5 Reasons Why Constitutional / Permitless Carry is Okay…

Governor Kevin Stitt can officially mark one pandering campaign promise off his hit list!

Yesterday afternoon, he eagerly signed HB 2597 like it was a widow’s foreclosure notice. Known as either “Constitutional Carry” or “Permitless Carry”– it depends on your political leanings – the law will allow just about any mind-warped patriot to freely and proudly carry dangerous, man-killing weapons in public.

Here are the details via NewsOK.com:

Just hours after final legislative approval was granted, Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill Wednesday that will allow Oklahoma residents to carry a firearm in public with no training or license.

House Bill 2597, the so-called Constitutional Carry bill, advanced out of the Senate on Wednesday afternoon by a 40-6 vote. With Stitt’s signature, the law takes effect Nov. 1…

The bill allows people age 21 and older — and military service members and veterans age 18 years and older — to carry guns either concealed or unconcealed with no permit or training. As under current law, felons and those adjudicated to be mentally ill will not be allowed to carry firearms.

Although this is a contrived “looking for a solution where there isn’t a problem” type of law that panders to one base so it can gloat to the other, the law doesn’t really bother me. You want permitless carry? Go for it. Have fun. Knowing that someone doesn’t have to play the security theatre game and pass an easy test to carry a firearm doesn’t make me feel any more or any less safe. Do you really think we’re now going to see a rush of untrained, gun-illiterate yahoos rushing to H&H just so they can carry an AR 15 on their back?

If you believe what my state representative had to say, the answer to that question is “Yes.”

It may not make Oklahoma a Top 10 state, but it does help solidify our status as Top 10 destination for gun nuts, militiamen and confederate sympathizers who are prepping for the next American Civil War. Is that a negative statistic?

Anyway, I can understand why the liberal folks, especially party-loyal Democrats like Cyndi Munson, are against the law. As I mentioned, it doesn’t really solve any problems, and in a partisan sense, it’s an easy win for the Republicans.

That being said, I still think they’re overreacting, and playing into the GOPs hands by getting mad about it. This law isn’t that bad. To make those folks in the liberal Oklahoma echo chamber feel better, here are 5 Reasons Why Constitutional / Permitless Carry is Okay…

1. Less Government Regulation and Bureaucracy

Back in 2018, Hayley wrote about her experience taking a concealed carry class. For the most part, it basically seemed like a waste of $70 and a Saturday. Considering 99% of law abiding people who want to carry a gun without a permit would likely pass the class anyway, why even have it? It’s just an unnecessary regulation to make you feel safe.

2. It will make life easier for policemen

Although law enforcement groups are against the bill, I think it will make life easier for policemen. For example, in the past, if they saw someone running with a gun while carrying a bag of cash, they had to assume the person was a dangerous criminal who just robbed a bank. Now they can just assume it’s a law-abiding citizen who’s trying to get to the bank before it closes, and let them move along with their day.

3. Now the blind can more easily carry firearms

Earlier this year, State Rep. Andy Fugate shared this Facebook status in opposition to a bill. I guess a blind student asked if she could carry a gun in public when she was 21 and…

I did what Fugate suggested and thought about it for a moment. Good for the girl! Blind folks have rights, too, and as Sandra Bullock taught us in Bird Box, you don’t have to be able to see to have good aim.

4. Mary Fallin vetoed the law

A very similar bill sailed through the Oklahoma House and Senate, only to be vetoed by Mary Fallin. Has she ever done anything right? Maybe the law isn’t so bad after all.

5. It will make it easier to spot who has a small penis

If jacked up trucks and camo gear didn’t do the trick, this law surely will.

Support Local Media

Help keep The Lost Ogle in business. Join the TLO Membership Club today for only $5 a month!

More The Lost Ogle News

52 Responses


  1. But could I now, just for fun, go walk my dog over in Heritage Hills carrying an AR-15, maybe singing a little bit? Can I carry two at once? Is there any limit as to how many guns I can strap on?
    Could several of us go do that all at once, a sort of armed dog-walking group?
    I’m white, if that helps. And I don’t want to assist the police in any sort of incident. I just want to look cool. Does one’s intent matter?
    Could I do it if I was black or Hispanic? Could I do it if I was someone wearing a hijab?
    This is a stupid question, but can I carry a compound bow with me over to Crown Heights?


    1. Hey that’s my neck of the woods as well, I’m in. I can walk my dog and carry my matching pair of Ruger Redwawks in bandoleros. We could call it the Whacko Wild West Dog walkers (in)security group. We could even get one of these local kids to pull a little red wagon with dog treats and ammo.


      1. I’m way too much of a chickenshit to actually do it, but is it really okay legally for anyone to go prancing around armed to the teeth in one of our more monied, as yet un-gated, neighborhoods- hypothetically, I mean? That part of my post was serious. Can people go do that now? Any limit to the number of guns on them? How about cross bows? I really don’t know. Is this settled law?
        But, really, does anybody doubt that some fools are going to start showing up armed at political rallies here in OK? Leaving aside any talk of well-regulated militias – because the horse has been gone from that particular barn for quite some time now – there’s over 300 million guns floating around – what does that eventuality presage, do you think? Rational discourse? Inclusion? A big ol’ session of kum-ba-yah?
        Meanwhile, my neighbor has a little red wagon – I’ll see if I can borrow it.


        1. “Brandish” – that’s what I think I’ve learned you can’t do in the context of this new law. You can’t be “brandishing” your weapon. This seems to me to be more of a term of art than of science, and open to all sorts of interpretation by all sorts of people – some of them with badges.
          Is hanging an “assault” rifle off your shoulder at a political rally “brandishing”? Is lifting your hoodie to expose your Glock “brandishing”? Maybe those folks that have been making a little dough conducting training for the concealed carry permits could branch out a little and demonstrate brandishing, so those of us itching to tote a firearm around can know what not to do.


          1. Brandishing is basically showing off the weapon in a way that a reasonable person would think you had the intention of using it. So reaching up to grab something off a shelf at the store and having your shirt ride up and show off the pistol, not brandishing (although it could have been that when we just had concealed carry). Having an argument and pulling up your shirt to show off the pistol? Yeah, probably brandishing. Waiving it around while yelling you’re going to shoot someone? Definitely brandishing. It’s got a lot of grey area.


  2. I am torn on this issue. On the one hand, completely in the realm of the theoretical, I believe that the state should not have a monopoly on force (especially when we have police forces constantly in the news for abusing their powers), and that poor people should not be priced out of the ability to carry firearms (my concealed carry course fee+license fee+sheriff’s fingerprinting, etc, came out to about $200). On the other hand, I recognize that we do not live in some high-minded world of educated politically involved citizens that our founders seem to have intended. We live in a world where mouth breathers want to intimidate people in front of a Starbucks.

    I am seeing many people against this law saying that it will cause more mass shootings of children. I think that is ridiculous. This bill does nothing to help or hinder that phenomenon. What this bill will do is cause more partisan intimidation in public places, cause more accidents, and cause more incidents of police brutality of the public (god forbid you are a minority and attempt to open carry). But it will also allow more marginalized people the ability to protect themselves in public spaces.

    I feel like we traded one crappy situation for another. I suppose if I had my preference, I would want to require permits, and make the tests for those permits meaningful, but I would want the costs to be covered by the state. But that is because I am a socialist, apparently.


    1. Your comment has a lot of merit. A lot of people jump straight to mass shootings.
      Yet if you ask most police and similar, the concern is people whipping out their guns to settle an argument. More guns=more homicides

      I’ll put it this way. If I blindfolded you and flew you to a random country where everyone was carrying around an AK-47, would you assume it was a place with low violence or high violence?


      1. Thanks. Part of the problem in discussing this particular law is that it combines two separate issues: permitless carry and open carry. Someone can be for one and against the other.

        To answer your hypothetical, people open carry when they feel there is need to do so. Such a place where the majority of people are constantly open carrying rifles would presumably be a war-torn country. There are a few low-violence middle eastern countries where it is common for the majority of ordinary people to own an AK, but they do not open carry it with them everywhere that they go. There are other war-torn middle eastern countries where the majority open carries an AK because it is an active war zone. I would term these places high-violence.

        A minority of people in the US feel that there is a need to open carry, especially rifles. For some of these people, it is to ensure their rights are not eroded. They do not see that the fear they cause in others is precisely what leads to legislation that further erodes their rights. For others, it is simply a way to intimidate who they see as their political rivals. But either way, I believe that the reason they are the minority is because the majority of people who carry for self-defense do not see the utility in either open carrying or carrying a rifle. The US would have to truly become a high-violence place before you would see the majority of people open carry rifles on a regular basis.

        So, to answer your question, if the majority of people are open carrying rifles, one should assume it is a high violence place.


        1. I was sitting at a Zurich airport the other year, and their guards had machine guns on display. Don’t go to Switzerland, kids!

          Straight from the horse’s mouth:

          “In addition,
          after the attack in Nice in the summer
          of 2016, parts of the Zurich police force
          were equipped with new bulletproof vests
          and their machine guns were fitted new
          sighting devices. The aim of all these measures
          is to be able to deliver an appropriate
          response in the event of an emergency but
          also to give travellers a sense of security and
          trust and to deter potential perpetrators.”

          “What this bill will do is cause more partisan intimidation in public places, cause more accidents, and cause more incidents of police brutality of the public (god forbid you are a minority and attempt to open carry). ”

          Do you have any kind of proof on the minority part, or is that just your liberal bias showing? Looks like there are many other states with this law, so you should not have any problem with finding plenty of policy-on-minority brutality evidence. I’ll be waiting. Patiently.


          1. Your aggressive attitude reveals that you are not arguing in good faith, so I will likely not reply any further.

            But regarding airport police being armed, the discussion above with Puck Loptr centered around the idea of the majority of all citizens open carrying rifles. There is nothing unusual about armed security open carrying rifles to suggest that a place is high-violence.

            Regarding the minority part of my statement above, I am thinking of the recent trend in news stories about African Americans with concealed carry permits being shot by police (and the NRA being silent about it), most notably Philando Castile and EJ Bradford. Just google “african american concealed carry shot by police” and there are plenty of articles on this subject. This is one of the first hits:

            https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/the-nras-catch-22-for-black-men-shot-by-police/570124/

            From the article:
            But the NRA’s conspicuous lack of outrage after the shootings of Philando Castile, Jason Washington, and Alton Sterling, all black men killed by police while in possession of a firearm, suggests an impossible double standard. When armed black men are shot by the police, the NRA says nothing about the rights of gun owners; when unarmed black men are shot, its spokesperson says they should have been armed. To this day, Loesch defends Castile’s shooting as justified—despite the fact that Castile informed the officer he was carrying a firearm. In Washington’s case, Loesch said she was “never going to keyboard quarterback what police are doing.”


            1. “Your aggressive attitude reveals that you are not arguing in good faith, so I will likely not reply any further.”

              I’m sorry my words hurt your feels. Goes on to post several paragraphs… (paging sirosis for his eyeroll)

              look, we can all google statistics that will fit our own agendas (can we agree on that?). I never said that police brutality towards any race of people never happened. Your exchange with the other person was a situation taken to an extreme. Nobody (sane) is going to be just out there prancing around with a bag full of AKs.


  3. Rob Stanley is Oklahoma’s Donald Trump Jr.


  4. The only thing that can stop a bad non qualified pilot from crashing the plane is a good non qualified pilot crashing the plane.

    This guy has the potential to be dumber then Fallin?!?!?


    1. [This guy has the potential to be dumber then Fallin?!?!?]

      No. This would be like traveling faster than the speed of light, or being colder than absolute zero.


  5. Preface by saying I’m not a supporter. The Constitutional Carry list is AL, AR, AK, ID, KS, ME, MS, MO, NH, ND, SD, VT, WV & WY. Some studies have indicated that there is a marked decrease in gun related deaths and injuries when open carry is banned (makes sense). The NRA urged gun activists to stand down, arguing open carry is a bad tactic to expand gun rights. They acknowledge that it makes people fearful and could alienate otherwise sympathetic voters. Not sure that applies in Oklahoma, but could certainly see it in more urban states. It also makes policing more difficult when trying to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. It also needs to be recognized that some of these states have had constitutional carry for several years and they haven’t turned into a shooting gallery nor do you see an abundance of strapped individuals walking around. However, it’s clearly evident that the bill is pandering, pure & simple. I’m of the opinion that we spend entirely too much time worrying about whether we can and not putting near enough effort into considering whether we should. Like most issues we leave up to the “good judgement” of the public, it’ll end up being just another reason why we can’t have nice things. I’m a permit holder. Sometimes I carry (always concealed) & sometimes I don’t. This won’t change.


  6. What are these people so afraid of?
    The state that they’ve created?


  7. I just need to know if I can carry my weed card now and also defend my medicinal weed with a gun legally. Oh, asking for a friend…


    1. Here you go: https://libertymaniacs.com/products/i-want-gay-married-couples-to-protect-their-marijuana-plants-with-guns-shirt


      1. Ordered! This just made my day!


    2. Nope. Federal law still says you can’t possess weed, which is a controlled substance, and a firearm. It’s question 11e on the ATF firearms transaction record. “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”


  8. So I have some questions for the new governor.

    Will citizens of Oklahoma be allowed to carry their guns into the state capitol? To come visit with you?

    Will customers be allowed to carry their guns into banks?

    How about that 111 lb. Algebra teacher who is afraid of his high school students? He can wear his gun in the classroom?

    What about visitors to the State Fair? Always lots to be afraid of there!

    Thunder games? Guns allowed? OU-OSU football games?

    Just asking ………………..


    1. The state doesn’t have to carve out an exception for federally insured financial institutions. It is against federal law to carry a gun into a federally insured bank or credit union. State law can’t override the federal law.


    2. Every building bans them anyway.


    3. That would be a NO on all accounts except for the teacher that would depend on the school policy. I suggest you read the laws maybe you wouldn’t be so scared by the second admendment haters. You don’t seam to be willing to have your first admenment rights infringed upon. Why be willing to give away your second??


  9. I’m gonna git me a big gun now.


  10. I wonder if you , Patrick, aren’t whistling past the graveyard. (Do I get an “Amen” for most appropriate metaphor today?) “Go for it” and “Have Fun” are not two of the first thoughts that cross my mind in thinking about this. I sense that this country is pulling apart at the seams. I fear a big, confused, ugly free for all is coming, and I read and hear a whole lot of other people that are worried (or happy, if they’re idiots) about the same thing. Something like 1 in 4 people Americans believe that civil war is nigh upon us – according to some poll somewhere that I am too lazy right now to look up. Just about everyone feels that things are ratcheting up. This is just another sign, and it ain’t a good one.
    I’m anti-gun myself, and that is why I own three. Even though I whine pretty much non-stop about how hard my life is, I have an extremely easy go of it, compared to the vast majority of people now alive. I want things to stay stable. Whether they will is doubtful, at best, I’m afraid.
    Whether they should, is another question altogether.
    Anybody hear Killer Mike on Bill Maher’s show a few months back?


    1. 2020 seems like a good number for the Civ War part deux.


  11. How can we pretend to be a “top 10” state if a dozen or so other states beat us to “constitutional carry”? What is wrong with us?

    I blame Mary Fallin and one of her few sensible acts as Governor.


    1. I gotta say, I’m still shocked she vetoed the bill. I guess a stopped clock really is right twice a day.


  12. I respect our Constitution, but I don’t like guns and these carry laws really trouble me. It boils down to this: I believe people who want to carry guns around in public are the ones most likely to do something stupid with them.


    1. Like take down the shooter at Louie’s on Lake Hefner thus saving multiple innocent lives??


      1. Good point. Not enough to change my mind. And you need three question marks for such a strong argument.


    2. Thanks for defining what criminals are.


    3. You’re right. We absolutely should just do away with any laws then since criminals don’t pay attention to them and there’s nothing we can do except wring our hands when they don’t follow the laws we pass.


      1. Are you a criminal? That statement seems a little self-serving.


  13. Whatever. Mutherfucker wants to carry a gun he does. Law or no law.


    1. Exactly.


  14. I have no problem with people owning firearms, that is definitely a right. You also should be able to protect your property. I also hope people who own firearms have a healthy respect for the weapons, and learn the proper use of it. I hope, and believe most who carry do understand the importance of training and safety.

    However there are some who might not have the proper temperament, and basic understanding of their weapon. Some point to Louie’s Restaurant shooting where several citizens stopped a shooter. While the outcome was favorable I was a bit concerned as to the large number of shots that were taken by the same citizens to stop the situation. Fortunately there weren’t a bunch of additional injuries because of “friendly fire.”

    When you see all the car accidents at the slightest onslaught of winter weather by people in their huge SUVs and trucks, I worry the same could occur as more people start carrying without good training. Sometimes good intentions have bad consequences. I don’t really have an answer as just because someone goes to school doesn’t mean they are educated. You can require a safety course but you can’t require people learn.

    I’m guessing that by November 1 more and more places are going to not allow people to carry into their establishments. That is their right also. I think the police now think more people are carrying and sometimes that makes situations worse. Politics aside it is sad more people feel that it is necessary that they carry a gun as they go about their activities around town.

    I hope this law doesn’t make the situation worse. I also don’t have a lot of confidence that everyone will be responsible. But while I don’t necessarily agree with the law I understand where they were coming from when they crafted it. Perhaps we should figure out why people feel a need to carry a weapon, and address that. I hope people will be responsible and we won’t have some nasty unintended consequences from this new law.

    Hope I’m wrong, but there is just so much that could not go as planned.


    1. Couldn’t agree with you more about looking at the “root cause” for the need to carry. The issue is that there isn’t any recurring profit in treating the problem. Only treating symptoms makes rich people/companies even richer. In a society where being educated is required to get a decent paying career, It’s sickening that these same corrupt fools demonize intelligence and intellectuals. “I only want smart people If it makes me money…if they question me or my logic, then they are commies”. Typical hypocrisy that is found in abundance in red states with theocratic designs.


  15. Just a comment about military folks older than 18, instead of 21, being allowed this ‘constitutional’ right, perhaps partly justified and strengthened by 2nd Amendment language that refers to a “well regulated militia” as those eligible to “keep and bear arms”.

    I have 32 years of active, reserve and national guard military service including three years overseas during the Vietnam War and three years on the Air Staff at the Pentagon.

    We were all well trained to handle, carry and shoot many kinds of guns by specialists who did nothing else except that job for as long as they were in the service whether it was four years or thirty years.

    One instructor of mine was so good, so accurate and so competent he was recognized as the best shot on a group of national guardsmen in Oklahoma known as “The Governor’s Twenty” that competed worldwide with weapons. He was our firing range sergeant. I traveled with him overseas and in the United States many times and our last trip together was in the mid 1980s for temporary duty at a British airbase in England called RAF Mildenhall. Being the Wing’s public affairs officer I wrote a story for the local paper about him while we were deployed and he seemed to like it. We even shared a pint or two in the local pubs and in full disclosure it was probably more than one or two.

    Upon our return to Oklahoma most of us went back to our full time civilian jobs, mine as a member of the House of Representatives, his as an employee at the Edmond Post Office.

    That’s right. My friend the affable firearms instructor was Technical Sergeant Patrick Sherrill who murdered fourteen innocent colleagues of his because he was going to be fired from his job sorting the mail. He carried in multiple guns, was extremely accurate and in cold blood executed mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, etc because Patrick went postal.

    Of course this tragedy was immediately world wide news and the major British papers, as well as the tabloids, were astounded to learn that the guy doing the shooting in Oklahoma had been on duty in England a week earlier. They really went nuts when they learned he also had control of the entire stock of weapons we took with us on Air Force C-130 aircraft when sent for military duty in that ancient and for the most part civilized nation.

    Of course since I was the public affairs officer for our organization, the 137th Airlift Wing then stationed at Will Rogers Air National Guard Base in OKC, the press queries from around the world came to me and I drafted many of the responses for my boss The Adjutant General of the Oklahoma National Guard.

    Since there are hundreds of pages of Air Force regulations that directed me on how to handle almost any situation like this, or any others related to my military work, I did my duty, time passed and we all moved on…….except the families of those fourteen victims. I had NO answers for them then and I don’t have any now but I do know this.

    We have taken language from The Second Amendment, written when there were thirteen colonies protected by thirteen different militias from dangerous and savage Indians, mostly mad that we took their land, or from other state militias and of course potential and eventual invaders like the British. Also there were NO police forces in colonial days, no FBI, CIA, etc, etc. Flintlocks did most of the damage when used, had to be reloaded each time, were very inaccurate, had very short range but were pretty handy in bar fights or when the redcoats marched in straight lines within twenty feet and stood there until hit.

    Well today things are a little different. No other country has remotely the gun deaths we have, inflicted by ourselves on each other, because no other country has remotely the number of guns. I know. I know. I too got that great pearl of original wisdom from Governor Stitt about a good guy with a gun versus you know who with a gun.

    But before you tell me that all the gun laws in the world wouldn’t have saved those folks in Edmond save your breath directed at me but do go tell it to their surviving family members. It won’t help them but the practice will do you good because until some sanity comes to this country on what the Founding Fathers probably meant (note I said probably because only the now dead Charlton Heston actually knew what they meant) about the holiest of all amendments the slaughter will continue, the deaths of both the guilty and the innocent will rise higher, the politicians will blame each other and the National Rifle Association, at least its board and monied interests, will determine what an acceptable rate of death by firearms will be in America while the rest of the world watches in disgust, amazement but mostly horror.

    By the way the runner up country to us in gun deaths is good old Yemen and they are a distant second even though, the last time I checked, it is in a civil war fomented by Iran and Saudi Arabia, both of whom get their guns and bullets from China, Russia but still mostly the good old USA.

    Please join me now in my favorite chant. We’re #1, we’re #1.

    Final comment about my questionable past. My brother and I built and owned a nightclub east of Lexington in the 1970s and we only banned one thing initially. Of course that was guns. People usually just handed them over or eventually quit bringing them. Later we had to also take their cowboy hats at the door because when somebody’s hat got knocked off on the dance floor that caused more fights than the arrival of former girlfriends.

    The guys hated leaving their ten gallons at the entrance more than giving up their pistols but thankfully no one ever asked us to ban former girlfriends. That all seemed to work out eventually quite well……at least for one night.


    1. I appreciate reading this and I thank you for writing it.


    2. Thanks Dax for your excellent research except……….I didn’t say anything about private citizens NOT having guns. The bill Stitt signed would remove the requirement for training and licensing, just a stunt since state law cannot supersede federal law although I’m sure you think that would be a great idea…….in the name of the 10th amendment.

      Cool that in one study Brazil has more gun deaths than we do. There are about 300 million guns floating around in our country. I take it you think this is not enough.

      And finally, as far as me being a convicted criminal you need some training yourself on reading data from the courthouse. I’ll help you with the big words.


  16. my only concern was the price tag states, were now placing on our rights as citizens , and no where in the Constitution does it say, we as citizens must pay for these . To tell you the truth ,I’m sick of the money factor and infringement . If you think the criminals are going to give up their guns or the drug runners or Gang banger, think again . it has become a dangerous world out there and most likely it is the innocent that suffer , and if we can stop but one of these , then citizens have done their jobs .


    1. Very well said and succinct. Did you ever think about becoming a professional writer?


  17. A couple thoughts on “constitutional” carry:

    1. The right ot carry and possess a handgun or other firearm as we think about it today was not established until the US Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, which was published in 2008. There, the court established it as a “fundamental” right. Until that time, the law was pretty well established that the government had authority to regulate how, who, etc. can possess a firearm. The idea that this something that’s been around (“god-given” or what the founding fathers intended) is just patently wrong.

    2. I dont have a problem with responsible gun ownership. Putting a dangerous weapon in someone’s hands wihtout training is irresponsible. We require people to get a permit to drive. Before you any yahoo says driving is not in the constitution: first, see above and, second, the freedom of movement is a a fundamental right.

    3. The answer to reducing crime is not more guns. That’s like sayign the way to reduce drunk driving is to let more people drink and drive. Total nonsense.

    4. I dont have any illusions that this will increase mass shootings. But I also dont think its going to reduce crime. If I get shgot by some dumbass who is showing off or trying to be a superhero, I’m going to be really pissed. I should also be able to sue the shit out of them if they havent had any training on how to handle the gun.


    1. Regardless whether they had training or not you WILL be able to sue the shit out of them (if you’re still alive to do so), but I hear ya. I have around 10 guns with only three of those for personal protections, the others for hunting however, I thinks there should be AT LEAST a 4 hours class on safety and handling. If it was up to me it would be a two day course. Letting Billy Bob buy a .45 and strap it to his waist after have a few beers…………well……


    2. As a gun owner with a cc permit holder, I have really tried to find a way to support this bill. I just can’t bring myself to do it.

      We live a world where people will attack somebody over ketchup at a drive thru. Do we want to allow open carry for every one?

      I hope I’m wrong and things will be fine. It’s working in some other states.


  18. Most people here obviously don’t know the difference between concealed and open carry. I think most people who really want to carry already have their license. There’s not going to be huge numbers of people roaming around with guns.


  19. “… it does help solidify our status as Top 10 destination for gun nuts…”

    Given that Oklahoma is the 15th state to pass constitutional carry, I hardly think this puts us into the top 10.


  20. I predict very little to no change with this. The loopholes to get a gun without oversight already made it fairly easy, and with no likelihood of the loopholes closing, any notion of limiting firearms from those who shouldn’t have them is pretty naive to begin with.


  21. I wish we had gone with the requirements for what was required for a security guard in the State of Oklahoma to carry when I was doing that work (late 1990’s, I have no idea what it is today). First you had to pass the unarmed portions (Phase I and Phase II) where you learned stuff like basic first aid, report writing and the like. Then if you wanted Phase IV (Firearm) on your license you first had to pass a psychological evaluation. Didn’t pass, didn’t even go to the class. Passed then you got to go on to a three day class.

    During that class you got training on the legal side, when you can use lethal force and such, and then were tested on it. Didn’t pass the test, you didn’t even get to go to the range.

    Then you spent sixteen hours out on a range during which you’d fire over five hundred rounds and learn how to properly use your gun (a revolver). At the end you had to pass an accuracy test administered at varying distances from 3 yards to 25 yards and you had to do it from drawing from your holster and against a clock at each stage. Didn’t pass? Didn’t get your license. Once that was all said and done, you were allowed to carry a revolver on duty.

    Wanted to carry a semi-automatic? That was another two day class during which you shot about three hundred rounds, went through another accuracy test similar to the revolver but at ranges from 1 yard to 50 yards, and got additional training in safe handling and use of your weapon. Once that was done, you could now carry a semi-auto on duty.

    I remember a lot of people I knew who were guards being irritated when they first passed conceal carry that it didn’t grandfather in those of us who had taken the CLEET security guard tests because the concealed carry classes and requirements were SO much easier.


  22. With everyone armed there is no reason to provide Stitt with security guards or his family. See how safe he feels. give him his own gun to protect hmself. Cops will be on edge for sure. Will be, kill them all let God sort them out, gosh i already feel safer.

Comments are closed.

We encourage engaging with our content, however we ask that you follow our Comment Policy. Learn more.

Join the Club.

Become a Member

Help keep The Lost Ogle in business. Join the TLO Membership Club today for only $5 a month!

You may also like...