Everyone pretty much knows the background here. OK statutes do not allow the open carry of a handgun for defense. One can lawfully carry concealed if one has an OK SDA permit. (The OK state constitution has been interpreted as not protecting any form of carry, so statute law is all we have, unless and until the federal 2A/14A is held to protect carry rights.)
The problem is that the SDA, as currently written, is a grudging CCW statute. It imposes unreasonably demanding concealment requirements on lawful carriers. The SDA provides (at least in some sections), that guns must be carried "fully concealed from detection and view." See, e.g., O.S. 1290.26 (reciprocity section). There is no provision excusing even brief and unintentional exposures of one's handgun. It seems to be something close to strict criminal liability, even if the carrier made reasonable efforts to conceal the handgun, but didn't perfectly succeed. In a state that frequently combines 90+ degree temperatures with 30+ mile an hour winds, that requirement is just unreasonable.
This leaves law-abiding OK CCWers in a dilemma not faced in other states. They must either (1) limit their carry weapon choices and/or mode of carry to ensure perfect concealment, or (2) carry an effective, full sized defensive handgun in a way that is accessible, but run a risk of violating the law through inadvertent failure to conceal. In other words, you can carry a little pocket pistol and be safe under the law, or you can carry a 1911/XD in an IWB holster and rely on the discretion of law enforcement to let you slip by, in case your shirt hikes up when you bend over to take some soup cans off the shelves at the Homeland.
Many members of this forum find the above choice obviously unacceptable, and believe that the best fix is to legalize open carry for SDA holders. I agree that reform is needed. The question is what sort of legislative fix is appropriate.
The legislature passed an open carry bill for SDA permit holders last year, but the bill did not survive a gubernatorial veto. The issue is likely to return in this legislative session.
I supported the bill (and wrote and called Gov. Henry's office to express my support) but I am not actually interested in open carrying in public, as such. I can see the point of those who argue that widespread open carry may be disruptive and even lead to a backlash to our rights, with more businesses choosing to "post" and become non-CCW areas.
The debate over the OC bill convinced me that there are a lot of people like me. I just want to be able to carry an effective sidearm in a way that it can be deployed rapidly to stop a lethal criminal threat when there is no other option. And I want to be able to do that without worrying about whether I am going to face a confrontation with a LEO, and possible criminal liability, if the 30 mph wind has hiked up my shirt for a few seconds.
Instead of open carry, perhaps we should pursue a "fix" of OK's concealed carry laws, giving better protection to concealed carriers who inadvertently print or expose the firearm.
We could adopt some provisions of other states' law. Texas law defines "concealed" more realistically than OK law, and is less hostile to permit holders. Under Texas law, a handgun is concealed as long as:
I like that a lot better than "fully concealed from detection and view." Maybe even change "reasonable person" to "ordinary person," to emphasize that as long as it's not obvious to Joe or Jane Passerby, it's lawfully "concealed." Takes care of the concern over liability for printing.
What about inadvertent exposure (wind blows your shirt up)? Simple fix. Remove SDA permit holders entirely from the basic OK prohibition on unlawful carrying altogether. (Insert a section "This section shall not apply to holders of a valid SDA.") Then add to the SDA a new offense of "intentional failure to conceal" and make that the only way holders of a valid SDA can be liable for exposing their gun. Provide that it's illegal to intentionally expose the gun, but not to do so inadvertently. And add an exception to allow brief intentional exposures that may be reasonably necessary for the storage or safe handling of the firearm -- so no one can hassle you for exposing your gun for a second (as you must) when unholstering to store it in the trunk or your motorcycle bags when going into a non-CCW area.
Personally, I would be content with this reform. I'm not interested in wide-open OC. I'm not interested in broadcasting to the world that I carry. I just want a good CCW statute (something OK does not now have) that gives me enough breathing room to exercise my right to carry a defensive handgun in a confident and user-friendly manner, that does not make the (practical) legality of CCW dependent upon law enforcement discretion in any way.
I bet many of you think the same way.
Would Oklahoma LEO organizations support this type of reform -- a "CCW fix" instead of full open carry for permit holders? I bet legislators would find it palatable, and I bet Mary Fallin would sign it. But I am no expert in state politics.
What do you all think?
The problem is that the SDA, as currently written, is a grudging CCW statute. It imposes unreasonably demanding concealment requirements on lawful carriers. The SDA provides (at least in some sections), that guns must be carried "fully concealed from detection and view." See, e.g., O.S. 1290.26 (reciprocity section). There is no provision excusing even brief and unintentional exposures of one's handgun. It seems to be something close to strict criminal liability, even if the carrier made reasonable efforts to conceal the handgun, but didn't perfectly succeed. In a state that frequently combines 90+ degree temperatures with 30+ mile an hour winds, that requirement is just unreasonable.
This leaves law-abiding OK CCWers in a dilemma not faced in other states. They must either (1) limit their carry weapon choices and/or mode of carry to ensure perfect concealment, or (2) carry an effective, full sized defensive handgun in a way that is accessible, but run a risk of violating the law through inadvertent failure to conceal. In other words, you can carry a little pocket pistol and be safe under the law, or you can carry a 1911/XD in an IWB holster and rely on the discretion of law enforcement to let you slip by, in case your shirt hikes up when you bend over to take some soup cans off the shelves at the Homeland.
Many members of this forum find the above choice obviously unacceptable, and believe that the best fix is to legalize open carry for SDA holders. I agree that reform is needed. The question is what sort of legislative fix is appropriate.
The legislature passed an open carry bill for SDA permit holders last year, but the bill did not survive a gubernatorial veto. The issue is likely to return in this legislative session.
I supported the bill (and wrote and called Gov. Henry's office to express my support) but I am not actually interested in open carrying in public, as such. I can see the point of those who argue that widespread open carry may be disruptive and even lead to a backlash to our rights, with more businesses choosing to "post" and become non-CCW areas.
The debate over the OC bill convinced me that there are a lot of people like me. I just want to be able to carry an effective sidearm in a way that it can be deployed rapidly to stop a lethal criminal threat when there is no other option. And I want to be able to do that without worrying about whether I am going to face a confrontation with a LEO, and possible criminal liability, if the 30 mph wind has hiked up my shirt for a few seconds.
Instead of open carry, perhaps we should pursue a "fix" of OK's concealed carry laws, giving better protection to concealed carriers who inadvertently print or expose the firearm.
We could adopt some provisions of other states' law. Texas law defines "concealed" more realistically than OK law, and is less hostile to permit holders. Under Texas law, a handgun is concealed as long as:
I like that a lot better than "fully concealed from detection and view." Maybe even change "reasonable person" to "ordinary person," to emphasize that as long as it's not obvious to Joe or Jane Passerby, it's lawfully "concealed." Takes care of the concern over liability for printing.
What about inadvertent exposure (wind blows your shirt up)? Simple fix. Remove SDA permit holders entirely from the basic OK prohibition on unlawful carrying altogether. (Insert a section "This section shall not apply to holders of a valid SDA.") Then add to the SDA a new offense of "intentional failure to conceal" and make that the only way holders of a valid SDA can be liable for exposing their gun. Provide that it's illegal to intentionally expose the gun, but not to do so inadvertently. And add an exception to allow brief intentional exposures that may be reasonably necessary for the storage or safe handling of the firearm -- so no one can hassle you for exposing your gun for a second (as you must) when unholstering to store it in the trunk or your motorcycle bags when going into a non-CCW area.
Personally, I would be content with this reform. I'm not interested in wide-open OC. I'm not interested in broadcasting to the world that I carry. I just want a good CCW statute (something OK does not now have) that gives me enough breathing room to exercise my right to carry a defensive handgun in a confident and user-friendly manner, that does not make the (practical) legality of CCW dependent upon law enforcement discretion in any way.
I bet many of you think the same way.
Would Oklahoma LEO organizations support this type of reform -- a "CCW fix" instead of full open carry for permit holders? I bet legislators would find it palatable, and I bet Mary Fallin would sign it. But I am no expert in state politics.
What do you all think?
with DD 110% on this one...and would like to see it pass along with more relaxed laws for property owners
