Oklahoma's Ability to Regulate The Carrying of Weapons

[DBW]

Section II-26 of the Oklahoma state constitution

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when
thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but
nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from
regulating the carrying of weapons."

As I continue to educate myself on the Constitution and the 2A, it would seem that the bolded portion of my state's Bill of Rights violates the 2A as well as the 14A. Oklahoma, along with Texas and two other "shall issue" states do not allow open carry. Prior to becoming a shall issue state residents could not carry concealed or openly. Although we now are permitted to carry concealed, I'd like to see the state reject this last remnant of control.

So in reading this, how do you view it? As an infringement in the 2A? The 14A? Just curious.

[Kansas Ed]

That statement does not "regulate" the carrying of weapons, but does leave the door open to pass legislation that does regulate. So no, I don't think it, in and of itself violates the 2nd amendment. I don't see it as unconstitutional....what ever it leaves the door open to probably would be though.

Ed

[Grizz]

I see it as infringing by intent. It states that the government reserves the legal authority to infringe.

Here's Alaska's law:

Alaska is the first state to adopt carry laws mimicking Vermont's (normally referred to as "Vermont Carry,"), in which no license is required to carry a handgun either openly or concealed. However, licenses are still issued to residents who want them for purposes of carrying in other states via reciprocity, to be in complete compliance with Federal Gun Free School Zone act. The term "Alaska Carry" has been used to describe laws which require no license to carry handgun openly or concealed but licenses are still available for those who want them. Some city ordinances do not permit concealed carry without a concealed carry license, but these have been invalidated by the recent state preemption statute.

The state has the preemption statute which specifically states that sub-governments cannot alter the state's gun laws. This is an effective constitutional position observing and protecting the individual's rights.

[DBW]

The Oklahoma Self Defense Act (SDA) was the legislation that allows CC here. I've read it. Now, what of the estimated 14% of residents who are illiterate? The SDA requires an applicant to read and understand the act. Additionally, fees required preclude those of limited financial ability to pay for the mandated courses, biometrics, etc.

In my mind anything that is an obstacle to self defense is an infringement. Are poor or illiterate residents any less equal to those who aren't? Could the requirements infringe on the 14A?

OK's constitution was the work of Progressive, socialists in the early 1900's. Racism existed and as such it's my belief that the last portion of the above section in the constitution reflects a means of discriminating and infringing.

[Pisgah]

Without going in to all the ins and outs of opinions on what is or is not Constitutional, it seems clear from the language that the Second Amendment applies to Congress. Aside from forbidding the state from banning firearms altogether (as the Supreme Court might or might not see as unconstitutional, given its makeup or mood at the time asked), the state is pretty much free to regulate as it chooses.

This is how the Constitution was pretty clearly meant to work, establishing the major priciples involved, defining the limited role of the Congress, and generally allowing the states to sort out the details on their own. The idea was, if your state allowed or forbade something and you didn't like it, you could either muster the political wherewithal to change the state's laws, or move to another more agreeable state.

[Grizz]

This is how the Constitution was pretty clearly meant to work, establishing the major priciples involved, defining the limited role of the Congress, and generally allowing the states to sort out the details on their own. The idea was, if your state allowed or forbade something and you didn't like it, you could either muster the political wherewithal to change the state's laws, or move to another more agreeable state.

Now I get it. The first amendment applies to congress, and if we want to as a state we can ban cnn and msnbc and only allow fox news and rush and mark and sean on the air waves or in print in our state. Wow, I must have been awol during that class period, sorry I missed it. Time to go organize the community.

Grizz

[76/444]

Section II-26 of the Oklahoma state constitution

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when
thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but
nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from
regulating the carrying of weapons."

As I continue to educate myself on the Constitution and the 2A, it would seem that the bolded portion of my state's Bill of Rights violates the 2A as well as the 14A. Oklahoma, along with Texas and two other "shall issue" states do not allow open carry. Prior to becoming a shall issue state residents could not carry concealed or openly. Although we now are permitted to carry concealed, I'd like to see the state reject this last remnant of control.

So in reading this, how do you view it? As an infringement in the 2A? The 14A? Just curious.

Please don't take offense,... but, to claim that a State Constitution can infringe upon the 2nd amendment, is impossible.

The first ten amendments in the "Bill of Rights" of the U.S. Constitution,... is like the Ten Commandments.

They are written to COMMAND Government,... NOT to infringe upon U.S. citizen's Creator/God given Rights. Or, if you wish,... it DEFINES what Government CAN NOT DO.

NOT, what they CAN DO as in the situation with your State Constitution, as you have quoted.

The Bill of Rights, gives the U.S. Government, nothing more, or less, than a warning to those we have empowered to serve, WE the PEOPLE, to NOT infringe upon our Creator/God given Rights.

It does not give us Rights.

It only, in a manner, illuminates the idea that Government infringement upon Creator/God given Rights,... is basic TYRANNY!

But, without fine or punishment for such infringement, we are at the mercy of the honor of those that take their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Hence the political dilemma, WE the PEOPLE, find ourselves in today.

So,... it would be litigiously impossible for a State Constitution to infringe upon a COMMAND of the U.S. Constitution, upon the Government.


Your State Constitution is in direct conflict with the COMMAND of the Bill of Rights upon Government, to , ... NOT infringe upon Creator/God given Rights,.... but, that's about all it does.

[AJMD429]

Now I get it. The first amendment applies to congress, and if we want to as a state we can ban cnn and msnbc and only allow fox news and rush and mark and sean on the air waves or in print in our state. Wow, I must have been awol during that class period, sorry I missed it. Time to go organize the community.

Grizz

There IS some sort of debate (not sure I accept the 'legitimacy' of it...) about certain Amendments being 'incorporated' or not - something along the lines that until they are 'incorporated' the States can in fact violate them, but seems to me either they ALL should be so accepted, or ALL should not. You are right in that logically, if Oklahoma can ban ownership of light machine-guns and other individual freedom-preserving 'militia' type firearms, then of course they can ban free speech, or not allow blacks to vote, or require membership in a certain church or seize property. Obviously, I don't think the State should be allowed to do any of those things!

One irony is that when it comes to firearms ownership, the 'sportsmen & collectors' seem to think that their hobby is the reason we're "allowed" to own firearms - that's about as legitimate as saying that poetry and pornography are the reasons for the First Amendment. BOTH are meant to assure the public has the rights to politically-significant things - the right to print pamphlets saying some elected official is a crooked liar, and the right to self-defense if censored by force for it. NOT the right to hunt ducks or read the Sunday comics!

[Ysabel Kid]

No limitation on the state, so it is an infringement. SC does not allow open carry...

[adirondakjack]

Just as the First, fifth, etc have been TESTED and found applicable to the States as well as to CONGRESS, we're in the midst of an historic TESTING of the 2nd which IMHO WILL end up saying that it too extends to limiting the states' power. HOWEVER, no right is absolute, not even the right to life. (the death penalty has been upheld) and when one right bumps up against another (yelling fire in a crwded theater is the classic example) a prioritizing of rights DOES take place and has been upheld.

This leaves the SCOTUS in the position to figure out the SCOPE and LIMITATIONS of the 2nd, and how it will be tested and found to INTERACT WITH the various other rights.

Hint, you never have freedom of speech if "the other guy" is holding a gun you can't have.......

Rights work together. It remains to be seen how SCOTUS figures that out. the Chicago case, and those sure to follow will iron that out.

FWIW I'd not heard the literacy argument applied to gun rights before. It is interesting in view of the history of VOTING discrimination in the past and the history of gun laws being used as discrinatory "tools" of the power elites way back to colonial times, for example, negros were forbidden to CARRY guns, yet could have them and use them to hunt.... Then at other times blacks were allowed shotguns but not rifles, etc.....

VERY interesting take on it and I am sure somewhere along the line literacy will be brought to the fore (you can't withold a drivers license on literacy basis. Having the test READ TO a person is required in most states if they can't read).

[76/444]

I believe, when it comes to the debate on RIGHTS,... there are decidedly two different camps.

Their are those that believe Rights are NOT absolute, that they are a living entity or such like a living Constitution. That they can be molded and changed in time, to suit current and popular social standards, or, the political wind that happens to be blowing at that moment. They believe that what was the defining outline yesterday,... need not be the definition today,... or tomorrow.

And they are satisfied with that. Not having a clue the Pandora Box they open!





Then,.... there is the camp that believe Rights are ABSOLUTELY CARVED IN STONE. That they are CREATOR/GOD given Rights that meant the same when they were gifted to a human being from birth, and remain constant until that person's last breath.

They believe that since the Bill of Rights is ONLY a warning to Government to NOT INFRINGE on a CREATOR/GOD given Right,... that it should be clear from this document that MAN is not only warned to NOT INFRINGE on what GOD has GIFTED, but, also, MAN has NO AUTORITY to do so.

What God has done, man, can not put asunder.




Now, I understand the confusion. I understand how one, in modern times, with all the constant bombardment of slanted political propaganda,... could come to the conclusion that REDEFINING HUMAN RIGHTS on the whim of whoever is in power can be individually advantageous for those FEW.

But a living hell for the rest.

Which is why, our Founding Fathers, when documenting first of all that,... HUMAN RIGHTS exist,... they then preempted what they miraculously prophesied,... the attacks that would come in future centuries with the FIRST ten amendments called the Bill of Rights. Which basically stated in very certain and finite language that Government was to KEEP THEIR DANG HANDS OFF!!!!!! They understood in their wisdom that of all the writings they were compiling into the Constitution, these, the Bill of Rights, were by far the absolute most important for the success of that new and fragile Nation called The United States of America.


For later generations to come along and act in a manner that thumbs their nose at these GREAT men who gave them everything they have today,... when they step up and speak with their actions, saying that the Founding fathers had no clue what they were writing,.... then the exact prophetic warning our Founding Fathers forewarned about, and acted upon by instituting precautionary amendments to the Constitution to prevent,.... is at hand.



Any American citizen that allows the typical anti-God politicos in place now,... to subvert the ONLY PROTECTION to their Human God given Rights,.... deserves what they get, imo.


p.s.

Rights, Human Rights, God given Human Rights,.... can not be foresakened, can not be denied, can not be sold or given away. They are as integral a part of our existence as breathing, as seeing and feeling. No man can separate himself from these gifts, anymore than he can fly like a bird. People of the first camp may believe that just because of INFRINGEMENT, ... God given Rights can be changed through legislative action.

Nothing,.... NOTHING, is further from the truth.

[edwardyoung]

That's why the Government-types are trying so hard to get rid of God. If they get a majority of stupid voters to agree there's no God, then there surely can't be God-given rights that transcend man-made laws and privileges. It seems more and more that God is not amused, though.

[76/444]

This is how the Constitution was pretty clearly meant to work, establishing the major priciples involved, defining the limited role of the Congress, and generally allowing the states to sort out the details on their own. The idea was, if your state allowed or forbade something and you didn't like it, you could either muster the political wherewithal to change the state's laws, or move to another more agreeable state.

Now I get it. The first amendment applies to congress, and if we want to as a state we can ban cnn and msnbc and only allow fox news and rush and mark and sean on the air waves or in print in our state. Wow, I must have been awol during that class period, sorry I missed it. Time to go organize the community.

Grizz

--------------------------------

the Bill of Rights......

AMENDMENT 1

CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

------------------------------------

Yes, Dorthy,.... the 1st amendment applies to Congress. As do ALL the first ten amendments!

[Don McDowell]

Fairly good example of why all of the constitution is tied together thru the ammendments.
The second says the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Simple enough, but it also mention regulation, but is not specific, so then you go on down the list to the 10th, and the part about things not specifically mentioned are left to the states. So that opens the door for states to regulate anything not specifically mentioned from firearms to drivers licenses, etc.
So if Oklahoma wants to say you can't openly carry, that's probably going to stand constitutional muster, so long as they don't prohibit the "right to keep and bear arms".
The Heller case is a good example of how this works, and I imagine is also going to be a deciding agent in the Chicago case coming up.

[76/444]

Fairly good example of why all of the constitution is tied together thru the ammendments.
The second says the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Simple enough, but it also mention regulation, but is not specific, so then you go on down the list to the 10th, and the part about things not specifically mentioned are left to the states. So that opens the door for states to regulate anything not specifically mentioned from firearms to drivers licenses, etc.
So if Oklahoma wants to say you can't openly carry, that's probably going to stand constitutional muster, so long as they don't prohibit the "right to keep and bear arms".
The Heller case is a good example of how this works, and I imagine is also going to be a deciding agent in the Chicago case coming up.

Hmmmm,.. I'm puzzled. You say the 2nd states that ....

" it also mention regulation, but is not specific, "

But, for the life of me,..... my copy of the 2nd amendment is very specific.
----------------------

Bill of rights...

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

----------------------------------------


The use of the term "regulated" you mention, refers to a "regulated Militia". NOT the regulation of the Right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, where as it states specifically that, the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall "not be infringed".

Do you see my confusion with your statement? Please clarify for me?

[Don McDowell]

[quote="76/444

Hmmmm,.. I'm puzzled. You say the 2nd states that ....

" it also mention regulation, but is not specific, "

But, for the life of me,..... my copy of the 2nd amendment is very specific.
----------------------

Bill of rights...

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary
----------------------------------------


The use of the term "regulated" you mention, refers to a "regulated Militia". NOT the regulation of the Right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, where as it states specifically that, the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall "not be infringed".

Do you see my confusion with your statement? Please clarify for me?[/quote]



At the time of the signing of the constitution and in alot of states constitutions yet today, all male citizens of voting age were considered a part of the militia. So the well regulated part does have some meaning. Also we have two different supreme court rulings some 60 years apart that leave the ability to regulate firearms, but preserve the intention of the keep and bear arms part intact.
The tenth ammendment also still applies because of the powers left to the state not specifically mentioned in the constitution. So yes Oklahoma or any other state can regulate when and how you can carry the firearm,so long as they don't outright ban them.
You can't cherry pick bits and pieces of the constitution, that's where lots of confusion comes in. It's an all or nothing deal. And there is no part of it that doesn't have any meaning.

[76/444]

[quote="76/444

Hmmmm,.. I'm puzzled. You say the 2nd states that ....

" it also mention regulation, but is not specific, "

But, for the life of me,..... my copy of the 2nd amendment is very specific.
----------------------

Bill of rights...

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary
----------------------------------------


The use of the term "regulated" you mention, refers to a "regulated Militia". NOT the regulation of the Right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, where as it states specifically that, the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall "not be infringed".

Do you see my confusion with your statement? Please clarify for me?

At the time of the signing of the constitution and in alot of states constitutions yet today, all male citizens of voting age were considered a part of the militia. So the well regulated part does have some meaning. Also we have two different supreme court rulings some 60 years apart that leave the ability to regulate firearms, but preserve the intention of the keep and bear arms part intact.
The tenth ammendment also still applies because of the powers left to the state not specifically mentioned in the constitution. So yes Oklahoma or any other state can regulate when and how you can carry the firearm,so long as they don't outright ban them.
You can't cherry pick bits and pieces of the constitution, that's where lots of confusion comes in. It's an all or nothing deal. And there is no part of it that doesn't have any meaning.[/quote]


=======================================


Hey Doc, I'm sorry, obviously I was not clear in my question.

First I am very well aware of the many characteristics and requirements of a "militia" of that period. That was not my question.

Second,... if I believed in accepting politically advocated SCOTUS judgments as unbiased facts,... I would not be carrying on this conversation. But that was not my question.

Third,... I will agree that a state may regulate their militia on any and every aspect of being a militia, including the protocol in dealing with weapons they are issued or of personal property. And,.... that is not my question, either.

Forth,...I have already stated above that the OK Constitution,.... can in NO WAY be in violation of the U.S. Bill of Rights 2nd amendment. Not my question to you sir.


Now, my question was in reference to your kinda open statement about "regulating" as in regulating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But obviously, in a round-a-bout manner you have answered me with,....

"Also we have two different supreme court rulings some 60 years apart that leave the ability to regulate firearms, but preserve the intention of the keep and bear arms part intact."

Which I assume is your position on my actual question,... and , which puts us in agreement. Thanks. I think.


p.s.

As for cherry picking,... yes I can. And (i agree) because it all does have meaning that cherry picking is a sound procedure. If that confuses you, I am sorry.

[DBW]

Define the word 'regulate' as used in 1787. As in the Article 1, Section 8, I believe 'regulate' means "to make uniform". Since there were many militia groups within most of the states, it made sense to have them all confirm to a uniform set of standards should the government need to call them up. General George Washington lamented the differences in his command in keeping them supplied.

[rimrock]

There were Texas laws as late as 1853 which prohibited open carry because of the tendency for drunkards to shoot up a town. I'm sure if the research were done similar laws could be found to exist in the original 13 colonies, so Oklahoma's constitution itself most likely doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution prohibition against infringement of the right to bear arms. The 1st SCOTUS Heller case has some discussion about what bear arms meant when the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Go to scotuswiki.com to locate the various briefs where the arguments concerning bear arms were framed.

[DBW]

I've got a copy of Stephen Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed. He lays out historical ideas and thoughts on this subject. Self preservation is a basic tenent of life for all living creatures. Man was gifted not with claw or fang, but reason. That anyone believes man has no personal right to defend against those (tyrant or criminal) intent to harm is a fool. With reason man crafted tools to ensure self preservation.

I for one believe that SCOTUS is not the final authority on what our rights are based on their decisions. We the people have the final say (apart from God that is). Americans that accept the SC's ruling as final are fools. Many, many of their rulings violate what is right and moral as well as what the Founders and Original Authors said on each subject. If we the people so choose we can amend the Constitution to abolish any or all of the branches of government. We the people have the final word... not SCOTUS, not POTUS, not Congress. Us.

[76/444]

I for one believe that SCOTUS is not the final authority on what our rights are based on their decisions. We the people have the final say (apart from God that is). Americans that accept the SC's ruling as final are fools. Many, many of their rulings violate what is right and moral as well as what the Founders and Original Authors said on each subject. If we the people so choose we can amend the Constitution to abolish any or all of the branches of government. We the people have the final word... not SCOTUS, not POTUS, not Congress. Us.

-------------------------------------------------

Thank you DBW,... this is probably the one political topic I believe has been totally neglected by Patriots, when discussing the way the Constitution works.

I just can't agree with you more, on this. I just made the same comment in another thread, a day or so ago.

The concept that SCOTUS is the absolute end of the road for American citizens who wish to petition the government with their grievances, is ABSURD!!!!!!

But, its another subject than the one at hand,.... just wanted to let you know I am with you on this.

[DBW]

Rosa Parks understood that the law she nullified was unjust and immoral.

None of the states nor the central government have the right to 'regulate' (dictate controls or mandates) that violate Natural Law. Bearing arms is an unwritten right. One cannot nullify it with legislation. To do so does not make in disappear since only the Creator has the power to revoke natural law.

Because of this it is my belief that any law that grants 'permission' as to how arms are carried is a violation of the Creator's design. This is why I view CCW (the seeking of permission) as an affront against Natural Law. How can the government grant permission of something it does not have or hold?

[76/444]

Rosa Parks understood that the law she nullified was unjust and immoral.

None of the states nor the central government have the right to 'regulate' (dictate controls or mandates) that violate Natural Law. Bearing arms is an unwritten right. One cannot nullify it with legislation. To do so does not make in disappear since only the Creator has the power to revoke natural law.

Because of this it is my belief that any law that grants 'permission' as to how arms are carried is a violation of the Creator's design. This is why I view CCW (the seeking of permission) as an affront against Natural Law. How can the government grant permission of something it does not have or hold?

Amen!!!


But, , as with government's feeble attempt at legislating morality,... I must disagree with your opinion on CCW. I look at the purchase of a CCW , likened to a payment unto Caesar. Purchase of a CCW can not prevent concealed carry. It's more like another illegal tax for prevention against prosecution, than a payment for permission. In my point of view.

[DBW]

Morality can not be legislated. Only punishment can be legislated.

I will not pay a protection fee, poll tax or kickback to the government. To keep things simple for now I simply don't carry. Taking a chance with the criminal element of course. And when the poop hits the fan having a CCW won't matter in the battle to fight tyranny.