whether a ring-fenced fund should be taken from fixed security interests.[12] The second major area for reform

Over the 20th century, reform efforts focused on three main issues. The first concerned setting a fair system of priority among claims of different creditors. This primarily centred upon the ability of powerful contractual creditors, particularly banks, to agree to take a security interest over a company's property, leaving unsecured creditors without any remaining assets to satisfy their claims. Immediately after Salomon's case and the controversy created over the use of floating charges, the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1897 mandated that preferential creditors (employees, liquidator expenses and taxes at the time) also had priority over the holder of a floating charge (now IA 1986 section 175). In the Enterprise Act 2002 a further major change was to create a ring-fenced fund for all unsecured creditors out of around 20 per cent of the assets subject to a floating charge.[11] At the same time, the priority for taxpayers' claims was abolished. Since then, debate for further reform has shifted to whether the floating charge should be abolished altogether and whether a ring-fenced fund should be taken from fixed security interests.[12] The second major area for reform was to facilitate the rescue of businesses that could still be viable. Following the Cork Report in 1982,[13] the Insolvency Act 1986 created the administration procedure, requiring (on paper) that the managers of insolvent businesses would attempt rescue the company, and would act in all creditors' interests. After the Enterprise Act 2002 this almost wholly replaced the receivership rules by which secured creditors, with a floating charge over all assets, could run an insolvent company without regard to the claims of unsecured creditors. The third area of reform concerned accountability for people who worsened or benefited from insolvencies. As recommended by the Cork Report, the Company Directors' Disqualification Act 1986 meant directors who breached company law duties, or committed fraud could be prevented from working as directors for up to 15 years. The Insolvency Act 1986 section 214 created liability for wrongful trading. If directors failed to start the insolvency procedures when they ought to have known insolvency was inevitable, they would have to pay for the additional debts run up through prolonged trading. Furthermore, the provisions on fraudulent conveyances were extended, so that any transaction at an undervalue or other preference (without any bad intent) could be avoided, and unwound by an insolvent company.

legislative scheme of this period came to roughly resemble the modern law. While the general principle r

Since the South Sea Company and stock market disaster in 1720, limited liability corporations had been formally prohibited by law. This meant people who traded for a living ran severe risks to their life and health if their business turned bad, and they could not repay their debts. However with the industrial revolution the view that companies were inefficient and dangerous,[7] was changing. Corporations became more and more common as ventures for building canals, water companies, and railways. The incorporators needed, however, to petition Parliament for a Local Act. In practice the privilege of investor to limit their liability upon insolvency was not accessible to the general business public. Moreover, the astonishing depravity of conditions in debtors prison made insolvency law reform one of the most intensively debated issues on the 19th century legislative agenda. Nearly 100 Bills were introduced to Parliament between 1831 and 1914.[8] The long reform process began with the Insolvent Debtors (England) Act 1813. This established a specialist Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors. If their assets did not exceed £20, they might secure release from prison. For people who traded for a living, the Bankrupts (England) Act 1825 allowed the indebted to bring proceedings to have their debts discharged, without permission from the creditors. The Gaols Act 1823 sent priests sent in, and put the debtor prison jailors on the state's payroll, so they did not claim fees from inmates. Under the Prisons Act 1835 five inspectors of prisons were employed. The Insolvent Debtors Act 1842 allowed non-traders to begin bankruptcy proceedings for relief from debts. However, conditions remained an object of social disapprobation. The novelist Charles Dickens, whose own father had been imprisoned at Marshalsea while he was a child, pilloried the complexity and injustice through his books, especially David Copperfield (1850), Hard Times (1854) and Little Dorrit (1857). Around this very time reform began.

The difficulties for individuals to be discharged from debt in bankruptcy proceedings and the awfulness of debtors prison made the introduction of modern companies legislation, and general availability of limited liability, all the more urgent. The first step was the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844, which allowed companies to be created through registration rather than a Royal Charter. It was accompanied by the Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Act 1844, which envisaged a separate procedure to bring a company to an end and liquidate the assets. Companies had legal personality separate from its incorporators, but only with the Limited Liability Act 1855 would a company's investors be generally protected from extra debts upon a company's insolvency. The 1855 Act limited investors' liability to the amount they had invested, so if someone bought shares in a company that ran up massive debts in insolvency, the shareholder could not be asked for more than he had already paid in. Thus, the risk of debtors' prison was reduced. Soon after, reforms were made for all indebted people. The Bankruptcy Act 1861 was passed allowing all people, not just traders, to file for bankruptcy. The Debtors Act 1869 finally abolished imprisonment for debt altogether. So the legislative scheme of this period came to roughly resemble the modern law. While the general principle remained pari passu among the insolvent company's creditors, the claims of liquidators expenses and wages of workers were given statutory priority over other unsecured creditors.[9] However, any creditor who had contracted for a security interest would be first in the priority queue. Completion of insolvency protection followed UK company law's leading case, Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd.[10] Here a Whitechapel bootmaker had incorporated his business, but because of economic struggles, he had been forced into insolvency. The Companies Act 1862 required a minimum of seven shareholders, so he had registered his wife and children as nominal shareholders, even though they played little or no part in the business. The liquidator of Mr Salomon's company sued him to personally pay the outstanding debts of his company, arguing that he should lose the protection of limited liability given that the other shareholders were not genuine investors. Salomon's creditors were particularly aggrieved because Salomon himself had taken a floating charge, over all the company's present and future assets, and so his claims for debt against the company had ranked in priority to theirs. The House of Lords held that, even though the company was a one man venture in substance, anybody who duly registered would have the protection of the Companies Acts in the event of insolvency. Salomon's case effectively completed the process 19th century reforms because any person, even the smallest business, could have protection from destitution following business insolvency.
The financial collapse of 2007–2008 led to a bank run on Northern Rock, the first since Overend, Gurney & Co in 1866. Northern Rock, Lloyds TSB and RBS were nationalised for £650bn. After this, the Banking Act 2009 created a specific insolvency regime for banks, but with reduced lending, and economic activity a large numbers of businesses failed.

‘The slaves are ours.’ So do I answer you:

It is unlawful for any person to "engage in reckless conduct" while possessing a firearm, if such actions create "a situation of unreasonable risk and probability of death or great bodily harm to another" and demonstrate "a conscious disregard for the safety of another person".

It is a felony to possess, use, attempt to use, carry, manufacture, cause to be manufactured, import, advertise for sale, or sell ammunition which has "a core of less than sixty percent (60%) lead" and also "has a fluorocarbon coating, which is capable of penetrating body armor".

The State of Oklahoma preempts almost all local regulation of firearms. Municipalities may not have any laws or ordinances pertaining to firearms that are more restrictive than state law.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitution

Section 26 of the bill of rights to the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma states, "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. "
See also
Main articles: History of bankruptcy law, History of bankruptcy law in the United States, and UK company law history

    Duke: How shalt thou hope for mercy, rendering none?Shylock: What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?You have among you many a purchas’d slave, Which, fike your asses and your dogs and mules,
    You use in abject and in slavish parts,
    Because you bought them; shall I say to you
    ‘Let them be free, marry them to your heirs?
    Why sweat they under burdens? let their beds
    Be made as soft as yours, and let their palates
    Be season’d with such viands? You will answer
    ‘The slaves are ours.’ So do I answer you:
    The pound of flesh which I demand of him
    Is dearly bought; ’tis mine, and I will have it.
    If you deny me, fie upon your law!
    There is no force in the decrees of Venice.
    I stand for judgment: answer; shall I have it?
Duke: How shalt thou hope for mercy, rendering none?
    Shylock: What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?
    You have among you many a purchas’d slave,
    Which, fike your asses and your dogs and mules,
    You use in abject and in slavish parts,
    Because you bought them; shall I say to you
    ‘Let them be free, marry them to your heirs?
    Why sweat they under burdens? let their beds
    Be made as soft as yours, and let their palates
    Be season’d with such viands? You will answer
    ‘The slaves are ours.’ So do I answer you:
    The pound of flesh which I demand of him
    Is dearly bought; ’tis mine, and I will have it.
    If you deny me, fie upon your law!
    There is no force in the decrees of Venice.
    I stand for judgment: answer; shall I have it?