House Bill 2615 passed in the House a few days ago. According to the article in the Sunday Oklahoman(not available online unless you buy an account, which I'm not doing) it's patterned after the law passed in Florida last year. In the article it says it expands the Make My Day law-which allows use of deadly force "to protect themselves from someone who breaks into their home, whether the intruder was using deadly force".
It also allows:
Drivers or passengers to use deadly force if someone is trying to car jack their vehicle.
Guests in a home to use deadly force to defend themselves and their acquaintances.
Ny understanding is that if attacked by someone using deadly force, you can use the same to protect yourself, "But the bill establishes situations where people can use deadly force to defend themselves even if the perpetrator isn't using deadly force."
No, haven't read the whole thing. Didn't even know it this bill was around 'till I saw this in the Sunday paper. It says the OK Association of Chiefs of Police have some concerns but don't object to the idea itself. From what I'm reading, I don't really understand their concerns, that a: "the legislation doesn't jeopardize the lives of plainclothes officers or officers trying to execute search warrants" and b: "wants to make sure officers can detain people after a shooting to determine whether a shooting was legal". ??? If an officer identifies himself to serve a warrant, the bill would not affect that that I can see. And they already have the power to detain people after a shooting; unless there's some wierd wording in here somewhere, that would not be affected.
There are the usual suspects unhappy about it, of course. The were only two House members who voted against it, Opio Toure(D) and Darrel Gilbert(D). I think Gilbert was, and I know Toure was one of the big opponents of the OK Self-Defense Act, the 'shall-issue' concealed-carry law that passed a few years back. And for the same reasons: "There will be bodies in the streets, blood running in the gutters, it will be like the Wild West all over again!!!" and so forth. No, that's not a direct quote, it does seem to sum their thoughts up. "Toure also is concerned the bill would give young people the idea using guns is the way to resolve conflicts", which I think was one of his objections to the SDA. And from Gilbert, "Gilbert said his objection is that anybody could use the law as an excuse to kill.
It's back to the good ol' West having shootouts in the street", Gilbert said".
Same objections, same fear-mongering. Same crap that hasn't happened anywhere such laws have passed.
So now to the Senate, and we'll see what happens.
Additional: unless I'm mistaken, Toure was the guy who, during debate on the SDA, said that if it passed 'more blacks will get shot' or 'be killed'. Been a while, so I don't remember exactly. It does give an interesting window into his thought processes, doesn't it?