you literally linked to the portion we are taking about where it says:
So how is the bolded NOT staying that there would be a 70 dollar citation for improper transportation of a firearm UNLESS one has an SDA card?
you literally linked to the portion we are taking about where it says:
Because you are skipping the first part:
A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1272 or 1289.7 of this title
1289.7 states:
A. Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm may transport in a motor vehicle a pistol or handgun, loaded or unloaded, at any time.
Does that clear it up?
No. Because what other category of person is there?
The only category is one prohibited from possessing.
Am I to believe that one prohibited from possessing faces the equivalent of a $70 meter maid ticket?
No, they fall under the legal category of one prohibited from possessing.
so the question remains: Who the heck is this $70 citation aimed at? By the letter of the law, someone who didn’t pay for an SDA card and a Fudd instructor to pencil whip that they burned through hearing bad legal advice and whatever the rounds requirement is for buying ones rights, aka an SDA card.
ETA: to clarify, it seems to me that the law is merely stating one can legally transport concealed. The rub is that if they are pulled over for a traffic violation they can be hit with an extra ticket for improper transportation of a firearm.
That is the sort of jackassery I certainly expect from RINOs pandering to their base. But it’s definitely not Constitutional as the Founding Fathers intended. Then again, America as we know it isn’t Constitutional at all.
The only category is one prohibited from possessing.
Am I to believe that one prohibited from possessing faces the equivalent of a $70 meter maid ticket?
No, they fall under the legal category of one prohibited from possessing.
so the question remains: Who the heck is this $70 citation aimed at? By the letter of the law, someone who didn’t pay for an SDA card and a Fudd instructor to pencil whip that they burned through hearing bad legal advice and whatever the rounds requirement is for buying ones rights, aka an SDA card.
ETA: to clarify, it seems to me that the law is merely stating one can legally transport concealed. The rub is that if they are pulled over for a traffic violation they can be hit with an extra ticket for improper transportation of a firearm.
That is the sort of jackassery I certainly expect from RINOs pandering to their base. But it’s definitely not Constitutional as the Founding Fathers intended. Then again, America as we know it isn’t Constitutional at all.
Last edited:
To clarify further:
"Notwithstanding" means "in spite of". So what it's saying is "In spite of the provisions...".
That means those provisions are null and void IF STOPPED for a traffic violation.
Which means that while, yes, one can carry in their vehicle, if they are stopped for a traffic violation and DO NOT have an SDA card, they will be pegged with an additional citation that SDA card holders WILL NOT.
"Notwithstanding" means "in spite of". So what it's saying is "In spite of the provisions...".
That means those provisions are null and void IF STOPPED for a traffic violation.
Which means that while, yes, one can carry in their vehicle, if they are stopped for a traffic violation and DO NOT have an SDA card, they will be pegged with an additional citation that SDA card holders WILL NOT.
I think that is language from the old law that got overlooked when they changed the wording for the new law. They’ll likely need to remove the SDA license part during next legislative session.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's simple....you are over analyzing a very clear exception to the rule. If you are carrying and you are not LEGAL to do so, then you can be stuck with the additional $70 fine. It's the same vein as a "speeding ticket" that looks like it should be $45, but after all the extra fees/funds/etc., it's $235.
The wording does seem to create a paradox. In one section it states clearly that anyone who is legally allowed to possess a firearm can transport a pistol/handgun loaded or unloaded (it doesn't make a distinction between concealed or open), then turns around and states that regardless of that section, anyone caught with a loaded pistol/handgun in a vehicle and is not licensed to do so under the SDA they will be fined $70 bucks. No other legal action is stated though, so maybe a backdoor effort to get people who carry without a license to watch how they drive?
It sure would be nice to have a "Plain English" version of this Oklahoma Constitutional Carry Law for us "Commoners" to try to follow instead of the Lawyer English version when they get it printed, Ya Know?.
By the way, I still have not found the finished product of the statutes. Anyone have a link?
By the way, I still have not found the finished product of the statutes. Anyone have a link?
From the Enrolled HR 2597 is the final version.
"Section 1289.24FIREARM REGULATION –STATE PREEMPTION A. 1. The State Legislature hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation in this state touching in any way firearms, knives, components, ammunition, and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance, or regulation by any municipality or other political subdivision of this state. Any existing or future orders, ordinances, or regulations in this field, except as provided for in paragraph 2 of this subsection and subsection C of this section, are null and void."
Not starting a moral, common sense, your personal opinion or "just because you can" discussion, only talking about the legal aspect. If the Enrolled HR 2597 is the final version, Oklahoma is now like another state I used to visit where you could stop off at a bar and have a beer while carrying and be totally legal. There are no restrictions I can find in the text, the Bold above seems to negate any legislation that may pertain to alcohol consumption regulations in any other regulation.
Anyone see anything different?
"Section 1289.24FIREARM REGULATION –STATE PREEMPTION A. 1. The State Legislature hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation in this state touching in any way firearms, knives, components, ammunition, and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance, or regulation by any municipality or other political subdivision of this state. Any existing or future orders, ordinances, or regulations in this field, except as provided for in paragraph 2 of this subsection and subsection C of this section, are null and void."
Not starting a moral, common sense, your personal opinion or "just because you can" discussion, only talking about the legal aspect. If the Enrolled HR 2597 is the final version, Oklahoma is now like another state I used to visit where you could stop off at a bar and have a beer while carrying and be totally legal. There are no restrictions I can find in the text, the Bold above seems to negate any legislation that may pertain to alcohol consumption regulations in any other regulation.
Anyone see anything different?
