OK Paper survery about "stand your ground"

[Chipperman]

The article is about confiscation of firearms, but the survey is about "stand your ground"

Anyway, here is a link:
http://www.channeloklahoma.com/news/9023840/detail.html

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

Authority To Confiscate Guns During Emergencies Considered

POSTED: 5:47 pm CDT April 26, 2006
UPDATED: 7:11 pm CDT April 26, 2006

OKLAHOMA CITY -- An Oklahoma legislator said he hopes to make some changes to a new law that makes it illegal for authorities to confiscate weapons during a state of emergency.


State Rep. Mike Shelton said House Bill 2696 has placed the power of the law into the wrong hands.

"During states of emergency, I think police need total control. They don't need to worry who has guns and who doesn't. If the governor calls for Oklahomans to relinquish their guns, the public needs to do so," Shelton said.


That was the idea in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, when police confiscated guns from residents even if they were legal. This new Oklahoma law removes that power.

"What's the reason of owning a gun if they're just going to take it away from you," said King's Pawn and Gun Shop owner David Hasel.

Hasel said the new law is better for Oklahoma and registered-gun owners. He said that before this legislation, criminals had special treatment.

"Why should the criminals have guns and not the law-abiding citizens?" he asked.

Shelton said his battle is not over, and he intends not only to ask the governor to veto HB2696 but also to overturn the stand-your-ground bill.

The stand-your-ground law has already passed the Senate. It would allow you to protect yourself with lethal force if you feel threatened in a public place, such as a mall or a restaurant.

Shelton said it's up to law enforcement to protect citizens in public places.

The bill is in the House and expected to pass.

 

[engineer151515]

Shelton said it's up to law enforcement to protect citizens in public places.

Actually, police have an obligation to protect society and the general public (which I believe they do to the best of their ability - bless them all).

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled multiple times that police have no obligation to protect an individual, unless contracted specifically with that individual to do so.

You are on your own.

I think State Rep. Mike Shelton may be unaware, or deliberately ignoring, those facts.

 

[spooney]

I think Mike Shelton is going to get about as far with that idea as I could throw him.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Representative Shelton is a twit. He is either ignorant of (or chooses to intentionally ignore) the fact that during the LA riots, the chief of police ordered the police to disengage. In New Orleans, the chief didn't have to order the police to disengage -- most of them had already done so on their own initiative.

"What a maroon." (With credit to Bugs Bunny)

 

[grnzbra]

I think State Rep. Mike Shelton may be unaware, or deliberately ignoring, those facts.

I expect that, like most anti-gun politicians, he's deliberately ignoring the facts. It sounds real nice and "reasonable", but those of us who are involved know better. The problem is that the rest of the population doesn't.

 

[Shield529]

If we could protect everyone in public places that might be just fine. The issue is, as most sane people know, that we cannot. The police could never protect everyone at any given time. Such thoughs are just not rational.
The police having total control in an emergency? If I recall the police in N.O. did not have control of anything.
This nice elected offical seems to believe us cops are superpowered and immune to the effects of a disaster. If worse comes to worse again, our cars, health, and emotions are affected just like everyone else and we may just not be able to get to everyone or even out of our offices. Who is to say a terror strike may not hit the local PD first just to ensure a shortage of police when needed.
These are feel good words designed to let delusional young libs feel safe.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

When I hit the survey, it was about 94% in favor of "stand your ground."

Naturally, though, the survey had it wrong. The way the question was asked, it made it sound like being allowed to defend yourself was the issue. There was no mention of the distinction involved in "stand your ground" vs "duty to retreat." Yeah, I know. What masquerades as "journalists" these days would have their heads explode if they tried to get a handle on that distinction.

 

[velojym]

Hold folks responsible for their actions.
If Mr Politician feels so strongly about disarming victims, he should be held directly responsible for the consequences, opening him up for civil suits when the police are unable to provide 24/7 defense for every individual.
*sigh*
Not gonna happen, though.

 

[MechAg94]

So if the police will protect me in public places, what about my own private home?