CCing AK pistol in truck isn't legal in OK?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

ImaBBaller

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
210
Reaction score
6
Location
Eastern Oklahoma
After reading through the law again, it also looks like you could not carry an SBR magazine or clip loaded. The law defines rifle as having a barrel of over 16" long, and makes no exception for an SBR.
 

ImaBBaller

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
210
Reaction score
6
Location
Eastern Oklahoma
I would further argue that if you treated this as a "rifle or shotgun" with regard to your transport and storage being in compliance with this law, you would likely be in the clear as you consciously recognized it was not a pistol as defined by this act, and with rifle and shotgun not being clearly defined, it "must" be a rifle or shotgun. That said, there is not legal precedent for that logic but it being what a reasonable person could infer you would likely be in the clear, particularly since the rifle/shotgun carry is more conservative (magazine/clip loaded, not chamber loaded like "pistols").

TITLE 21 § 1289.4 and TITLE 21 § 1289.5 define a rifle and shotgun respectively. I was hoping the same thing you are suggesting but once I read those sections it makes it clear my AK pistol does not qualify as either.
 

inactive

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
903
Location
I.T.
TITLE 21 § 1289.4 and TITLE 21 § 1289.5 define a rifle and shotgun respectively. I was hoping the same thing you are suggesting but once I read those sections it makes it clear my AK pistol does not qualify as either.

But 1289 isn't part of this act (defining rifle or shotgun for the purposes of the SDA), so that is where the reasonable person considerations could come into play. Of course, we're really just trying to guess what a court would rule, not what they have rules.
 

ImaBBaller

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
210
Reaction score
6
Location
Eastern Oklahoma
But 1289 isn't part of this act (defining rifle or shotgun for the purposes of the SDA), so that is where the reasonable person considerations could come into play. Of course, we're really just trying to guess what a court would rule, not what they have rules.

1289 does define the laws applicable to carrying a magazine or clip loaded rifle or pistol. 1289.13 is the section of the law everybody states when saying it is legal to carry a mag or clip loaded rifle or shotgun in a car.
 

saddlebum

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
7,860
Reaction score
3,428
Location
Tulsa
look , one of my brothers is an osbi agent,the other is the chief investigator for the ok county DA's office and they both say you are wrong as wrong gets.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
3,936
Reaction score
4
Location
Midwest City
Well, crap, I'm wrong on the overall length thing - thanks - and yes I belive that is a new one.... my bad, and yes, I'm an idiot for not reading the thing more often, for amendments! :) How long is a 7" bbl AK handgun anyway?


Nightops and saddlebum and others, not so fast on the other issue, however.

TITLE 21 § 1289.13A. Improper transportation of firearm
IMPROPER TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARM
A. Notwithstanding the provisions of 1272 or 1289.13 of this title, any person stopped pursuant to a moving traffic violation who is transporting a loaded pistol in the motor vehicle without a valid concealed handgun permit authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act or valid license from another state, whether the loaded firearm is concealed or open in the vehicle, shall be issued a traffic citation in the amount of Seventy Dollars ($70.00), plus court costs for transporting a firearm improperly. In addition to the traffic citation provided in this section, the person may also be arrested for any other violation of law.

By this section, it would allow for loaded transportation, not carry, in your vehicle with a valid SDA license, and the transportation may be concealed or open in your vehicle (not on your person).

I think you're analysis may be misreading the intent and language and implication of 1289.13A (which is also new, BTW - thanks). What you are saying, in essence, is that since 13A says you get a ticket (violation), if you have a loaded gun *somewhere* in your car, but do NOT have a CCW licence, AND are not in compliance with 1289.13 (regular, not A), then this *implicitly* allows that you CAN carry a loaded gun (not in compliance with 1289.13) *in your car but not on you person*. And in fact, I agree - that that is ONE of two reasonable interpretations of that statute - you are exactly right. But there is another, second reasonable interpretation of that statute, unfortunately - one that could get you ticketed.

And that's this - that that statue is talking about *somewhere in your car*, period, INCLUDING both in your car, not on your person, AND on your person... and so when it carves out the implicit exception to a 1289.13 violation for CCW holders, it is intending to carve out that exception solely for those CCW holders *who are otherwise in compliance with the SDA*, meaning that you have it on your person, concealed. They are not intending to carve out an exception for SDA holders to keep a loaded gun somewhere in the car around them, but to carve out an exception for CCW holders who have it on their person, as required by the SDA! Because the language of both 1289.13 and 1289.13A says "in the motor vehicle", and since this phrase can mean BOTH 'in your vehicle, and not on your person concealed', AND/OR can mean 'in your vehicle and on your person concealed', they were forced to throw in this language about CCW being the exception. But the legislature didn't intend to allow CCW holders to violate the terms of the SDA, solely through this new 13A section, by keeping a loaded gun lying around. In other words, they're not intending to amend the SDA and alter it's provisions, but just to clarify that you're not in hot water, as far as 1289.13 goes, if but only if you are in FULL compliancee with the SDA (which of course requires concealed on your person, correct?). Remember, when it's on your person, and your person is IN the motor vehicle, then the gun also happens to be IN the motor vehicle.

At least that is one other reasonable interpretation - and probably the more reasonable of the two, though that is debatable. You're at least taking a risk of being charged, given the ambiguity there. Do what you want - you pays your money, drives your car, and takes your chances - but I've seen rogue jackass DA actions often enough to know that if they WANT to railroad you, for some reason, they will look for any possible way to railroad you.

Now you may say "but wait, it clearly says: 'whether the loaded firearm is concealed or open in the vehicle', so that means what it says, that you can have it loaded as long as it's open with a CCW" - and it may mean that - that's one interpretation that is quite reasonable I think. BUT - it could mean that the legislature meant that that phrase - 'whether the loaded firearm is concealed or open in the vehicle' - simply means that both kinds are subject to the entire 13A provision, but which in turn then specifically implies (as mentioned) that if it's the first kind (concealed), then it's covered by the exception to the rule of the 70 dollar fine, provided it's in full compliance with the SDA, or as a completely separate matter, if it's the second kind, loaded but open, then it's not subject to the SDA, but solely subject to 1289.13 and 1289.13A. In other words, that phrase is (arguably) conveying that if you are NOT in full compliance with the SDA with your loaded gun, including concealed on your person, then you're gonna get fined the same fine if you violate 1289.13 & 13A, *regardless* of whether your loaded gun is hidden somewhere or out in the open - same fine either way (i.e. clarifying that it ain't gonna help you avoid responsibility just because it's open, if it's loaded and you're not in full compliance with SDA) - that's probably the more likely way a court would read that, I think. I think you're risking potential trouble if you do this in an anti-gun District Attorney area. The whole problem stems from it being "implicit" - it doesn't say "you CAN do this" - it says "you will get a fine if you do this, but....." And when we're relying on an implication to save our butts from a violation, it had better be clear - and it's not!

Bottom line is it's a poorly written, ambiguous piece of crap statute, like a lot of them, and ambiguous laws can make you a test case if the DA happens to not like you, and/or is just anti-gun. Low chance of a problem, but the chance is there. YMMV.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
3,936
Reaction score
4
Location
Midwest City
look , one of my brothers is an osbi agent,the other is the chief investigator for the ok county DA's office and they both say you are wrong as wrong gets
.

Well unfortunately for those of us who would like to carry loaded and not on our person (me, you, others), law enforcement officers don't make the law, nor do they interpret the law. The ones that count are the judges who interpret the law and apply it to YOU when you are charged (and the legislators who write the legislative history about their intent when they passed the law, only because the judge takes it into consideration). If I had a nickel for every time an LEO told me what the law was, and they were wrong, I'd be a rich man. How many times has an LEO say that if the ammo is within reach, and the gun is too, then it's a violation? Nowhere does it say that. Leos are well-meaning, and I'm quite sure they think they're right in good faith, and they MAY BE right, depending upon which of the two interpretations the judge deciding the case against YOU runs with when the prosecutor makes that argument against you. How many times has the BATFE said that "X is legal", and then changed their mind or even charged someone for doing X? The law enforcement agencies and officers don't charge the crime (the DA does), don't make the law and know it's intent (the legislators do), and don't apply the law (the judges and juries do).

If you get Drew Edmondson, the AG, to tell you that, who can issue an advisory opinion - then only one that's somewhat reliable short of actually being prosecuted and letting judge/jury decide your fate - then we'll be cookin with butane! :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom