Suppressors Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
- Thread starter Hayden_SilencerCo
- Start date
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
It just passed the House committee unanimously!! 20 yes votes, 0 no votes!
It just passed the House committee unanimously!! 20 yes votes, 0 no votes!
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Dang! You beat me to it!
Dang! You beat me to it!
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MAJ MALFUNCTION</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It just passed the House committee unanimously!! 20 yes votes, 0 no votes!</div></div>
I spoke with Senator Russell and he agrees that the language that institutes a $500-$1000 fine for ANY GAME VIOLATION WHILE A SUPPRESSOR IS ATTACHED TO YOUR FIREARM is very dangerous. He will be meeting with Rep. Osborne, who is the house sponsor of the bill, to tighten the language to ensure that game wardens can't over react to a blaze orange violation and assess you a large fine because you happen to have a suppressor on your rifle.
Chris (50calcruiser) and I spoke with Osborne and she stated she would be meeting with Russell later today to work on the language. By her adding a House Amendment to the bill it will allow the bill to quickly go back to the Senate for an approval vote of the added amendment, and then on to the Governor for signature (which Russell assured me she would quickly sign.)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MAJ MALFUNCTION</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It just passed the House committee unanimously!! 20 yes votes, 0 no votes!</div></div>
I spoke with Senator Russell and he agrees that the language that institutes a $500-$1000 fine for ANY GAME VIOLATION WHILE A SUPPRESSOR IS ATTACHED TO YOUR FIREARM is very dangerous. He will be meeting with Rep. Osborne, who is the house sponsor of the bill, to tighten the language to ensure that game wardens can't over react to a blaze orange violation and assess you a large fine because you happen to have a suppressor on your rifle.
Chris (50calcruiser) and I spoke with Osborne and she stated she would be meeting with Russell later today to work on the language. By her adding a House Amendment to the bill it will allow the bill to quickly go back to the Senate for an approval vote of the added amendment, and then on to the Governor for signature (which Russell assured me she would quickly sign.)
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Guys, I have to say the way the current amendment is written is not good.
Here is the text:
3. Any person convicted of a wildlife offense which involves a species of wildlife listed in Section 5-411 of this title, involves a species of wildlife referenced in Section 5-412 of this title or involves the unlawful possession, taking or killing of the wildlife from an unlawful hunt, chase, trap, capture, shooting, killing or slaughter by any means and <span style="text-decoration: underline">who was using a suppressed firearm during the commission of the wildlife offense, in addition to any other penalty otherwise provided for in law, shall be punished by a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.</span> In addition, the court may order that the hunting or fishing license and privileges of the person be revoked for a period of not less than one (1) year but not exceeding five (5) years. The cost of reinstating a hunting or fishing license revoked pursuant to this paragraph for residents shall be Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) for each license and for nonresidents shall be Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each license. The reinstatement fee shall be in addition to any other fees required for the hunting or fishing license.
The way I read it, and maybe I'm wrong, it looks like you are going to get a fine for whatever the offense is, then you are going to get another fine for using a suppressor. Say you take off your blaze orange hat while walking be to the truck after a hunt and the game warden catches you hat-less. Sounds like you'll get a ticket for not having your hat on and one for having a suppressor. I'm not sure what the definition of a "wildlife offense" is but it needs to be cleared up.
Guys, I have to say the way the current amendment is written is not good.
Here is the text:
3. Any person convicted of a wildlife offense which involves a species of wildlife listed in Section 5-411 of this title, involves a species of wildlife referenced in Section 5-412 of this title or involves the unlawful possession, taking or killing of the wildlife from an unlawful hunt, chase, trap, capture, shooting, killing or slaughter by any means and <span style="text-decoration: underline">who was using a suppressed firearm during the commission of the wildlife offense, in addition to any other penalty otherwise provided for in law, shall be punished by a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.</span> In addition, the court may order that the hunting or fishing license and privileges of the person be revoked for a period of not less than one (1) year but not exceeding five (5) years. The cost of reinstating a hunting or fishing license revoked pursuant to this paragraph for residents shall be Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) for each license and for nonresidents shall be Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each license. The reinstatement fee shall be in addition to any other fees required for the hunting or fishing license.
The way I read it, and maybe I'm wrong, it looks like you are going to get a fine for whatever the offense is, then you are going to get another fine for using a suppressor. Say you take off your blaze orange hat while walking be to the truck after a hunt and the game warden catches you hat-less. Sounds like you'll get a ticket for not having your hat on and one for having a suppressor. I'm not sure what the definition of a "wildlife offense" is but it needs to be cleared up.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
What are they talking about changing in the wording? Are they gonna make it where you get the big fine only for poaching and and big no-no's? Or just clear up the wording for all violations?
What are they talking about changing in the wording? Are they gonna make it where you get the big fine only for poaching and and big no-no's? Or just clear up the wording for all violations?
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
They are going to try and tighten up the wording on that. It is pretty vague. Doesn't really bother me though. I'm not going to be breaking the law anyway.
They are going to try and tighten up the wording on that. It is pretty vague. Doesn't really bother me though. I'm not going to be breaking the law anyway.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
B.J., I would completely agree with you however, I know of two cases where over zealous game wardens have thrown the book at people for really stupid stuff. The above example of taking off a hat while walking back to the truck on a warm day actually happen to my girlfriends dad, maximum fine. Another buddy was hunting on a quarter section 150 yards from the house they stay in, shot a deer, loaded it up and drove back to the house without putting a tag on it. Gary Roller was waiting with his ticket book, maximum fine.
Yes, in both cases they broke the law and got a ticket for it. But we shouldn't get an extra ticket because we were hunting with a suppressor.
B.J., I would completely agree with you however, I know of two cases where over zealous game wardens have thrown the book at people for really stupid stuff. The above example of taking off a hat while walking back to the truck on a warm day actually happen to my girlfriends dad, maximum fine. Another buddy was hunting on a quarter section 150 yards from the house they stay in, shot a deer, loaded it up and drove back to the house without putting a tag on it. Gary Roller was waiting with his ticket book, maximum fine.
Yes, in both cases they broke the law and got a ticket for it. But we shouldn't get an extra ticket because we were hunting with a suppressor.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
No you shouldn't. I guess I haven't had to deal w/any of these type of game wardens. I kinda think maybe they should put common sense and courtesy in the training for some of these guys. I have a feeling if I ever have a run in w/the one we have now, I would change my tune. He seems to be a little like the one's you are talking about. Hopefully they will get it changed to be more specific in the wording.
No you shouldn't. I guess I haven't had to deal w/any of these type of game wardens. I kinda think maybe they should put common sense and courtesy in the training for some of these guys. I have a feeling if I ever have a run in w/the one we have now, I would change my tune. He seems to be a little like the one's you are talking about. Hopefully they will get it changed to be more specific in the wording.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
I'm a little late on this being I just joined the site. I did just e-mail my house rep. and request his support when it comes to the house for vote. Hopefully they will get the wording tightened up and able to pass. With Texas recently passing similar legislation I think we have a good shot at this making it through.
I'm a little late on this being I just joined the site. I did just e-mail my house rep. and request his support when it comes to the house for vote. Hopefully they will get the wording tightened up and able to pass. With Texas recently passing similar legislation I think we have a good shot at this making it through.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Where do we stand on this?
Where do we stand on this?
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZRM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where do we stand on this?</div></div>
Spoke with Sen. Russell and they are considering taking the bill to conference to ensure there is no way that a local game warden can use the language to write you huge fines for things like not having enough blaze orange on your person while hunting if you happen to have a suppressor on your rifle.
I've interacted with wardens who were just mean and hateful and based on the language of the bill there is a possibility they could use it to be vindictive to hunters that were following the spirit of the law.
Both Sen. Russell and Rep Osborn both feel the bill will pass easily and be signed by the Gov.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZRM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where do we stand on this?</div></div>
Spoke with Sen. Russell and they are considering taking the bill to conference to ensure there is no way that a local game warden can use the language to write you huge fines for things like not having enough blaze orange on your person while hunting if you happen to have a suppressor on your rifle.
I've interacted with wardens who were just mean and hateful and based on the language of the bill there is a possibility they could use it to be vindictive to hunters that were following the spirit of the law.
Both Sen. Russell and Rep Osborn both feel the bill will pass easily and be signed by the Gov.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Any new updates or information? Keeping a close eye on this one.
Any new updates or information? Keeping a close eye on this one.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Don't just keep an eye on it.
Call Rep Osborn (the house author) and ask her about it and tell her you support it.
http://www.okhouse.gov/District.aspx?District=47
Then find out who your State Rep is and call them and let them know when it hits the house floor you expect them to support it.
http://www.okhouse.gov/FindMyLegislature.aspx?State=OK
The more calls they get the better chance of it not bogging down and passing.
Don't just keep an eye on it.
Call Rep Osborn (the house author) and ask her about it and tell her you support it.
http://www.okhouse.gov/District.aspx?District=47
Then find out who your State Rep is and call them and let them know when it hits the house floor you expect them to support it.
http://www.okhouse.gov/FindMyLegislature.aspx?State=OK
The more calls they get the better chance of it not bogging down and passing.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
I contacted my representives right after the bill was introduced.
I contacted my representives right after the bill was introduced.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JCH</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZRM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where do we stand on this?</div></div>
Spoke with Sen. Russell and they are considering taking the bill to conference to ensure there is no way that a local game warden can use the language to write you huge fines for things like not having enough blaze orange on your person while hunting if you happen to have a suppressor on your rifle.
I've interacted with wardens who were just mean and hateful and based on the language of the bill there is a possibility they could use it to be vindictive to hunters that were following the spirit of the law.
Both Sen. Russell and Rep Osborn both feel the bill will pass easily and be signed by the Gov. </div></div>
Several legislators are being given a line of crap or outright lied to by members of the wildlife department who are against suppressors.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JCH</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZRM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where do we stand on this?</div></div>
Spoke with Sen. Russell and they are considering taking the bill to conference to ensure there is no way that a local game warden can use the language to write you huge fines for things like not having enough blaze orange on your person while hunting if you happen to have a suppressor on your rifle.
I've interacted with wardens who were just mean and hateful and based on the language of the bill there is a possibility they could use it to be vindictive to hunters that were following the spirit of the law.
Both Sen. Russell and Rep Osborn both feel the bill will pass easily and be signed by the Gov. </div></div>
Several legislators are being given a line of crap or outright lied to by members of the wildlife department who are against suppressors.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
MAJ MALFUNCTION said:
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Just emailed every offical I could. Thanks for the input on this topic.
Just emailed every offical I could. Thanks for the input on this topic.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
It's looking like the Bill will go before the House for a floor vote tomorrow (probably).
It's looking like the Bill will go before the House for a floor vote tomorrow (probably).
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Title is struck. After the house it has to go back to the senate to vote on Richardson's over reaching amendment.
Title is struck. After the house it has to go back to the senate to vote on Richardson's over reaching amendment.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Some moron added this floor amendment in the house today. I think they should keep it, I bet the wardens would love lots of 4 a.m. calls. I would call every morning of deer season just to a dick. And I would coyote hunt a lot more often too like probably every day.
“3. Any person hunting with a suppressed firearm as described in paragraph 5 of subsection A of this section shall notify the game warden in the region prior to going into the field.”
Some moron added this floor amendment in the house today. I think they should keep it, I bet the wardens would love lots of 4 a.m. calls. I would call every morning of deer season just to a dick. And I would coyote hunt a lot more often too like probably every day.
“3. Any person hunting with a suppressed firearm as described in paragraph 5 of subsection A of this section shall notify the game warden in the region prior to going into the field.”
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some moron added this floor amendment in the house today. I think they should keep it, I bet the wardens would love lots of 4 a.m. calls. I would call every morning of deer season just to a dick. And I would coyote hunt a lot more often too like probably every day.
“3. Any person hunting with a suppressed firearm as described in paragraph 5 of subsection A of this section shall notify the game warden in the region prior to going into the field.”
</div></div>
If this dumbass amendment goes through I might as well put the GW on speed dial. Wonder which one it was that added it?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some moron added this floor amendment in the house today. I think they should keep it, I bet the wardens would love lots of 4 a.m. calls. I would call every morning of deer season just to a dick. And I would coyote hunt a lot more often too like probably every day.
“3. Any person hunting with a suppressed firearm as described in paragraph 5 of subsection A of this section shall notify the game warden in the region prior to going into the field.”
</div></div>
If this dumbass amendment goes through I might as well put the GW on speed dial. Wonder which one it was that added it?
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Steve kouplen ((D) what a fucking suprise.)
Steve kouplen ((D) what a fucking suprise.)
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
So much win!!!
It should go through the rest of the "process" without issue.
So much win!!!
It should go through the rest of the "process" without issue.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
So did Osborn's amendment stick?
"By deleting all of the language beginning with the word “The” on line 12 through the “period” on line 18."
It removed the $200 license reinstatement fee for violators.
Also, is the title not struck?
Edit: Who voted against it
McPeak
Shelton
Virgin
Roan
Shumate
Losers...
So did Osborn's amendment stick?
"By deleting all of the language beginning with the word “The” on line 12 through the “period” on line 18."
It removed the $200 license reinstatement fee for violators.
Also, is the title not struck?
Edit: Who voted against it
McPeak
Shelton
Virgin
Roan
Shumate
Losers...
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So did Osborn's amendment stick?
"By deleting all of the language beginning with the word “The” on line 12 through the “period” on line 18."
It removed the $200 license reinstatement fee for violators.
</div></div>
Osborne's amendment was adopted and added to the bill. I am not sure that the title is still removed or not. From what I understand, the bill is to head back to the Senate where it will be voted on or modified.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So did Osborn's amendment stick?
"By deleting all of the language beginning with the word “The” on line 12 through the “period” on line 18."
It removed the $200 license reinstatement fee for violators.
</div></div>
Osborne's amendment was adopted and added to the bill. I am not sure that the title is still removed or not. From what I understand, the bill is to head back to the Senate where it will be voted on or modified.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
If it's going back to the senate, the title is struck. If the senate modifies it in any way, back to the house.
If it's going back to the senate, the title is struck. If the senate modifies it in any way, back to the house.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
I kinda hope we do have to call the game wardens. I would love to call and wake his ass up everytime I'm going hunting. I might even set my alarm and just get up and call him even when I'm not really going.
I kinda hope we do have to call the game wardens. I would love to call and wake his ass up everytime I'm going hunting. I might even set my alarm and just get up and call him even when I'm not really going.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
The warden that covers our ranch asked us to call him and let him know whenver we're pig hunting at night. The majority of the time he doesn't answer his cell and we're supposed to just leave him a message.
Call him doesn't really "wear him out" much at all - he just doesn't answer.
The warden that covers our ranch asked us to call him and let him know whenver we're pig hunting at night. The majority of the time he doesn't answer his cell and we're supposed to just leave him a message.
Call him doesn't really "wear him out" much at all - he just doesn't answer.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it's going back to the senate, the title is struck. If the senate modifies it in any way, back to the house. </div></div>
From what I understand, it has to go back to the Senate since it is a Senate Bill and was amended in the House. I wish the language dealing with the penalties in conjunction to using a suppressor was clarified to make sure over eager Game Wardens cannot try and pin a bunch of penalties/fee on you because he does not like the new regulation.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it's going back to the senate, the title is struck. If the senate modifies it in any way, back to the house. </div></div>
From what I understand, it has to go back to the Senate since it is a Senate Bill and was amended in the House. I wish the language dealing with the penalties in conjunction to using a suppressor was clarified to make sure over eager Game Wardens cannot try and pin a bunch of penalties/fee on you because he does not like the new regulation.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vdub</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it's going back to the senate, the title is struck. If the senate modifies it in any way, back to the house. </div></div>
From what I understand, it has to go back to the Senate since it is a Senate Bill and was amended in the House. I wish the language dealing with the penalties in conjunction to using a suppressor was clarified to make sure over eager Game Wardens cannot try and pin a bunch of penalties/fee on you because he does not like the new regulation.</div></div>
according to SWR's facebook page it has gone back to the senate and been voted in again, and all it's waiting on is the Governor's signature...
anyone have anymore info on it?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vdub</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it's going back to the senate, the title is struck. If the senate modifies it in any way, back to the house. </div></div>
From what I understand, it has to go back to the Senate since it is a Senate Bill and was amended in the House. I wish the language dealing with the penalties in conjunction to using a suppressor was clarified to make sure over eager Game Wardens cannot try and pin a bunch of penalties/fee on you because he does not like the new regulation.</div></div>
according to SWR's facebook page it has gone back to the senate and been voted in again, and all it's waiting on is the Governor's signature...
anyone have anymore info on it?
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
According to the OK legislature bill info page it was "Engrossed, signed, to Senate". It does not show that the Senate has voted yet.
I wish they would take out (or change) the amendment that includes:
"and who was using a suppressed firearm <span style="font-weight: bold">during the commission of the wildlife offense, in addition to any other penalty otherwise provided for in law</span>, shall be punished by a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by both the fine and imprisonment."
Bold type added for emphasis.
The way I see it. If you create a regulation prohibiting 5 different means of taking a game animal as in sub section A. Shouldn't the penalty for all 5 means be equal. Why single out one of the means and make additional penalties for just that one. Or in this case additional penalties simply for having a suppressed firearm while committing any other infraction.
According to the OK legislature bill info page it was "Engrossed, signed, to Senate". It does not show that the Senate has voted yet.
I wish they would take out (or change) the amendment that includes:
"and who was using a suppressed firearm <span style="font-weight: bold">during the commission of the wildlife offense, in addition to any other penalty otherwise provided for in law</span>, shall be punished by a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by both the fine and imprisonment."
Bold type added for emphasis.
The way I see it. If you create a regulation prohibiting 5 different means of taking a game animal as in sub section A. Shouldn't the penalty for all 5 means be equal. Why single out one of the means and make additional penalties for just that one. Or in this case additional penalties simply for having a suppressed firearm while committing any other infraction.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Tumbleweed,
That is the language I wish they would remove or clarify to protect people who encounter an over eager Game Warden or one that does not like the new regulations and tries to pin everything they can on the hunter.
Here is a link to track the bill: http://newlsb.lsb.state.ok.us/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb1743
This will provide the latest information but might lag a little behind on some updates.
EDIT: Looks like since I copied the link, the House Amendments to the bill have been read. As long as they approve everything, the bill should be headed to the Governor's desk soon!!!
Tumbleweed,
That is the language I wish they would remove or clarify to protect people who encounter an over eager Game Warden or one that does not like the new regulations and tries to pin everything they can on the hunter.
Here is a link to track the bill: http://newlsb.lsb.state.ok.us/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb1743
This will provide the latest information but might lag a little behind on some updates.
EDIT: Looks like since I copied the link, the House Amendments to the bill have been read. As long as they approve everything, the bill should be headed to the Governor's desk soon!!!
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Just called Russell's office to see what's going on with this. It sounds like some sort of action will be taken today but his L.A. was real busy and didn't have any details at the moment.
Just called Russell's office to see what's going on with this. It sounds like some sort of action will be taken today but his L.A. was real busy and didn't have any details at the moment.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Senate has rejected, conference requested.
Senate has rejected, conference requested.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senate has rejected, conference requested.</div></div>
can't say I am surprised. Russell said they might do this so that they can amend the language so that Game Wardens couldn't slap extra fines on us for other violations just because we have a suppressor on our gun.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senate has rejected, conference requested.</div></div>
can't say I am surprised. Russell said they might do this so that they can amend the language so that Game Wardens couldn't slap extra fines on us for other violations just because we have a suppressor on our gun.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
When do the lawmakers adjourn for the year? I have a feeling this is just a football that is getting throw back and forth and will be killed before it is passed. Correct me if I am wrong but if the senate strikes the questionable verbiage and it passes it goes back to the house for votes and amendments. They then have to passes it and if no changes it goes to governor otherwise back to senate. Right?
When do the lawmakers adjourn for the year? I have a feeling this is just a football that is getting throw back and forth and will be killed before it is passed. Correct me if I am wrong but if the senate strikes the questionable verbiage and it passes it goes back to the house for votes and amendments. They then have to passes it and if no changes it goes to governor otherwise back to senate. Right?
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Just got off the phone with Russell. He will not except the extra fine language everyone is concerned about. He is going to clean up the language to make sure the extra fine only pertains to the abuse of a suppressor directly and put it back on the floor. It will pass the senate easily (already did once without the extra fine). Once it is in the house he said he has no concern about it not passing for no reason other than it is a NRA backed bill and this is Oklahoma.
(I added the this is Oklahoma part)
Senate adjourns the 17th of May. It will get done.
Just got off the phone with Russell. He will not except the extra fine language everyone is concerned about. He is going to clean up the language to make sure the extra fine only pertains to the abuse of a suppressor directly and put it back on the floor. It will pass the senate easily (already did once without the extra fine). Once it is in the house he said he has no concern about it not passing for no reason other than it is a NRA backed bill and this is Oklahoma.
(I added the this is Oklahoma part)
Senate adjourns the 17th of May. It will get done.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Good news. The wardens don't need the vague language to harass law abiding hunters.
Good news. The wardens don't need the vague language to harass law abiding hunters.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JCH</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good news. The wardens don't need the vague language to harass law abiding hunters. </div></div>
The conference committee has been selected so hopefully this bill will be finalized and signed soon!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JCH</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good news. The wardens don't need the vague language to harass law abiding hunters. </div></div>
The conference committee has been selected so hopefully this bill will be finalized and signed soon!!
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
The bill made it out of conference and is headed to the House and Senate for a vote. If passed, it goes to the governor.
The bill made it out of conference and is headed to the House and Senate for a vote. If passed, it goes to the governor.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vdub</div><div class="ubbcode-body">JCH,
Any updates on changes made to the bill? I am interested to see if they made the clarifications to the penalty language and anything else.</div></div>
I didn't get to talk to Sen. Russell, just spoke with his assistant.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vdub</div><div class="ubbcode-body">JCH,
Any updates on changes made to the bill? I am interested to see if they made the clarifications to the penalty language and anything else.</div></div>
I didn't get to talk to Sen. Russell, just spoke with his assistant.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
35 hours at most until the senate adjourns. Any news?
35 hours at most until the senate adjourns. Any news?
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
The House Conference Committee on Natural Resources voted 9-0 in favor of the Senate Conference Committee Report and Senate Conference Committee Substitute that clarified the language concerning penalties. I'm not sure where it goes from here, but hopefully they will get it through in time.
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2011-12%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/votes/House/SB1743_VOTES.HTM
The House Conference Committee on Natural Resources voted 9-0 in favor of the Senate Conference Committee Report and Senate Conference Committee Substitute that clarified the language concerning penalties. I'm not sure where it goes from here, but hopefully they will get it through in time.
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2011-12%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/votes/House/SB1743_VOTES.HTM
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Here is the new language
3. Any person convicted of a wildlife offense which involves a species of wildlife listed in Section 5-411 of this title, involves a species of wildlife referenced in Section 5-412 of this title or involves the unlawful possession, taking or killing of the wildlife from an unlawful hunt, chase, trap, capture, shooting, killing or slaughter while using a suppressed firearm during the commission of the wildlife offense, in addition to any other penalty otherwise provided for in law, shall be punished by a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. In addition, the court may order that the hunting or fishing license and privileges of the person be revoked for a period of not less than one (1) year but not exceeding five (5) years.
You would be shocked at how much stuff is done in the last hours of the session. It'll go.
Here is the new language
3. Any person convicted of a wildlife offense which involves a species of wildlife listed in Section 5-411 of this title, involves a species of wildlife referenced in Section 5-412 of this title or involves the unlawful possession, taking or killing of the wildlife from an unlawful hunt, chase, trap, capture, shooting, killing or slaughter while using a suppressed firearm during the commission of the wildlife offense, in addition to any other penalty otherwise provided for in law, shall be punished by a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. In addition, the court may order that the hunting or fishing license and privileges of the person be revoked for a period of not less than one (1) year but not exceeding five (5) years.
You would be shocked at how much stuff is done in the last hours of the session. It'll go.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">35 hours at most until the senate adjourns. Any news? </div></div>
Actually they don't adjourn until next week. They haven't even finished the budget so they can't adjourn until they agree on that.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">35 hours at most until the senate adjourns. Any news? </div></div>
Actually they don't adjourn until next week. They haven't even finished the budget so they can't adjourn until they agree on that.
Re: Lobbying for Oklahoma Suppressor Bill
Got an email from Rep Osborn just now. She states that once the bill is heard on the Senate floor and passes it will come back to the house to be heard and voted on, then to the governor's desk.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It has to be heard on the senate floor first, then here, then to the governor
</div></div>
Got an email from Rep Osborn just now. She states that once the bill is heard on the Senate floor and passes it will come back to the house to be heard and voted on, then to the governor's desk.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It has to be heard on the senate floor first, then here, then to the governor
</div></div>
