Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 13:46:23 GMT
www.newsweek.com/man-tests-guns-public-park-1456109"A senior citizen in Connecticut was arrested after reportedly fired two guns into a public park where kids were playing softball. Police in Stamford say 68-year-old James Denardo claimed he was "testing" to see if the firearms worked. It was around 6:30pm on Wednesday, August 21, when emergency dispatchers received reports of a man firing his guns from a parked car near Scalzi Park. Officers investigating the tip found veteran James Denardo sitting in his Cadillac at the intersection of Fourth Street and Washington Boulevard. They approached him with their guns drawn, ordering him to keep his hands in the air. James Denardo, 68, was arrested for discharging two pistols into Stamford's Scalzi Park Stamford Police Department / City Of Stamford When they reached the car, they found Denardo had a two-shot derringer pistol in his lap. After a short struggle, Denardo was removed from his vehicle and handcuffed. A search revealed he had a loaded 9mm Beretta in addition to the derringer. A pair of spent shell casings were also found outside of the car. Police found multiple miniature bottles of vodka inside the car, some of which were empty. When questioned, Denardo denied firing the shots into the park. Once in custody Denardo told officers that after he purchased the guns he "wanted to see how they worked." Scalzi Park is Stamford's largest public recreation area. At the time of the shooting, two adult football games and a youth softball practice were in progress. Witnesses report seeing two bullets land in the dirt on the softball field, but no injuries were reported." Feeling safe yet?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 13:48:31 GMT
An argument over a parking spot at a Lakewood Walmart late Sunday night erupted into a shooting in which at least one person was shot multiple times, police said. “At this time, it is believed that this was an isolated incident resulting over an argument over a parking spot,” according to a Lakewood Police Department news release. “It doesn’t look like they knew each other.” www.denverpost.com/2019/08/26/lakewood-walmart-shooting-sunday/I'm sure this is what the founders had in mind, AmIRite?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 13:52:14 GMT
"A 14-year-old Auburndale High School student was arrested Monday for bringing a loaded handgun to campus, the Auburndale Police Department said... The police department said the 14-year-old had the handgun in his possession at the Auburndale football game on Friday night, too. “It had something to do with a friend of his that he thought there was going to be a fight and he had supposedly told somebody or some people that he wasn’t gonna let his friends get hurt,” said Chief Ray." www.wfla.com/news/student-brings-loaded-handgun-to-polk-co-high-school/Feeling safe for your kids, now? Gonna do anything about it?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 13:55:45 GMT
Boy, 10, shot while playing with gun 'not doing well,' Daytona Beach police say "Officers said they responded to a home on South Keech Street at about 8:25 p.m. Saturday, where they found the 10-year-old boy with a gunshot wound, lying on the floor near a bed. Related Headlines Investigators said the weapon used in the shooting was found in the home. Police Chief Craig Capri said the 14-year-old, who was a friend, went to the home minutes before the shooting. Despite the loaded gun being secured, the boys found it and began playing with it before it fired, hitting the 10-year-old boy police said. A relative in the home heard the gunshot and called police, officers said.
The boy, who was shot in the head, was taken to Halifax Health Medical Center and was later transferred to Arnold Palmer Children’s Hospital in Orlando, according to police."www.wftv.com/news/local/10-year-old-boy-shot-by-teenager-in-critical-condition-police-say/979335732NO CHARGES WILL BE FILED!
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,517
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Aug 27, 2019 14:08:37 GMT
An argument over a parking spot at a Lakewood Walmart late Sunday night erupted into a shooting in which at least one person was shot multiple times, police said. “At this time, it is believed that this was an isolated incident resulting over an argument over a parking spot,” according to a Lakewood Police Department news release. “It doesn’t look like they knew each other.” www.denverpost.com/2019/08/26/lakewood-walmart-shooting-sunday/ I'm sure this is what the founders had in mind, AmIRite?You took the words right out of my brain! That is exactly what I was going to say! LOL
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 15:32:10 GMT
When I grew up and was in school, the belief was the 2nd amendment did not guarantee the individual’s right to own a gun. That is why in 2008 when the Supreme Court said it did, my first thought was boy did they get that wrong because that is not what the 2nd amendment said.
In 2014 Michael Waldman wrote the book The Second Amendment, a Biography.
In the book he repeats some discussions made when the country was being formed. One hot topic was the protection of the newly formed country. There were those who didn’t want a standing army but a militia instead. So it makes sense at that point in time, the FF felt a well armed militia was more important than an individual’s right to own guns. Not every person in the newly formed states would be in this militia but the ones that were needed to be well armed.
And that hat was the general belief, by most, until the 1970’s when there was basically a revolt in the NRA where at one of their meetings the leaders were ousted and replace by the more activists members of the organization and who’s main goal was to remove all ambiguity from the meaning of the 2nd amendment. That it indeed meant it gave the citizens the right to own guns. And this country has been paying a heavy price ever since. And I believe this version to be true based on what I learned in school during the 1960’s prior to the NRA takeover.
Here is the book review in the Washington Post..
“Book review: “The Second Amendment:A Biography,” by Michael Waldman”
“The Second Amendment brings out the worst in Americans, intellectuals included. Pro-gun scholars recycle truncated quotations and dubious sources; historian Michael Bellesiles, who questioned the importance of guns in early America, won a Bancroft Prize with evidence later found to be false. Stanford historian Jack Rakove, whose reputation is impeccable, once wrote that “this debate engenders rhetorical excesses that would seem completely out of place in any other realm of scholarship.”
Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, falls victim to this curse. His rhetorical excesses render a promising idea far less persuasive than it might have been.
The amendment itself is 27 opaque words: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Is the first clause a limitation (“ ‘The people’ have a right to bear arms only if they belong to the militia”)? A declaration of purpose (“Because weapons strengthen the militia, ‘the people’ have a right to keep and bear arms”)? Or a random thought (“Firearms are important to the militia, and by the way ‘the people’ have a right to keep and bear arms”)?
Whatever it may mean for “the people,” the amendment does seem to play a clear role in the constitutional structure. The Constitution transferred virtually all power over the militia to Congress. Anti-federalists prophesied that Congress would disarm it, then impose tyranny. The Second Amendment was written in part to allay this worry — and that may be its entire meaning. Many, however, have read it to mean that guns in individual hands are a natural right.
A cultural history of that idea would be a fascinating “biography” and might shed light on contemporary legal disputes. But Waldman’s interest is advocacy: He wants to refute the argument that the amendment creates an individual, judicially enforceable gun-ownership right.
This saga was recently covered in Adam Winkler’s “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” Like Winkler, Waldman describes public support for gun control in the 1960s, the radical right turn of the National Rifle Association in the ’70s and what he calls “the tsunami of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship” that advanced the seemingly novel argument that the amendment was “intended” to protect individual gun rights. He tells the stories of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which found an enforceable federal right to home handgun ownership, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which found that right binding on the states.
Winkler carefully reflected both sides’ arguments. To Waldman, however, the idea of an individual right to gun ownership is not just wrong but ridiculous; those who disagree are not just mistaken but fools. Pro-gun historians are hacks — for example, George Mason law professor Joyce Malcolm is “a previously little-known historian” who writes “in a tone of having discovered a lost hieroglyph.” Three respected constitutional scholars — Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, and Laurence Tribe of Harvard — have concluded that the amendment protects individuals; Waldman does not answer but derides them, citing “Robert Frost’s definition of a liberal: someone so open-minded he will not take his own side in an argument.” Mystifyingly, he calls Heller “ ‘living constitutionalism’ with a Southern accent.” (Its author, Justice Antonin Scalia, is from New York.)
I am Southern, but I read the amendment’s history much as Waldman does — as do most historians I respect. But he dismisses prominent scholars as idiots without examining their arguments; this simply will not do.
Waldman goes on to blame “originalist” constitutional interpretation for Heller. But the dispute is not really about history. If James Madison, the amendment’s sponsor, rose from the dead tomorrow and gave a sworn statement of his “original intent,” not one mind would change. Those who favor gun regulation would argue that in 1790 there were no semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines. The pro-gun side would dismiss Madison’s views (as Justice Clarence Thomas has in the church-state area) as “extreme.”
Whatever the Second Amendment meant in 1790, I have not seen a shred of evidence that the framers’ “right to keep and bear arms” was the “right” today’s gun radicals embrace. The Supreme Court, for now, has held that there is some individual right to gun ownership; but as Waldman correctly notes, in the wake of Heller and McDonald, federal courts have refused to void most regulations. If history is our guide, for more than two centuries it was assumed that states could, within broad limits, regulate the guns “the people” could own, where they could “keep and bear” them and how they could use them. The contemporary claim that gun ownership (unlike other constitutional freedoms) cannot be limited at all is new, historically and legally untenable, and dangerous.
The real firearms argument is not a historical dispute about revolutionary America but a political one about 21st-century America. By one estimate, more than 15,000 Americans have died by gun violence since the Newtown massacre. As historian Jill Lepore recently wrote, in a heavily armed society there is no longer anything that can be called civilian life. Today the battlefield encompasses Army bases, Navy yards, preschools and theaters; a federal judge is randomly shot down on his way home from morning Mass; armed thugs block enforcement of federal law; a deranged man carries out a revenge massacre against those he believes have wronged him.
Radical gun advocates, I think, believe their vision of liberty is worth this price in fear and blood. They claim that their preference is rooted in America’s history, but it is not: Their minds would not be changed even by a book better than this one.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 15:39:33 GMT
From Michael Waldman in Politico...
“How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment”
“The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.
A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.
Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.
So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.
The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored.
The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.
Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.
On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
Cue the National Rifle Association. We all know of the organization’s considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, “The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.” Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure.
What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.
The NRA was founded by a group of Union officers after the Civil War who, perturbed by their troops’ poor marksmanship, wanted a way to sponsor shooting training and competitions. The group testified in support of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers. When a lawmaker asked whether the proposal violated the Constitution, the NRA witness responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” The group lobbied quietly against the most stringent regulations, but its principal focus was hunting and sportsmanship: bagging deer, not blocking laws. In the late 1950s, it opened a new headquarters to house its hundreds of employees. Metal letters on the facade spelled out its purpose: firearms safety education, marksmanship training, shooting for recreation.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 16:52:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 29, 2019 17:18:42 GMT
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” What happened to 'A well-regulated militia'? I don't see the persons and/or weapons being regulated! If they were, there would be far fewer killings... Well-regulated = background checks, registration, license, document, document!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 18:51:02 GMT
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” What happened to 'A well-regulated militia'? I don't see the persons and/or weapons being regulated! If they were, there would be far fewer killings... Well-regulated = background checks, registration, license, document, document!! What also happened to the militia ?- a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.You have to ask oneself where or what is the emergency that your regular army isn't capable of dealing with that it has to have every Tom,Dick or Harry to offer their assistance. Don't you have the National Guard in place to do that?
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 29, 2019 22:48:28 GMT
What also happened to the militia ?- a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.You have to ask oneself where or what is the emergency that your regular army isn't capable of dealing with that it has to have every Tom,Dick or Harry to offer their assistance. Don't you have the National Guard in place to do that? Yes we have the National Guard. I am in the position that I have to concede that people in this country will always have guns. For me it is necessary to be reasonable in our decisions going forward. Time for compromise, which is word Washington has lost sight of!
|
|
ComplicatedLady
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,037
Location: Valley of the Sun
Jul 26, 2014 21:02:07 GMT
|
Post by ComplicatedLady on Sept 29, 2019 22:52:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 30, 2019 21:30:37 GMT
The NRA is the one who pushed for the current “meaning” of the 2A to be what they think it says now.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 30, 2019 21:32:54 GMT
A local high school was closed today because of a social media threat and photos of guns shown. Once the found the poster, they confiscated an air soft gun with the orange tip painted black, as well as a BB gun that looked like a rifle.
Safe yet?
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Sept 30, 2019 21:38:56 GMT
An argument over a parking spot at a Lakewood Walmart late Sunday night erupted into a shooting in which at least one person was shot multiple times, police said. “At this time, it is believed that this was an isolated incident resulting over an argument over a parking spot,” according to a Lakewood Police Department news release. “It doesn’t look like they knew each other.” www.denverpost.com/2019/08/26/lakewood-walmart-shooting-sunday/I'm sure this is what the founders had in mind, AmIRite? I almost thought you meant Lakewood NJ and I was like really? On Erev Rosh Hashanah the Lakewood Walmart has enough people for an argument over a parking spot? What is this world coming to? Then I remember that the Walmart is in Brick not Lakewood. You’ll have to pardon me it’s been a long day.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Sept 30, 2019 21:41:47 GMT
An argument over a parking spot at a Lakewood Walmart late Sunday night erupted into a shooting in which at least one person was shot multiple times, police said. “At this time, it is believed that this was an isolated incident resulting over an argument over a parking spot,” according to a Lakewood Police Department news release. “It doesn’t look like they knew each other.” www.denverpost.com/2019/08/26/lakewood-walmart-shooting-sunday/ I'm sure this is what the founders had in mind, AmIRite?You took the words right out of my brain! That is exactly what I was going to say! LOL Maybe it’s time to start going about this from another direction. Because none of this seems ‘well regulated’ in anyway. Perhaps the lack of ‘well regulation’ Is the answer
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Sept 30, 2019 21:46:01 GMT
What also happened to the militia ?- a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.You have to ask oneself where or what is the emergency that your regular army isn't capable of dealing with that it has to have every Tom,Dick or Harry to offer their assistance. Don't you have the National Guard in place to do that? Yes we have the National Guard. I am in the position that I have to concede that people in this country will always have guns. For me it is necessary to be reasonable in our decisions going forward. Time for compromise, which is word Washington has lost sight of! And ‘the National guard’ of Texas was called up by Governor Abbott to Fight off the 2015 famous ‘Invasion of Texas’
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2019 4:00:57 GMT
"Police in the southern Washington city of Vancouver said Thursday that one person was killed and two people were hurt in a shooting at an apartment building for senior citizens. An 80-year-old suspect was taken into custody without incident, police spokeswoman Kim Capp said several hours after the shooting. Police responded around 2 p.m. to a call of a shooting at the Smith Tower Apartments. When officers arrived they found three victims in the lobby of the apartment building suffering from gunshot wounds. Two female victims were transported to area hospitals for medical treatment and one male victim was deceased." www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/us/vancouver-washington-shooting/index.htmlWhen all you have is a gun, all your problems look like they'd be solved w/guns.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2019 17:56:28 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 20:02:58 GMT
Today's installment of the "well-regulated militia" "The St. Louis Post-Dispatch cites charges and police in reporting that Joseph Marino was driving and Nicholas Marino was in the passenger seat at the time of the road rage incident. After they saw the other driver pull over and begin to take down their vehicle’s license plate number, Joseph Marino allegedly pulled the car over and pointed a gun at the man while Nicholas allegedly got out of the car and fired at least three shots at him. St. Louis County police apprehended the brothers when they were spotted driving along the shoulder of a road to pass traffic, police said. Nicholas was charged with one count of first-degree assault and armed criminal action. Joseph was charged with one count of unlawful use of a weapon." www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2-brothers-charged-shooting-dad-front-his-4-kids-road-n1067241
|
|
msladibug
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,533
Jul 10, 2014 2:31:46 GMT
|
Post by msladibug on Oct 16, 2019 20:47:54 GMT
This happened last week and left the neighbors ( and the rest of us) shocked. Family of 5 found dead in their home. link
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 0:53:26 GMT
This happened last week and left the neighbors ( and the rest of us) shocked. Family of 5 found dead in their home. link How horrendous. When the only tool you have is a gun....
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 15:20:08 GMT
Just another day in gun-soaked America living w/"well-regulated militias".
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Nov 16, 2019 20:45:18 GMT
Just another day in gun-soaked America living w/"well-regulated militias". first, I am all for background checks But I dislike that meme. Since the kid was 16 he couldn't have bought a gun legally in order to go through a background check and would not have stopped this kid. It gives the NRA ammo in that they can say "see the laws those liberals want to pass wouldn't have stopped this" and that "they" want to take "your" rights away and still it won't be helpful. Again, I'm in favor of stronger and more comprehensive background checks. I just don't think the meme is helpful in that argument
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2019 0:24:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 17:48:41 GMT
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,656
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Nov 18, 2019 19:24:12 GMT
My husband was close enough to hear the shots.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 11:23:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 19:28:43 GMT
My husband was close enough to hear the shots. I'm so sorry. We're all going to be close enough to hear the shots at some point I think, if it carries on this way.
|
|
|
Post by LiLi on Nov 18, 2019 19:33:27 GMT
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,656
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Nov 18, 2019 19:37:46 GMT
Oklahoma now has open carry and no permit need.
|
|