal. Its not an officers duty to stop and detain people when there is no legal basis for it.

And I clearly stated that I have an issue with citizens being stopped and detained by police for following the law. There is zero mention than anyone called and claimed the citizen was doing anything illegal. Its not an officers duty to stop and detain people when there is no legal basis for it.
Do you have a problem with an officer doing a welfare check on someone as well? That's essentially all he did. He made sure that the guy seemed to be doing okay physically and mentally.

Do you have a problem with an officer doing a welfare check on someone as well? That's essentially all he did. He made sure that the guy seemed to be doing okay physically and mentally.

That's absurd and is not even comparable to a 'check the welfare' call. Based on that then you seem to be okay with police stopping any citizen at any time and questioning them.

Really? Then we are in good company and growing.... http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html

Also check out http://www.facebook.com/#!/opencarryok

That's absurd and is not even comparable to a 'check the welfare' call. Based on that then you seem to be okay with police stopping any citizen at any time and questioning them.

Must less a self appointed busybody...like Zimmerman.

The video did make me get familiar with stop and identify laws, which we don't have here, evidently, but are in effect and have been upheld elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

I do remember the OKC cops doing a roadblock license check in my hood a couple of years ago near some sketchy apartments, perhaps illegally, though when I looked that up at the time I thought they could do that, and I'm still unclear (and too lazy to look it up now) if an officer in Oklahoma can stop you and see if you are legally licensed to drive. If so, and considering there are strict requirements and licensing for open carry, does that same train of thought not extend to checking to see if one has a permit to carry a weapon?

If not, then how is enforcement supposed to work? Yes, I approve of the cops making darn sure everyone who carries a weapon openly is 100% in compliance with the law. If we are going to allow people to walk around with guns we do need stop, identify and present your gun permit laws.

That officer conducted himself very professionally and seems to have a good sense of humor. So often we see just the negative, it's kind of nice to see this sort of reaction from time to time.

I agree... he did his job professionally and fairly.

That's absurd and is not even comparable to a 'check the welfare' call. Based on that then you seem to be okay with police stopping any citizen at any time and questioning them.

I'm OK with the police stopping somebody open carrying a firearm especially since the police department received several calls about him. Not doing so would have been a dereliction of duty.