A fix to Oklahoma CCW law, instead of an open carry law?

[Werewolf]

I do not advocate open carry under most conditions, but I see it's usefullness under certain conditions. I'd prefer that we get open carry, even if it had restrictions such as when hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, on your own property, etc., where concealment is sometimes uncomfortable and may interfere with carrying other gear or performing certain tasks.

As for the whole "brandishing" clause, I think there needs to be a legal distinction between menacing another person with intent, by revealing you're carrying, and inadvertent exposure that scares the sheeple. The unreasonable brandishing of a CCW should continue to carry a penalty, while inadvertent exposure should carry nothing more than a "cover it up" verbal instruction.

As usual, Oklahoma law is unnecessarily vague and subject to reasonable AND unreasonable interpretation. JMO, YMMV

There was a time when I agreed with this. Until the day I inadvertently OC'd around Best Buy and Walmart for the better part of a full morning.

When I discovered my mistake (gotten too comfortable with the feel of the thing on my hip over the past 10 years I guess) I 'bout had a freaking heart attack because I do know the OK law. Once I calmed down and thought about it it was a big HUH? moment. Not one comment, no stares, no sheeple running for the exits screaming GUUUUNNNN!

This is Oklahoma guys. The people don't care whether we're open carrying or not.

Maybe I hang with the wrong crowd but in the 25 years I've lived here I've only know one anti and he was borderline anti. Never known a died in the wool one. Most dems I know are gun guys (seems wierd to me but hey - wierder things have been known to happen).

Anyway. Open Carry is the way for me if the nannies running the show deign in all their wisdom to grant us the priviledge. Yeah - I said priviledge! You don't have to ask permission to exercise a right.

 

[Werewolf]

According to the Supreme Court in Heller (and affirmed and as incorporated against the several states in McDonald), it is not a violation of the Second Amendment until ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court.

Technically 100% correct.

Too bad the knot heads in SCOTUS care more now about not rocking the boat and maintaining government power and control than they do about the constitution and more importantly the rights of the people that established it.

 

[tm8634]

Until then, we have to make the call between civil disobedience or tolerance of an infringement on our liberty.

a few will just call you a "criminal" for OC'n...

 

[vvvvvvv]

Until then, we have to make the call between civil disobedience or tolerance of an infringement on our liberty.

Or the third choice: change the law.

The fight for Second Amendment protection as an Immunity of being a United States citizen is basically over. The Supreme Court sees it as a Right being granted by the Constitution and subject to Due Process.

As such, laws prohibiting carrying of firearms in the open for any reason are presumed Constitutional unless the Supreme Court chooses to expand the self defense doctrine or create new doctrine. The Right to keep and bear arms is limited to possessing a handgun for purposes of self defense within the home.

We don't have Justices who are willing to revisit a ruling even after admitting themselves that the ruling they chose to rely on as precedent is deeply flawed.

 

[justinsaneok]

+ 1 for oc, it's a constitutional right that has been infringed on in the first place

+ 10000000000000

 

[barratt]

I grew up with open carry in Arizona. never thought 2 about seeing someone with a gun on there hip. When I rode my bike i always open carried. I hope we get open carry so we an have full rights to carry how we want and not worry about being a criminal if some anti gun person sees we are "Printing" and makes a big deal about it. IMHO
the people who are going to use there guns to harm others are not going to OPEN carry the are going to unlawfully CCW. having open carry would loosen up the stigma about carrying. I personally carry CCW everyday while on the job and everywhere I go. while I a pro open carry I would not carry open 75% of the time. I am mostly pro open carry to strengthen our local gun rights.
just my 2 cents

 

[DirtyDawg]

Did my post get "poofed"?

 

[Michael Brown]

Heh. A change of pace, maybe. But your thoughts on the topic would also be welcome.

I don't care about open carry one way or the other personally.

From a legal standpoint, I have zero opposition to it.

From a practical standpoint, I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of people. I have discussed my reasons for this ad nauseum, so I won't repeat them here.

If someone lives in a low population or rural area, I see the value in open carry.

Regarding your idea of modification of CCW laws, I believe that rank and file police officers wouldn't have a problem with it. Whether a law enforcement special interest group like a union would oppose it, I doubt it but I can't speak definitively as to the liklihood.

My experience has been that LE unions (with the exception of the troopers' union) generally don't get involved in legislative issues that don't relate to LE financial, legal or benefits issues much like other special interests groups i.e the NRA doesn't get too involved in teachers' pay debates.

Michael Brown

 

[farmerbyron]

I think Missouri's approach to CC would be a better reform than OC. In Missouri's carry law they list 17 places that carry is prohibited, like churches, govt. offices, school, professional sporting events, etc. and then it states this paragraph.

Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense. If a second citation for a similar violation occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars and his or her endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation is issued within one year of the first citation, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars and shall have his or her concealed carry endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry endorsement for a period of three years.

The words "shall not be a criminal act" in regards to CC holders would be the best affirmation of CC rights we could get. I would much rather support adding this rider to the Oklahoma SDA than just an open carry bill alone.

 

[jdgabbard]

I do not advocate open carry under most conditions, but I see it's usefullness under certain conditions. I'd prefer that we get open carry, even if it had restrictions such as when hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, on your own property, etc., where concealment is sometimes uncomfortable and may interfere with carrying other gear or performing certain tasks.

As for the whole "brandishing" clause, I think there needs to be a legal distinction between menacing another person with intent, by revealing you're carrying, and inadvertent exposure that scares the sheeple. The unreasonable brandishing of a CCW should continue to carry a penalty, while inadvertent exposure should carry nothing more than a "cover it up" verbal instruction.

As usual, Oklahoma law is unnecessarily vague and subject to reasonable AND unreasonable interpretation. JMO, YMMV

Um, I don't care who you are, I'm on my property, and you're trespassing. No man will ever tell me that I cannot carry on my own property the way I choose to do so. See thats where I will not conform to the law of man. When you're on my land, its my choice. That is not open carry. Thats you telling me that its ok to do something I'm going to do anyways. And by that, not upholding the rights you've worked hard to take away.

If I remember correctly, there were no requirements in the 2nd about "right to keep your arms while on your own land...if we tell you that its ok..."