Oklahoma Judge Rejects Another Attempt to Stop New Constitutional Carry Law

Permitless Carry Oklahoma

Oklahoma State Rep. Jason Lowe speaks to the media Monday, Oct. 7, 2019 in Oklahoma City after he and other advocates for tighter gun laws filed a lawsuit challenging a new Oklahoma law that will allow people to carry firearms without a background check or training. Lowe filed his lawsuit Monday in Oklahoma county, arguing the law violates a constitutional requirement that bills deal with only one subject matter. (AP Photo/Sean Murphy)

Oklahoma governor Kevin Stitt made constitutional carry the first bill he signed into law when he took office. And opponents have been trying to undo that ever since.

First, the hoplophobic Bloomberg-financed harridans of Moms Demand Action tried and failed to get a question on the ballot. They came up far short of the number of signatures needed.

Then anti-gun State Rep. Jason Lowe filed a lawsuit claiming that the constitutional carry bill that passed violated an obscure legislative technicality. But yesterday, just before the new law is set to go into effect on November 1, Oklahoma County District Judge Don Andrews denied a request for an injunction.

Lowe is vowing to appeal to the state supreme court, but for now, it appears that Oklahomans will enjoy full constitutional carry freedom starting Friday.

By Sean Murphy, Associated Press

An Oklahoma judge on Wednesday rejected an attempt by a Democratic state lawmaker and gun safety advocates to block a new law that will allow most people in the state to carry a firearm in public without a background check or training.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Oklahoma County District Judge Don Andrews rejected a request by Oklahoma City Democratic Rep. Jason Lowe for a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the “permitless carry” law from taking effect on Friday.

Lowe’s attorney, Melanie Rughani, argued that the bill violated the state’s constitutional single-subject rule that requires bills to deal with only one topic. But the judge said Rughani failed to prove that the law taking effect would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.

Lowe promised to appeal the judge’s ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

“We’re going to fight hard to keep this dangerous law from taking effect,” Lowe said after the hearing.

Dubbed “constitutional carry” by its supporters, the bill approved overwhelmingly by the GOP-led Legislature was the first signed into law by new Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt. It would allow most adults 21 and older to carry firearms, concealed or openly, without a license that currently requires a background check and training. Exceptions would include anyone in the country illegally or those convicted of certain crimes. Firearms would still be prohibited in certain locations, including public buildings, schools, professional sporting events, casinos and bars.

According to the National Rifle Association, at least 14 states have approved some version of permitless carry.

Stitt, who was named as a defendant in the case, was represented by Attorney General Mike Hunter’s office.

Hunter said in a statement that he was pleased with the ruling, which will allow the law to go into effect on Friday.

“My office is proud to defend the constitutional carry law against a political attack by plaintiffs who were unable to succeed at the Legislature, unable to persuade voters in the referendum process and now seeking to overturn a duly enacted law with meritless claims and scare tactics.”

Lowe and the gun safety group Moms Demand Action had sought a state question to ask voters to overturn the new law but fell short of gathering the required number of signatures.

Don Spencer, a citizen activist who has pushed for looser gun laws at the Capitol for nearly a decade, said he was “thrilled” with the judge’s ruling.

“This was just another Hail Mary legal attempt,” Spencer said of Lowe’s effort.

Spencer and other gun rights advocates plan to hold a rally at the state Capitol on Friday to celebrate the new law taking effect.

A similar bill was vetoed last year by then-Gov. Mary Fallin, who cited opposition from the business community and law enforcement.

comments

  1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    “… it appears that Oklahomans will enjoy full constitutional carry freedom starting Friday.”

    YAAYYYY!

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Good for them. I hope more states adopt CC so that the argument against it by other states becomes less potent.

      A little off topic, but I just saw this before coming over the TTAG this morning. A judge ruled that a police department owes a homeowner no compensation after its SWAT completely destroyed his house (with gunfire, batter entry vehicle, tear gas, etc. resulting in full demolition of the structure) to extract a criminal who somehow entered and barricaded himself when the owner wasn’t home. In essence, the ruling means that the police don’t have to exercise any degree of restraint, and can employ its full arsenal of options to extract someone from your property without any concern of remuneration to the owner.

      Instead of kicking in the front door and having a stack of your SWAT officers rush inside, why not use that shiny new battering vehicle you just got from the Fed Gov and smash your way through the living room wall? Fun for everyone! /sarc

      https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-federal-court-rules-police-dept-owes-homeowner-nothing-after-swat-destroys-his-house

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        True. The police can drop a bomb on the building, a la MOVE, and the property owner is SOL as long as they were doing their duty. Better check your insurance policy.

      2. avatar Nate in CA says:

        That’s what insurance is for.

        Just think for a minute if police were liable for any and all expenses that occurred due to them doing their everyday police work? Well, I say the police, but in reality, who pays for their budget, really?

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Per the article, the homeowner’s insurance only paid for a portion of the (destroyed and demolitioned) home’s value, and he was surprised they paid anything at all, since insurance covers certain things, but there’s nothing for “police blew up my house”.

          His neighbor’s house incurred $70K in damages from the bullets flying everywhere (Rule #4, anyone?), but his insurance denied payment, so he’s stuck.

        2. avatar Aaron says:

          if the police were PERSONALLY liable there would be a lot fewer police atrocities. “qualified immunity” is a disaster for the people cops are supposed to protect.

          most police are good, but they have so much unchecked power that a bad cop can ruin many, many lives.

      3. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        Yeah, you know, the case in the article is probably more complicated than Fox News published. I would take the article with a measure of skepticism.

  2. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Oklahoma Judge Rejects Another Attempt to Stop New Constitutional Carry Law”

    At least judges are finally understanding the “rule of law”, and not just their political views and/or opinions…

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Maybe. Or maybe not.

      In case you are not aware, shrewd attorneys “judge shop” for a venue where they expect a favorable ruling from a judge based on his/her established track record of previous rulings.

  3. avatar Miner49er says:

    This is how effective, sustainable progress is made. Please note that this was a completely legal legislative and judicial effort that brought about Constitutional carry in Oklahoma.

    It wasn’t threats to kill liberals or fear mongering about communist takeover, it was due process through the legislature and judiciary to reestablish constitutional liberties.

    This is how it’s done in a free society, and these efforts can be much more successful than wild eyed pistol waving.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Miner49er,

      Legislative and judicial efforts are wonderful when the members of a legislature and judiciary uphold inalienable rights.

      Unfortunately, experience shows us unequivocally that legislatures, judiciaries, and executive functions of government are quite often all too happy to violate inalienable rights. What is righteous recourse for the people in those situations?

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        That’s why we have three coequal branches of government, with a system of checks and balances that allows affective oversight of each branch.

        Is it perfect? Lord, no! Like all human endeavors, it can all go awry in a very short time. But the system we have does it’s best to self correct, it’s not perfect but it crunches along.

        And I would point to this situation in Oklahoma, where the system worked just as it should. Yes, there are extremists on both sides who can momentarily prevail at any particular level of governance, but overall, the general trend is towards peace and prosperity through due process.

        1. avatar Nero "...diction, not grammar..." Wolfe says:

          “…affective oversight…”

          Hmm, I hope you meant “effective” there. We don’t need any more affective oversight, as in what Congressional Democrats are pursuing right now.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          No, Miner. You’re spouting the falsehoods that our public skools gave you.

          Our Federal Government’s three branches were not create equal, and were never intended to be. The Judicial branch simply claimed its power for itself in the Marbury v. Madison ruling, and Congress didn’t squash it to remind SCOTUS of its constitutional place, so people believe today that SCOTUS can tell Congress and the President what they can and cannot do. This is false, and has been discussed here on TTAG many times.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Perhaps the following passage will shed light on the design of our republic:

          «But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.» «A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.»

          — James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 51

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Miner,

          “… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“
          – Thomas Jefferson

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Hazy, that quote is from a personal letter Jefferson wrote. Jefferson was not happy with John marshal’s decision in Marberry, but many aspects of Jefferson’s personal opinions are less then valid.

          Four instance, his famous quote about the Free Press spreading lies about him is just like trump calling fake news. The Free Press was actually publishing stories that were accurate, to whit, the Free Press had publicized the fact that Jefferson had raped at least six slave girls and gotten them pregnant.
          And as we now know from the science of DNA, Thomas Jefferson did in fact father at least six children by raping slave girls, the most notable being Sally Hemmings.

          It does make for a rather confusing Jefferson family reunion.

          So while I do think Thomas Jefferson was indeed a great statesman, not all of his ideas and opinions are valid and worthy of advocacy.

          Let me ask you, do you agree with Jeffersons view that Jesus of Nazareth was not divine and not the son of God? Do you agree with Jeffersons opinion that the miracles recorded in the Bible we’re all just bunk?

        6. avatar Ralph says:

          “we have three coequal branches of government”

          In theory. In practice, nothing can reverse bad laws made by SCOTUS, but SCOTUS can crush good laws made by the legislature.

        7. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Miner,

          “Let me ask you, do you agree with Jeffersons view that Jesus of Nazareth was not divine and not the son of God? Do you agree with Jeffersons opinion that the miracles recorded in the Bible we’re all just bunk?”

          If you can provide links to support your claim that he believed this, I can provide my response. Until then, I can only say that I’ve never heard before that Jefferson believed this.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Miner49er,

        And what recourse does a person have in California where Democrats have a super-majority in the legislature and own the executive branch as well as the judicial branch?

        Consider a young woman who lives in Los Angeles and has a stalker who vowed to rape her (and whose threat was undeniably credible). Unfortunately for that young woman, she does not have a recording of her stalker’s credible threat and the firearm authority in her jurisdiction will not issue concealed carry licenses. Thus she has to go about unarmed. So, should we condemn her and countless other women to rape because the “peaceful” government process failed?

        How many people are you willing to let heinous government laws condemn to theft, abuse, rape, beatings, and murder — in the name of “peaceful government process”?

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          The California legislature, like all state legislatures, is elected by popular vote.

          Just because a favorite candidate does not get elected, it does not somehow authorize individuals to act outside of the law to seek a solution.

          There are hundreds of individuals in the United States who have been wrongfully incarcerated by peaceful government process, unfortunately, no institution of man is perfect. But we do what we can to make the jurisprudence system fair and impartial.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Miner49er,

          Of course no system of government is perfect, especially in practice. And I personally believe that we should do everything possible to fix broken government through elections and the courts.

          You still have not answered the question: at what point are people no longer obligated to “go quietly into the night”? Were German Jews obligated to go peacefully into the boxcars and the death camps? After all, they participated in the peaceful electoral and government process and, sadly, came up with the short end of the stick.

        3. avatar LampofDiogenes says:

          Miner49er,

          What part of “inalienable rights” is confusing to you????? I frankly don’t give a rat’s ass what the stupid, ‘Progressive’ voters in California say – they do NOT get a vote on my inalienable rights. If we can vote away my right to keep and bear arms, does that mean I can vote away a woman’s right to vote? Or a black man’s right NOT to be a slave??? If not, why not? What is the distinction?

          Or are you just a tendentious idjit???

        4. avatar Sam Hill says:

          Sage advice. Carry a small derringer type pistol in a garter belt or any where out of sight. Tell no one. Do not use it to threaten. If attacked stick up the attacker’s nose, ear or any convenient oriffice, pull the trigger. Aquire said weapon anyway possible. Better twelve judging you than six carrying you. Last, before anything does happen decide which of several bad out comes you could live with the easiest. If all else fails marry a cop. Better still move out of that turd world shit hole of a state to Oklahoma.

    2. avatar Paul says:

      “It wasn’t threats to kill liberals”

      It must be noted that only a fool every threatens to kill anyone. If a child needs spanked, you spank him without threats. If a man needs killing, you kill him without threats. Never threaten. Doing so only exposes your impotence.

      Cue some liberal who chooses to interpret this post as a demand to kill liberals . . .

      1. avatar LampofDiogenes says:

        One of my best firearms instructors responded to a (stupid, IMHO) question from one of our group about “giving a warning” with “Oh, you mean telling the other guy, ‘Hey, look, shoot me first, because I’m about to shoot you? No, that s*** is stupid!! If you legitimately feel in danger for your life, TAKE ACTION!”. I kinda like his thinking.

  4. avatar Phil Wilson says:

    “Lowe’s attorney, Melanie Rughani, argued that the bill violated the state’s constitutional single-subject rule that requires bills to deal with only one topic.”

    That’s exactly the technicality used to bump off an enhanced preemption law in PA.

    1. avatar Randy says:

      … and that is what we in Washington State tried to use to stop the disastrous I-1639 gun control initiative in taking affect. It currently is in the process of going to trial.

  5. avatar TFred says:

    “failed to prove that the law taking effect would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs”

    Here’s the ironic part: It is EASY to demonstrate that allowing the law to go into effect will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs’ position. Because NOTHING will happen. Every day that goes by with no “blood in the streets” is just another nail in the coffin of their fear-mongering for gun-control.

  6. avatar NORDNEG says:

    The rest of the country should be so lucky…

  7. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    His argument of one topic is wrong because the 2A is one topic.
    It’s a win for us.
    Oklahomans exercise your rights and don’t try making excuses. We’ve worked hard to get here.

  8. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Somebody ask the opponents for a philosophical reason to disarm a law-abiding citizenry. I’ve asked that question online for a couple/three years and in a letter to the editor in the local paper without a response, not even from a politician. The only politician I personally know is very much 2A.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      You’ve not gotten a response because a cogent one is pretty hard to formulate. We could delve into the logical arguments for and against private firearms ownership at length but, there is no need. To address the question as you posed it – Why disarm the law abiding? – one only needs to note that there is nothing a person can do with a firearm that harms another person (other than justified self-defense) that is not already illegal. Therefore, the law-abiding, by definition, will not perform illegal acts with or without their firearms and, since causing un-justified harm with a firearm is illegal, the law abiding will not cause such harm. The net effect of disarming the law abiding (those who do not and will not cause harm) is, at most, zero. So, given that the benefit of such laws is zero and the cost is something, the ratio of cost to benefit is undefinable. If no cost/benefit ratio for a policy can be established, either in quantitative or qualitative terms, then the policy is, in and of itself, without value or means of valuation.

  9. avatar pwrserge says:

    We need to get to the magic number of 26. If we get to 26, we can make the exact same argument to the court that was made for “gay marriage” (an oxymoron, I know, but hoisting the commies by their own petard would be classic).

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      So you’re against same-sex marriage? I should’ve figured.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        As I said, it’s an oxymoron. A marriage is a social institution designed to produce children in a stable home environment. A “gay marriage” can’t do that by definition.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “marriage is a social institution designed to produce children”

          That is an assertion, made without any citation or source. Others define marriage differently than your personal definition.

          Help me to understand, is it more or less government when politicians tell me who I can marry or who I can sleep with?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          If marriage didn’t involve government benefits then you would be correct. However, it does, so you’re full of shit. I’d be just fine with completely eliminating the concept of marriage from the legal and tax codes.

          No spousal privilege.
          No joint filings.
          No automatic inheritance.
          etc…

          But something tells me that a commie like you would scream bloody murder if you were forced to pay your fair share of taxes.

          The issue with the left is that they want to get the benefits of marriage without the responsibilities of marriage. Society gives married couples a break because it encourages generally socially constructive behaviors. (aka two parent households producing well adjusted future taxpayers)

        3. avatar Biatec says:

          yes the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage. I agree with you on that PWRSERGE.

          Government involvement in these things creates pointless divisive wedge issues that really don’t matter much at the end of the day.

        4. avatar thatdoesit says:

          marriage exists so that a non-blood relation (your spouse) jumps ahead of all blood relations (your children, parents, siblings, etc.) in the execution of your affairs.

          there’s no government involvement, beyond the government keeping a record of who cut the bloodline when disputes arise. marriage doesn’t exist for gov’t bennies.

          to that end, a marriage a contract. I’m not aware of any other contract law that specifies the sexes of those who enter into it. there’s a pretty solid sex-discrimination argument for gay marriage: if a man is legally allowed to marry a woman, a woman should also be legally allowed to marry that woman.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          thatdoesit

          False.

          If that was all it was, nobody would object. The reality is that there are piles of other benefits that rely on an effect that “gay marriage” simply can’t create.

          If you want to reduce marriage to a simple contract, fine. But so long as there are tax and legal privilege implications, that’s not going to happen.

        6. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          “A marriage is a social institution designed to produce children in a stable home environment. A “gay marriage” can’t do that by definition.”

          Hard to believe I’m going to say this, but pwrserge is spot-on correct.

        7. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sergei, you stated:

          “The issue with the left is that they want to get the benefits of marriage without the responsibilities of marriage.”

          Are you talking about Donald Trump committing adultery three times, intentionally violating his vows and shirking his responsibilities of faithfulness to his wife?

          Donald Trump received all the marriage benefits you speak of, yet he ignored his responsibilities and broke his sacred promise in holy matrimony.

          Apparently, Donald Trump is a member of ‘the left’ by your definition.

          Somehow I’ve missed your statement of condemnation of Donald Trump shirking his matrimonial responsibilities.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Clearly Miner you weren’t paying attention. His responsibility was to produce new properly socialized taxpayers. Given that his sons and daughter appear to be decent human beings, I’d say he’s done exactly what he was supposed to do.

        9. avatar Miner49er says:

          “His responsibility was to produce new properly socialized taxpayers.”

          Fascinating.

        10. avatar LampofDiogenes says:

          thatdoesit,

          And you would be, pretty much completely, full of s*** in making that assertion. Tax rates change. It effects laws of property ownership (and NOT simply inheritance) and rights to income (NOT simply after death), and in MOST states, gives the spouse the power to bind you, contractually, without your consent.

          So, pretty much, you have no freakin’ idea what you are talking about. How about you STFU, and leave the heavy thinking to the grownups, Tiger?

      2. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

        Myself, I don’t much care what gives who, or whom tingles in the naughty bits. I’m against abuse of language. (Same with “abusive” language. Abuse with langage, like abuse with guns, I’m against. I’m also against, like with guns, pinning the agency on the instrument, vs. the doer.)

        So, to start, a “marriage” can’t be gay any more than a book or movie. (Books and movies neither bang, nor desire. Cross-fertilization of ideas and artifacts is a *metaphor* people. Try to keep up.)

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Miner49er,

        I oppose homosexual couples for two simple reasons: they are unnatural and they do not produce the next generation.

        Many people might laugh at the second reason without realizing its vital importance to a healthy and strong society. Suppose 25% of people from this point forward decide to forego marriage to the opposite sex, producing children, and raising mentally / physically / spiritually strong and well-balanced children — instead opting for homosexual relationships. In a single generation our population will begin to decline and our nation will be weaker. In two generations our population will be well on its way to a serious reduction and our nation will be significantly weaker. By three generations our population and our nation’s strength — in fact our nation as a whole — will be a mere shadow of what it is today.

        All of the above would happen because our child birthing rate right now is just barely keeping pace with the death rate in our nation. If 25% of the population will no longer produce children, our nation will enter a death spiral from which it will never recover. THIS IS A SIMPLE FACT whether you like it or not.

        Therefore, because I condemn any behaviors which contribute to a death spiral for our nation — and because homosexual relationships contribute to a death spiral for our nation — I condemn homosexual relationships in lieu of marriage and child-rearing.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Uncommon. Not a valid reason. The homo is not going to produce children regardless if he can marry or not. And a lot of our younger generation are choosing not to reproduce even though they are hetero.

          Unless you’re after a .gov law that requires a child per adult by a certain age then I see no valid point in your argument.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Homosexuality is, by its very definition, self-extincting.

          End. Of. Debate.

          I mentioned this a few weeks ago under another comment thread, and jwm didn’t think it held any logic, lol.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Self extincting? So there are no homo’s left, now? Or should we ban straights from having kids in order to end the scourge of homosexuality?

          I want my rights to be respected. I want the .gov out of my life as much as possible. I would hope that in a tyranny free land we could all do as we pleased so long as we don’t hurt others. Why does adam and steve getting married offend you?

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Do you also think cigarette smoking should be banned, it certainly leads to a death spiral, over 70% of people who smoke cigarettes will get cancer leading to an expensive illness and an early death and loss of productivity.

          Surgery showed soda pop certainly leads to diabetes and a host of other illnesses, again leading into the death spiral, should we ban sugary drinks?

          Riding a motorcycle without a helmet definitely increases the risk of severe head trauma, as the Joe goes, what do ER docs called motorcycle riders, organ donors. So, in your view we should ban ride motorcycles without helmets?

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Homosexuality is unnatural?

          Riding in cars is a natural, using medicines in surgery to arrest the progress of a natural disease is a natural.

          Using chemicals and metallurgy to produce firearms to injure or kill other humans is a natural, living in constructed houses is a natural.

          So you’re living in a cave, eating roots and grabs?

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          JWM… There are two possibilities… either homosexuality is a recessive genetic trait (in which case it will tend to run in families, which it does not) or it is a learned behavior. If it is a learned behavior, then it is a self and socially destructive behavior that needs to be treated like any other mental illness.

          The point is that neither should require society to bend over backwards to accommodate it. Making it illegal to be gay is as silly and pointless as making it illegal to have cancer. I can agree that what happens between two consenting adults is no business of the government. However, marriage is a different problem. Marriage is a special legal status granted by society with the understanding that people with said status will produce new members for that society and that those new members would be raised in a manner that they too will contribute to society. “Gay Marriage” literally can’t do that. Worse, it has an adverse effect on population growth. (and no Miner, none of your examples have any effect on population growth whatsoever as none of those diseases kill you before you’re able to reproduce)

          As for the “unnatural” argument. Well, it’s not wrong. Given that homosexuality meets the definition of a disease used by the government (a condition that adversely affects one or more major life functions), homosexuality is no more natural than cancer. Not all unnatural things are bad, but a disease would be one of the things that is.

        7. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @jwm,

          I was going to write a cogent response, but it looks like pwrserge already did it above for me. Well said, Serge.

          Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit. It’s an innate drive for some, but learned social behavior for others. But again…by the word’s very definition…it is biologically self-extincting. Think about that for a moment. Male/male or female/female doesn’t reproduce. If you populated an island with 100% gay people and left them alone for 100 years, upon coming back to the island you’d see only graveyards and ghost towns. UNLESS some of them along the way realized that they would need to engage in heterosexual behavior to continue their bloodlines.

          Ahem. (drops the mic, walks off stage)

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit.”

          This seems to be a core belief for many.

          I would ask, can you give a few examples of this ‘recruitment’ activity you speak of?

        9. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Miner,

          Did you really just ask that with a straight face? The aggressive push by the LGBT+ movement over the past several years to have everyone not only tolerate, but celebrate and even participate in their agenda isn’t enough?

          * Gays suing to transform the model of government-recognized marriage to include homosexuals.
          * Gays suing cake bakers and wedding planners.
          * States and municipalities assessing fines and punishments for “hate speech” against gay agenda.
          * States mandating required “tolerance” training. California – under Gov. Brown – began mandating training for all persons who act in any supervisory role over another employee. I’ve had to go through this several times myself. The most recent training was the addition of “trans tolerance”, wherein I was explicitly told I need to advocate for genderless bathrooms and transgender rights, all in contradiction to my sincerely held religious beliefs.
          * “Pride” parades openly advocating for increased participation (if that isn’t recruitment, I don’t know what is).

        10. avatar Sam Hill says:

          I would simply state the world population needs thinning out.
          308.5 million people in US of A, if only ten percent are assholes, thats 308,500 or about 40 more than I care to deal with. “You got a right. Live like you want to live, but keep you hands off my rope.” Chuck Berry and Willie Nelson.

  10. avatar HEGEMON says:

    “Dangerous law”? Lowe is a DANGEROUS POLITICIAN. This should be the law in EVERY state, territory and outlying possession. PERIOD.

  11. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Who are these so-called “gun safety advocates”?

  12. avatar Aleric says:

    Leftist want to destroy laws that provide freedom and institute others that oppress while claiming they are the moral authority on right and wrong.

  13. avatar Ark says:

    Harridan, word of the day.

  14. avatar Rick O’Chet says:

    Congratulations Oklahoma Gun owners! Job well done!

  15. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Quote: “A judge ruled that a police department owes a homeowner no compensation after its SWAT completely destroyed his house (with gunfire, batter entry vehicle, tear gas, etc. resulting in full demolition of the structure) to extract a criminal who somehow entered and barricaded himself when the owner wasn’t home.” The city claimed they were not responsible because of the “police emergency of protecting the public.” Sounds good, but the ‘police emergency’ was trying to capture a shoplifter. Criminal had shoplifted a shirt and a couple of other items from a Walmart in a neighboring town and for some reason the police thought that required a high speed chase. Shoplifter broke into home where only a 9 year old boy was at, kid saw the guy coming up the hall steps with a gun, guy tells him ‘I don’t want to hurt anyone, I just want to get away.’ Kid left the house unharmed and probably called the cops. Guy had found some car keys and when he tried to leave cops had him blocked in, he took a shot at them. That is when it turned into Aleppo. Shoplifting is NOT a ‘police emergency’ and far from ‘protecting the public’ the police put the public in danger.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      That shoplifter, gun in hand, broke into a home and then fired at a cop? That’s some non emergency there.

  16. avatar rt66paul says:

    I certainly hope that people and ranges will volunteer their time to give some basic training for any that desire it. While I support constitutional carry, I hope that people that wish to carry do so in a safe manner.

  17. avatar DCChristian says:

    Some related observations: Gay marriage is wrong because God says it is. No same-sex marriage or same-sex relationship is ever approved of or spoken positively about in the Bible; neither is any sex outside of heterosexual marriage. But God still loves, and we should also love, homosexual people. God’s example and direction is to hate the sin, but love the sinner. And my experience is that most true Christians do not hate LGBTQ people, as is commonly claimed by them. My LGBTQ friends know I don’t approve of their lifestyles, and yet I treat them with respect and love. And eventually, I convince some of them to change. — By the way, I’m a concealed-carrying Okie. I’m sure that with the new constitutional carry law here, there will be some people that start to carry that don’t have the temperament or training they should have. There will be some accidents and improper shootings. But EVEN SO, we’ll be safer. Crooks don’t often target gun shops or police stations out of fear of armed response. That same principle, though hard to quantify, is in play here. And mass shooters will likely take fewer victims as more armed citizens are there to quickly act to stop them and minimize the damage. I will continue to recommend training to newbies who start to carry, but over-all, it’s a step in the right direction.

  18. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    I’m dying laughing at all the attempts to redirect the conversation on this post to anything but CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY IN OKLAHOMA
    Happy CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY DAY y’all !!

    1. avatar LampofDiogenes says:

      Right on, Matt!!

      And here is one (probably deluded) libertarian, hoping that our newly-constituted SCOTUS will make this the law of the land. And, as many on this thread, and elsewhere, have commented – only a MORON would carry, concealed or otherwise, without at least basic firearm and firearm safety training. But I don’t see it as my right, or certainly not the government’s right, to mandate that.

  19. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    State Rep. Jason Lowe is a race traitor. He would disarm law abiding black people who would later be founding hanging from trees.
    Black Guns Matter!

  20. avatar Bruh says:

    Title gave me stage IV leukemia

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email