The Legislative Digest is your weekly look at the happenings of Oklahoma’s state legislature, upcoming bills and the terms to know.
This bill would ban the manufacture and sale of “restricted bullets” and “large-capacity ammunition magazines.” Restricted bullets are designed to expand on impact and bring down living targets quicker. Large-capacity magazines are defined as those which can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The obvious question for those opposed to the bill is: why would you need this stuff? In what self-defense situation would you need so much power? I am always against taking power away from common people, but it’s hard to imagine these types of weapons being used for anything but harm.
Interestingly, one stipulation of this bill allows for some select people to still possess large-capacity ammunition magazines. Most notably, one of these groups is the Oklahoma Police. I would argue the same question could be posed toward the average cop: why would they need this?
Some may argue the police are sometimes involved in intense shootouts and may need high firepower for these situations. However, these situations are few and far between and don’t reflect the common use of firearms in the line of duty. Hollow-point bullets are deemed so brutal to use on humans that they have been banned from use in combat. Perhaps high-power weaponry could be brought out on the rare occasion where it’s deemed necessary, but the average patrolling officer has no need for it.
With this in mind, if the state is going to stop people from having unnecessary force easily at their disposal, the rules should apply to the cops as well.
This bill concerns the rapidly growing legal marijuana industry in Oklahoma. The bill originally prevented medical marijuana card holders from being discriminated against in employment and various other rights. However, a newly proposed change to this bill would also prevent any new marijuana dispensaries from opening within 1,000 feet of a place of worship.
Representative Jim Olsen, who proposed the changes, presumably believes something as holy as a house of worship shouldn’t have its space invaded by something as vile as a marijuana dispensary. What an awful thought: to be reminded of a completely harmless (and often beneficial) thing people are choosing to do with their own time.
These changes obviously don’t infringe upon any foundational civil liberties, but the concerns of the moralizing conservative section of politics are always hilarious to me. I smelled weed next to the church; somebody get me a fainting couch!