Oklahoma Now Has the Nation’s First Anti-Red Flag Law

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

More than a dozen states have enacted “red flag” laws. Oklahoma is not one of them. The U.S. Constitution prevents states from nullifying federal laws.

But both [Senator Nathan] Dahm and [Representative Jay] Steagall said they were concerned about the possibility of the federal government enacting such a law or offering grants to states or localities to implement “red flag” policies.

After back-to-back mass shootings in Texas and Ohio last year, some congressional Republicans proposed legislation to entice states to enact “red flag” laws.

“Red flag” laws violate the Second Amendment and the right to due process, Steagall said Friday.

“I find it impossible for any red-flag law to respect due process or the presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” he said. “I have taken the oath to protect our Constitution seven times throughout my 22 years of service and nine deployments in the military, an oath that I take very seriously. I will not stand idly by and let this freedom be stripped from us.”

– Carmen Forman in Stitt signs ‘anti-red flag’ law that may be first in the nation

comments

  1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

    Well, good on ’em.

    (EDIT- I’m first! I’m first!!!. Wait – Isn’t that supposed to be important? No?)

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      What IS important, is you found the edit button!

      So, c’mon, give … how’d you do it?

      1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        I check-marked the “save my name and e-mail” box before hitting ‘send’.

        I *think* this issue some are having is browser-configuration related *in some way*, but in what way, I don’t know.

        Browser here is current Firefox with a bunch of anti-advertisement and privacy add-ons…

        1. avatar MariaG says:

          Hi everyone, come here to meet for sex – http://gofuck.club/thetruth

        2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          No, ‘Maria’, you can come *here*… 😉

        3. avatar S R says:

          Oh no, I tapped on “Maria’s” link and my finger got a virus 😬 😁

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Oh no, I tapped on Maria’s link and my finger got a virus”

          Precisely where, on Maria’s link did you tap?

        5. avatar Cody Wilson says:

          I’m Cody Wilson and I approve this message.

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          It’s browser and addon related.

          There are a variety of privacy and anti-ad/tracking addons that cancel the edit function.

        7. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          The edit function has never worked for me, regardless of which browser I’ve tried (Microsoft, Chrome, Firefox).

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The edit function has never worked for me, regardless of which browser I’ve tried (Microsoft, Chrome, Firefox).”

          When I do not select all three checkboxes below the name block, I lose “edit” function.

        9. avatar possum says:

          Maria G came here, I’ve got a little sign on my burrow saying so

        10. avatar Daniel G Dixon says:

          S R, Take a seat here, Show us on this doll where you touched Marias link.

  2. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

    Adding Oklahoma to the (short) list of places to retire… And I promise not to bring any liberal mindset with me where ever that may be…

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Been there. No thanks. Went to the beach over the weekend again, and reinforced my decision to stay here in (geographically beautiful) CA to fight for our freedoms. Who knows?…with all the increased ire against our Dem Governor and Mayors, we *just might* see that much-awaited flip to red in some districts this November. Enough, possibly, to take back the House in D.C., and remove the supermajority in Sacramento to give conservatives a fighting chance to stop the continual madness.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I Haz a Question,

        I commend your optimism. Sadly, I cannot picture any conservative gains in California, even with current developments.

        I don’t know what it is about California and I cannot begin to imagine much less explain it. All I know is that countless millions of people in California are well beyond mad-hatter crazy. Maybe that’s it: maybe there is mercury in the water supplies out there and no one has discovered it yet.

        1. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Haz,

          It seems to me the CA Dems and their oppressive lock downs, may, indeed give some CA districts the edge they need to go ‘RED’ (Pwrserge: this has nothing to do with Commies, so don’t get excited. LOL!!)

      2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        “Who knows?…with all the increased ire against our Dem Governor and Mayors, we *just might* see that much-awaited flip to red in some districts this November.”

        Check this out –

        https://prospect.org/politics/how-democrats-lost-a-house-seat-in-california/

        The takeaway – They blamed the lockdown for a part of it. If we get ’round two’ flu lock-downs this fall like many Drs. predict, it could prove *very* valuable for us… 🙂

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Geoff,

          I posted this two days ago under a different article, but will re-post again here. This was not in any way – as claimed by the author linked in your comment – a “shocking” flip. We have always voted Republican here in the 25th District my entire life, and Katie Hill’s unexpected win was actually the shocking part of it all.

          ****
          Re-post:

          Bloomberg is the butt of many jokes, but his money and efforts are no joke. Last week’s Congressional District 25 victory by Republican Mike Garcia (my district) was a “correction” to replace the now-disgraced Democrat Katie Hill. Remember that Hill beat incumbent Steve Knight in the November 2018 election, and only because Knight thought he had an easy win in the bag due to our area’s traditionally conservative makeup, so he didn’t campaign. Hill, on the other hand, was financed by Bloomberg to the alleged tune of $3 million, so about 90% of all political mailers were from Hill. We kept getting those things in our mailbox every day for weeks!

          The strategy worked, and Hill won. If she hadn’t been sexually involved with her campaign staffer in that controversial “thruple” with her husband and suffered the scandal fallout, she’d still be our Representative today.

          We need to take Bloomberg’s devil money seriously.

          https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-rohrabacher-bloomberg-ad-20181025-story.html

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I Haz a Question,

        Actually, I can venture an educated guess to explain California. It comes down to a few basic principles of human nature and human psychology.

        Human psychology:
        People have a deep ingrained need to receive affirmation and to be a valued member of their community/tribe. That has two profound repercussions. One, people will compromise their principles to gain favor and/or membership in the community/tribe. That means accepting behavior that they would not otherwise accept. Two, people will much more deeply partake in destructive behavior when the community/tribe accepts (or worse) encourages destructive behavior.

        Human nature:
        Countless people let raw, unchecked emotion/passion drive their choices rather than timeless truths and timeless standards of right-and-wrong. (That is what people of faith call sin.) This can pop up with intensity almost anywhere and grows slowly-but-surely unless the community/tribe works diligently to suppress it. If it somehow manages to gain enough inertia, it will become unstoppable, as it has in California.

        Couple those two factors together and it becomes more-or-less impossible to reverse such insanity. I think that is what has gripped California. It is here to stay unless some cataclysm wipes out the population.

        1. avatar Darkman says:

          This is honestly one of the best explanations of Liberalism I’ve ever seen. Unfortunately the Socialist/liberal leadership of the democrat party. Understood this 50+ years ago. And has used this as a strategy to manipulate large sections of the population into following their Ideology. There are only two ways to reverse this Manipulative indoctrination. 50 years of slow Societal change or sudden collapse of the effected Society. You either treat the symptoms in hope the disease goes away or you attack and kill it. With the hope the host lives long enough to make the treatment worthwhile.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Actually, I can venture an educated guess to explain California. It comes down to a few basic principles of human nature and human psychology.”

          More like, “I want what I want, when I want it, right now, and for free.”

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          While I applaud (and agree with) your excellent outlay above, I can give you a more concise reason, being as I’ve lived here at Ground Zero all my life and watched it unfold around me:

          When the low-tier voters here realized years ago that they could access the largess of the treasury, they voted accordingly, and our Dem politicians then employed the perpetual tactic of promising them benefits from that treasury. Electoral bribery. Bread & circuses.

        4. avatar doesky2 says:

          Hoping for 10.0 that slides the whole state under water.

        5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          doesky2,

          Including all the Californian TTAG’ers here as well? I see.

        6. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          I Haz A Question – The pretty and fun beach is part of the bread and circuses even if the Dems didn’t create it. Just be aware that you are not so different. I am not either. I spent 5.5 years in that corrupt s-hole known as Mexico because of the pretty Sea of Cortez.

        7. avatar C. Aldridge says:

          “I hope a 10.0 hits”
          That won’t happen because the only part of California that is moving moves north so that would only bring Lost Angeles closer to San Fransicko. Nothing is going to fall off (unfortunately). New California needs to happen now. Then, most of the liberal DEMONcRATS will be in California and we can kick the rest of them out of Sacramento.

        8. avatar Rekmeyata says:

          I think the fine people of Oklahoma need to vote out the people responsible for this Red Flag law.

        9. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          ^^^Did you even read the article?

      4. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “my decision to stay here in (geographically beautiful) CA to fight for our freedoms”

        Take note of “the nine priciples of war”:
        1. Objective – Direct all efforts to a clearly defined, decisive, and obtainable goal.

        2. Offensive – Seize the initiative in a decisive manner.

        3. Mass – Concentrate your combat power at a time when it matters most.

        4. The Economy of Force – Allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts.

        5. Maneuver – Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power.

        6. Unity of command – All forces shall be under one responsible commander with authority to direct all forces in pursuit of a unified purpose.

        7. Security – Knowledge and understanding of enemy strategy, tactics, doctrine, and staff planning improve the detailed planning of adequate security measures.

        8. Surprise – Strike the enemy at a time or place or in a manner for which he is unprepared.

        9. Simplicity – Simple plans, and clear concise orders minimize misunderstanding and confusion.

        In which of the above do you (or any gaggle of 2A supporters) have superiority over the enemy? How will inferiority be reversed? I venture that principle #3 is a crippling deficiency in blue states.

        Skirmish lines are tripwires, not major combat forces; expendable to provide time to organize the defense, or counterattack. Isolated outposts will be isolated and overrun. Wasting time and resources to rescue them is simply waste. Force the enemy to crash against a granite wall of concentrated force (red states, with increasing population; increasing voting power).

        (California is a beautiful place on the surface, however….”Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”)

        1. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Sam,

          Thank you. I had not previously seen those principles of war. Good reading.

          Keep in mind Haz is only talking about winning back enough seats to help flip the House of Reps. Seats that used to be RED (Pwrserge: not about commies. 🙂 ) and could be RED again.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Keep in mind Haz is only talking about winning back enough seats to help flip the House of Reps.”

          Keep in mind that when those seats flipped from Republicrat to Dimwitocrat, Californication was still the way it is now. State-level victories are the only thing that will defeat the leftists. Yes, national office is important, but since at least 1960, as Californication goes, so goes the nation. Many of the intrusive agencies, laws and regulations the nation suffers were first installed in the great Granola Bowl (the land of fruits, nuts and flakes).

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Egad, that was a lot of complicated wordcraft to just say “really?”

          There is a powerful, growing underswell of disdain for the Left here in CA, and support for the right. Many “centrists” are becoming openly vocal about their disappointment in the Dems’ overreaching and absurd edicts, and the hope for some changes thru the upcoming November elections is building. Save your pessimism until we have the results of the elections, so you know where to apply it more effectively.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Egad, that was a lot of complicated wordcraft to just say “really?” ”

          There was/is more than one intended audience for the list, but the point was victory is not in scattered enclaves, but in overwhelming majorities. Many here have never seen the 9 Principles, and misunderstand how to wage war (political or actual).

          “Save your pessimism until we have the results of the elections,”

          Not sure pointing out realities is actual pessimism. I did recognize that winning more national seats is important, while pointing out that a “blue state” is not just a national election label.

          My optimistic goal is to have the red states raise, through immigration of like-minded populations, increase their representatives in the national legislature. Decreases of populations in blue states reduces the number of representatives, increases of like-minded population in red states increases representation. Hence, concentration of mass.

        5. avatar David Bradford says:

          As I recall there are only somewhere around a dozen (navigable by motor vehicles) passes across the mountains to and from the Left coast between Canada to Mexico. Remove 50 feet of roadway and station maybe a dozen armed guards at each. California’s problem for the rest of us solved.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Remove 50 feet of roadway and station maybe a dozen armed guards at each. California’s problem for the rest of us solved.”

          Trump just needs to route his border wall along the east border of Californication. all the way to Canadia.

        7. avatar David Bradford says:

          The Rockies already make a pretty good boarder wall. We just need to lock down the gateways. The illegals think crossing the desert is hard. Less will try and more will die trying to cross the mountains on foot.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The Rockies already make a pretty good boarder wall.”

          Too many passes to command. Easier to build a wall in the flats, and patrol with armed drones

        9. avatar David Bradford says:

          I was looking at google maps satellite images and not the road maps themselves. Once I turned off the satellite photos I could see all the trails mapped out too. Guess you’re right. But still, restricting vehicle traffic through choke points the mountains would help keep the numbers down to a manageable flow and help limit resources east of the Rockies for illegals

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But still, restricting vehicle traffic through choke points the mountains would help keep the numbers down to a manageable flow…”

          Thinking that blocking the mountain traffic would be a good second layer of defense for those who get through the eastern border wall along Californication.

      5. avatar Ralph says:

        I wish you well, Haz, but I’m thinking that since CA’s #1 import is cartel money, you don’t have a chance.

      6. avatar lntn says:

        In order to flip CA, voting alone won’t be enough because last I heard, elections are rigged there… sadly.
        I think the only way to go is to strike and protest, 24 hours a day 7 days a week until … I don’t know, everything collapses and start over from the ash.

        Look at your economy – contributed by liberal-exploiting businesses (yes, they’re not liberal, they’re just exploiting it.
        Look at your population – extremely high percentage of illegal immigrants (and their legal family members) hiding there and hoping to be legalized by the left party.
        Look at your youth – already used to such life and couldn’t imaging anything different.
        Look at the number of people living off government aid – they won’t give up their milk bottle for freedom.

        So you have to do all what you can to create “a new normal” over there, otherwise it will still be like that for another 5 generations and infecting other parts of the country.

        1. avatar C. Aldridge says:

          “Look at your population – extremely high percentage of illegal immigrants (and their legal family members) hiding there and hoping to be legalized by the left party.”
          Why do they need to be legalized? They already get welfare and driver’s licenses, and with mail-in voting they vote as well. They need to be deported along with ALL the other ILLEGAL aliens in the USA.

      7. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Haz, there sure are plenty of reasons a person might assume somebody will get some sense. However, there is one big reason why not; they never have before. After every election everybody learns quickly that they have been lied to again, at the next election they believe the very same lies yet again, for the 62nd time.

      8. avatar Curious Creedmoor says:

        Haz,
        Have you invested in a Kali Key yet?

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          HA! Actually, yes, and believe it or not I just showed it earlier today (as installed on my go-to AR) to a neighbor who just built his own first AR. He loves it and wants to get one so he can be certain he’s CA compliant.

          I keep the original BCG in a Ziploc in the same carry bag, so that whenever I go to the desert or cross into Free America, I can swap it back in within 60 seconds.

      9. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Haz,

        “…take back the House in D.C., and remove the supermajority in Sacramento to give conservatives a fighting chance to stop the continual madness.”

        My optimism on the above remains giddily high (but no, I have not been smoking any of that dried weed so popular out there on the Pacific rim).

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Life,

          A lot of people above are mocking what I said, but note that I didn’t predict a state-wide flip to red. I simply said enough seats in D.C. to retake the House, and enough state seats in Sacramento to remove the Dems’ supermajority. They would still likely have a majority, but at least the wouldn’t be able to steamroll their absurd agenda without any legislative resistance. A reversal of our bad laws is the ultimate goal, but in the meantime I’d settle for at least a roadblock of any new ones, even if all we have is a stalemate and no movement at all.

      10. avatar Irish19 says:

        Don’t hold your breath. I’m afraid California is endlessly in love with socialists. I wouldn’t say all places in California are that nice looking. How bout SanFrancisco and LA? They should put a wall around San Fran and keep the surrounding areas safe from the rays and typhus they got going on there. California will be forever blue and busted. The dems turn everything they touch into doo-doo.

    2. avatar BlackforestHP says:

      300Blackoutfan

      Oklahoma is also the only state in the Union that did not have a single county wide election go for Obummer in either of his Presidential runs!

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Impressive, but the other choices were snakes in the grass McCain and Romney, so…

    3. avatar MouseGun says:

      Well then, I welcome you. Now fair warning; every spring Mother Nature may try to kill you with tornado, and our summers regularly hit three digit temperatures, and coupled with high humidity, ensures that instead of cooling via sweating, you boil (I hear west of Pawhuska the humidity drops significantly, but then again, there’s nothing west of Pawhuska except farm land.)

    4. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Maybe Texas should move to Oklahoma . . .

  3. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

    Carmen Foreman wrote, “The U.S. Constitution prevents states from nullifying federal laws.”

    That is a gross and extreme LIE. The US constitution take precedent over any state law, but the Tenth Amendment specifically gives the STATES the authority to act in ALL matters not specifically reserved IN THE CONSTITUTION to the national government.

    So as a practical matter, the U.S.Constitution prevents federal laws from nullifying states!

    1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

      There was a 3.5 year war that “decided” exactly that (you know – the one that was supposedly about slavery, that was ultimately, and in reality about “States Powers” and the 10th Amendment).

      Of course, today we have both – states making laws in direct conflict to Federal Law in both directions: more lax in the form of immigration and marijuana laws, and more restrictive in the form of firearms laws.

      Also, the Supreme Court has indicated that part of the 14th Amendment requires that States abide by Federal Laws, again, for the most part, nullifying the 10th Amendment.

      1. avatar 9x39 says:

        Bravo someone’s proper woke, unlike most of the rest of the population, running about with eyes wide shut. Slavery was just an addendum issue, for the purpose of incensing the masses to rally support. Lincoln was the greatest traitor this country has ever known, even though ditching slavery was the morally correct thing to do.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          The Emancipation Proclamation was the result of a serious lack of people willing to fight and kill and die for the *actual* causes of the war. And it worked. Hordes of men reported for duty, in order to later be damned as racists, many did not make it home. Their decendents are still accused of “white privilege” and “racism”, judged solely on the basis of skin color.

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          Oh what a revisionist crock of shit. Have you ever read the original documents from slave-holding states regarding the war? Perused the Declaration of Immediate Causes which May Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union? Or how about the one from Texas? Here, I’ll help you out:

          “Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?”

          GEE I WONDER WHAT THE CIVIL WAR WAS ABOUT

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” GEE I WONDER WHAT THE CIVIL WAR WAS ABOUT ”

          Then maybe you received your education after 1960.

          The Second Civil War was about: conditions of ratification of the Constitution; the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

          Let’s have a look at the “Emancipation Proclamation”*. (September 22,1862; 22 months after South Carolina seceded from the Union. Why the delay? Why did “the Proclamation declare it would not be effective until January 1, 1863?)

          “The Proclamation is quite specific as to its application, and it was not about ending slavery in the US. The proclamation declares, “That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States,…” (Note: 4 slave-holding States remained in the union: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri).

          The proclamation could only apply to States in rebellion because the federal government had no authority to end slavery anywhere in the Union. And that was because to do so required an amendment to the Constitution,which was only possible in December, 1865 (13th Amendment), nine months after the surrender at Appomattox. Why was the 13th Amendment not ratified prior to the end of the Second Civil War? An amendment to apply to all the States remaining in the Union, to include Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri? The reason was that Lincoln had executive power to prosecute the war, and control conditions in rebelling States, but no executive power to unilaterally abolish slavery in States still operating under the US Constitution.

          Slavery was considered the province of the sovereign States, and no power to end slavery had been delegated by the Constitution. However, the abolitionists kept trying to use Congressional legislation to circumvent the Constitution on the matter. The States of the Confederacy declared that they would not tolerate a compact with a union of states bent on violating the US Constitution, and illegally usurp a power reserved to the States (9th and 10th Amendments).

          No matter how morally superior one segment of the Union declares it purpose, no matter how morally bankrupt the majority of Americans might find a practice (private ownership of firearms?), if the power to regulate and control was not ceded to the federal government by Constitutional Amendment, any attempt to do so violates the Constitution, and the citizens are duty bound to ignore, dismiss, and resist such a power grab.

          And that is what the Second Civil War was about.

          *https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=34&page=transcript
          https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/emancipation-proclamation

        4. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

          It certainly is not revisionist to accept the issue of slavery in the Confederate States as a constitutional issue and the actions (totally unrelated to constitutional slavery) of the federal government and the northeastern states to be oppressive. Between 1856 and 1860 Democrats controlling the US House (under the strict control of Representatives from the North who publicly acknowledge their loyalty to Mill and Factory owners in New England) passed a number of laws (later approved by the Senate) as revenue acts which placed extremely high tariffs on both rice and cotton exported from the US (both grown only in the south). In addition, the Federal government also collected taxes on any cotton NOT sold to US mills in New England even if that cotton was not exported. Other new laws made it financially impossible to operate a factory or cotton mill anywhere in the south.

          The North was also in the process of taking total control of the railroads. In the decade preceding the election of A. Lincoln, the individuals who controlled business in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states has nearly completed a process of taking total economic control of the southern states. The only remaining “roadblock” to their total control was economic control of the southern ports. That was one of Lincoln’s little discussed threats to the South. Lincoln was a “Unionist.” He was thought, by the Industrialists, to be willing to initiate federal control over ports and shipping in the south.

          Through all of this, “slavery” was the Democrats dogwhistle. Every time a southern state protested federal taxes that applied only to them, the democrats replied, “but slavery.” Every time a southern state attempted to shift a portion of the expense of operating the federal government off the backs of the South, the democrats howled, “slavery.’ And the New England robber barons, who had bought and paid for the Democrats in both the House and Senate, did care about slavery. They cared very much that slavery continue, because only with slavery (they thought) would the price of cotton remain low enough for them to continue their shameless profits.

          Extreme taxation that applied only to the southern states. Absurd laws that prevented southern states from establishing any industry. Financial pressures caused by excessive tariffs on crops grown only in the South. And a political party that gave false voice to anti-slave rhetoric as an overt, well understood, and cynical misrepresentation of the issues facing the south. Those are the proximate causes of the War of Northern Aggression. And those are the reasons every southern state made mention of slavery in their justification for choosing to remove their state from the imperfect Union and for a new country.

          The south believed the constitution was valid and the tenth amendment actually meant what it said. Some Southerners, like me, still believe that in spite of being kicked in the face by robber barons and their democrat stooges for over 150 years.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The south believed the constitution was valid and the tenth amendment actually meant what it said.”

          Sorry, you lose. We can’t let a piece of paper get in the way of doing the right thing. When the Constitution obstructs doing good, the Constitution must take a back seat (like totally ignored, and stuff). If we must always adhere to the words and intent of the founders, as expressed in the Constitution, well, what is the point of winning elections to correct basic wrongs?

          The Constitution is nice, and all, but that was then, and this is now. Things move too fast that we should be bound and gagged by fashionable theories of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries. The Preamble says the Constitution was promulgated in order to form a more perfect union. Well, 250yrs later, that same document now stands in the way of perfecting the union. There’s just too much freedom and liberty going on.

          Workers of the World, unite !!

        6. avatar Ron says:

          Thank God. Some other people here who actually know a thing or two about the civil war other then what their middle school taught them. Most people don’t know the war beyond a 4th grade level and get all their history from YouTube or Reddit. Thanks Georgia and Sam for providing some decent discussion here.

        7. avatar 9x39 says:

          While I’d normally feel compelled to reply to someone who’s pursued personal attacks, most likely due to the fact that I’ve disparaged his brothers in blue for their illegal activities related to my personal situation. Sam & Bob have properly eviscerated the talking points in my absence (court induced type), albeit leaving out some things that need be stated. We’ll save that for another day.

          *Tips hat* Thank you, gentlemen.

          Off to deal with the legal system again. *groans*

      2. avatar Irish19 says:

        How are sanctuary cities lawful? I would say the federal government has every right not to fund any states which have sanctuary cities. Seems the federal government had authority over all immigration. I agree the States are to have more power than the federal government but that’s only in terms of what the constitution allows them. The most power is to come from we the people but I don’t see that happening during this fake pandemic. We the people, especially in the blue states have zero rights. What these states are doing is totally unconstitutional and Barr needs to start coming down on these governors who are putting people in house arrest and taking away there constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We cannot use a pandemic to abuse power. POTUS needs to stick the DOJ on these governors. Our rights are disappearing quickly.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I would say the federal government has every right not to fund any states which have sanctuary cities.”

          That “federal government” has three legs. When all three legs agree, then, and only then, can the “federal government” withhold funding. The executive branch is very limited in what it can do with money allocated via federal budget law…signed by the executive.

          Would recommend against interchanging “federal government” and “the president”. Even the Congress cannot cut off funding without presidential agreement (or a senate override of a veto).

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      The 10th Amendment was killed off long ago.

  4. avatar 9x39 says:

    I’d love to live in a place like that, with respect to law. Oklahoma tho? Hard pass for this one.

    1. avatar 9x39 says:

      Clarification: Oklahoma, 33rd in the nation ranking for freedom with respect to law, & including firearms law in the aggregate rating.

  5. avatar Dude says:

    There are plenty of existing laws that could be enforced. Some D.A.’s actually have a policy NOT to pursue prosecution of death threats. Even in jurisdictions without such a policy, good luck getting the cops to become interested in credible death threats against you or your family. They’re too busy out harassing commuters for doing 51 in a 40 zone on a five lane highway.

  6. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    so…how is it that so many states infringe on the 2nd?
    imagine if they passed laws saying that you could vote…but only in one election per year…
    or that you could only make public comments after a background check…
    a delay of a right or limitation of a right is infringement or loss of that right…regardless of what right it is…

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Imagine if Illinois passed laws saying that you could vote once in each election — and only if you’re living.

      Chicago would collapse.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Time to audit the registered voters for all political parties. To be a valid vote the elector must have submitted an IRS tax return or deposited a welfare check in the last year.

    2. avatar Irish19 says:

      Give the left time. They are becoming very tyrannical during this time.Better hope they never get power. Heck the mayor in Chicago is droning everyone even on private property. Their thirst for power has no end.

  7. avatar RGP says:

    It would be great if Texas did the same. I’m personally getting a bit concerned considering all of the anti government statements I’ve made online lately.

  8. avatar GS650G says:

    OK is OK!

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      Yeah, even their license plates said that in the 1970s…

  9. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “After back-to-back mass shootings in Texas and Ohio last year, some congressional Republicans proposed legislation to entice states to enact “red flag” laws.”

    Some congressional Republicans,RINO’s aka Leftist’s in drag, need to be removed from office by the voters, aka “We The People”,to prevent further degeneration of the Constitution and nation.

  10. avatar Texsun55 says:

    I live in Oklahoma…and being a Texan I have seen flaws here but one thing is compared to a lot of places we appreciate freedom here. Other than certain business being closed life has been pretty much normal here during the COVID deal, no mandatory masks, free to travel around without question and no social distancing monitors.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Texsun55,

      Sounds like Oklahoma has the right approach to liberty.

  11. avatar enuf says:

    So it’s not an “Anti-Red Flag Law”, they just call it that. It is a State preemption law. The State itself may create a Red Flag Law anytime it likes. Full text here:
    http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2019-20%20ENR/SB/SB1081%20ENR.PDF

    The meat of the thing:

    A. The State Legislature hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation in this state touching in any way extreme risk protection orders against or upon a citizen of this state to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any municipality or other political subdivision of this state.

    B. Any agency of this state or any political subdivision in this state shall be prohibited from accepting any grants or funding to implement any statute, rule or executive order, judicial order or judicial findings that would have the effect of forcing an extreme risk protection order against or upon a citizen of this state.

    C. For purposes of this section, “extreme risk protection order” means an executive order, written order or warrant issued by a court or signed by a magistrate or comparable officer of the court, for which the primary purpose is to reduce the risk of firearm-related death or injury by doing one or more of the following:

    1. Prohibiting a named individual from having under the custody or control of the individual, owning, possessing or receiving a firearm; or

    2. Having a firearm removed or requiring the surrender of firearms from a named individual.

    SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

    Passed the Senate the 12th day of March, 2020.

  12. avatar Rekmeyata says:

    I admit I don’t know too much about the red law, while I understand it means that people who are danger to themselves or others will be restricted from buying guns…SO WHAT! felons are not allowed to have guns but they get them anyways, so I can only assume a person who qualifies under the red law would be able to get guns as well. Liberal politicians have no sense of reality, they don’t want felons and potential dangerous criminals to have guns but can’t seem to grasp the ideal they can get guns anyways, they want to ban guns so that criminals can get them and raid the homes of non criminals who will obey the law and surrender their guns so they can be raped and killed, yet the liberals don’t want to execute murderers, rapists, child rapists and other heinous criminals, in fact prefer they serve short sentences with programs to rehabilitate them so they can get back out onto the streets and kill and rape again while the rest of us stand around with no guns to defend ourselves or others and just watch the debacles. I guess a lot of Americans like to be attacked and raped, and watch their kids get raped and killed without any means to stop it, because they keep voting for these damn liberals who share the same damn ideologies!

    1. avatar DrDKW says:

      No! It means people who have NOT been proven dangerous or convicted of a crime, can have their guns taken from them without due process!
      Just like people already have had their money and property seized by the police or IRS, without proof or conviction of any crime!
      Your feeling safe does NOT justify ignoring the Constitution or Bill of Rights!

      1. avatar Rekmeyata says:

        The Red Flag Law does not say ANYONE, I just looked it up and it says, according to Wiki:

        “a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.”

        HOWEVER, I do have concerns now, because it’s not really spelled out and appears to be open to whoever wants to define a person as being dangerous, does that mean because I have a gun am I automatically dangerous? It goes on to say:

        “A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.”

        What does that mean? Can a translation become very loose as time goes by like it has with the Constitution protecting our rights to bear arms to twist the meaning saying only the militia can have guns and since we no longer need a militia to protect from foreign invasion no citizen should have guns. A major stretch in the definition of the gun rights from people who have big heads but no english degrees to understand what a comma means or what the original intent of the language used meant. So that sort of stretch could escalate quickly with the Red Law as well.

        So I feel what your thinking. But don’t misunderstand either that I do think felons with violent history should not own guns, of course you and I know they will get them anyways, but if they get busted for something having a gun will add to their time behind bars. But also understand that I don’t think banning guns from violent offenders is the way to go, we need longer jail sentences, and depending on the crime an automatic death sentence for shooting offensively which kills a person and raping of a child, PLUS, a fast track sentencing if all evidence, including DNA and eye witnesses, shouldn’t be held in court for years, fast track where the trial is done in 6 months and the execution carried out within 90 days of sentencing. These long trials we have today are not cheap to taxpayers, it can cost taxpayers upwards of over a million dollars to do the case of one person! We had a guy in town that cost our city 1.2 million dollars, they knew he was guilty without a shadow of doubt, they had DNA, fingerprints, photo evidence, and eye witnesses, this should trial should have never lasted 3 years, 90 day trial is plenty long enough for cases like that. This trial I mentioned had really nothing to do with heinous criminal in that crime, what took so long was trying to prevent the guy from going to jail for life! Quite frankly I don’t even care if the person is mentally incompetent! WHAT??? you all scream? Sorry but that’s how I feel. And what did this guy in our city do? He repeatedly raped a 4 year old over a period of several days, then killed her! We had a similar situation in our city where another guy was baby setting a neighbors 3 year old child, he got tired of her screaming, so he bashed her head in with a hammer, then took her into the woods someplace and dumped her body.

        I know some liberals out there will be crying about what I said, but I guarantee you that once these criminals are on the fast track to execution that a lot of our heinous crimes will end…not all will end because some are too sick to stop, but it will become severely reduced. Putting someone in jail for life is just plain stupid, it cost the taxpayers around $45,000 a year for each person in jail, that’s uncalled for, if they have a life sentence than that life should be for 90 days after the trail and then executed!

        This nonsense with “light” sentencing for heinous criminals to me is a crime within itself. There was famous killer in California or Florida, I can’t remember where or who, but he was well known for attacking people with hatchets, he was given life but then due to good behavior and his advanced age, they released on probation and a electronic cuff at the age of late 70’s saying he had been rehabilitated, no more than week of being released he took a hatchet and whacked his caretaker to death.

        Is that the first time that’s happened, not even close, here’s an example: https://nypost.com/2019/07/18/killer-released-from-prison-dubbed-too-old-to-be-dangerous-kills-again/
        And here’s more:
        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3614946/Freed-kill-Nearly-100-killers-rapists-paedophiles-life-sentences-released-jailed-life-AGAIN.html
        And that really is just a handful of those who have been repeat offenders.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Red Flag laws operate on accusations by people other than law enforcement (as in an accusation of a crime for which a person is arrested). Red Flag laws are different in various states, and yes, in some, your neighbor can call authorities and claim that you have guns, you have children, you yell constantly at the children, and the neighbors. All that yelling, and having guns makes the caller feel unsafe, or even threatened by the possibility you (the gun owner) will escalate your anger to the use of firearms.

          At that point, the cops apply to a judge (without you having any idea it is happening) for authority to bang on your front door, and confiscate your weapons. You, then, get “due process” of law by going before a judge, and proving you pose no threat to anyone. The accuser is not required to present evidence at your hearing to try to get your weapons returned. Until you convince a judge you are not dangerous (there is no standard of proof), your guns remain unavailable, and…you are now a “prohibited person”.

          Oh…..there is generally no accountability, in the Red Flag law, for your neighbor making a bogus claim.

    2. avatar Someone says:

      Liberal politicians don’t want anyone who’s not under their control to have guns. The crime is just a convenient pretense to push for public disarmament.

  13. avatar Mark says:

    You can tell the Okies don’t have many Californians.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I personally know two native born-and-raised Californians who now live there. Our problem here in CA is that so many conservatives have left over the past dozen years, we can’t keep our ratios up to beat the Dems in elections. People just give up and leave.

      1. avatar Rekmeyata says:

        Yup, my wife and I left too because of all the liberal policies, and the high cost of living. I knew there was coming a day I was going to have to retire and have income besides social security plus having to work till I die, so we left, as are thousands of others, in fact on average 225,000 people are leaving CA each year, but in 2019 that skyrocketed to 691,000!! However you have to subtract the number that move in to California, and that number is averaging 200,000 a year, some of those are illegals. Overall there is a negative flow of people going out of CA, and if this keeps up, which it undoubtedly will as liberal policies continue to tear the state apart, property values will decrease as there will be more houses than people to buy, and rents will decrease as well. While on the surface that seems like a good thing, but for those that were investing hoping they could make money selling them it’s not going to be a good thing. Plus since the property taxes are based on purchase price of the home and not the value, homeowners will be paying taxes on a house for $1,000,000 when it’s only worth $600,000 (for example).

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          CA allows for appraisals for property tax adjustments based upon your home’s value. There are people who make their living doing all the work for you (arrange appraisal, file the appeal forms, appear before the County Assessor, etc.) for a percentage of how much you’ll save. Typically the fee is 50% of the reduced difference for the first year, and 25% for the next couple of years. After that, the savings are all 100% yours. Since they earn more if they save you more, they work hard to get you the max reduction. Not a bad deal.

  14. avatar possum says:

    Oklahoma has a lot of people who like to race, it’s a raceist state. People who race don’t like red flags.

  15. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    I love how the lead troll posters do anything to turn the commentary away from the good of this law.

  16. avatar coffeemonster says:

    Hold the champagne! Stitt didn’t sign yet (the Yes votes are good 34-9 and 77-14, though). The Oklahoman has to issue a correction. h77p://oklegislatureDOTgov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SB1081

  17. avatar Alan says:

    Among other things these Red Flag Laws violate is Common Sense, i pause to note.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      depends on how you define “common sense”…and what your ultimate objective is……

      1. avatar Don says:

        I understood him just fine.

Leave a Reply to Dude Cancel reply

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

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