Two sides to a story...even if that story is 100% accurate.
Key parts highlighted.
The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand.
1289.24 even adds
C. Except as hereinafter provided, this section shall not prohibit any order, ordinance, or regulation by any municipality concerning the confiscation of property used in violation of the ordinances of the municipality as provided for in Section 28-121 of Title 11 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Provided, however, no municipal ordinance relating to transporting a firearm improperly may include a provision for confiscation of property.
D. When a person’s rights pursuant to the protection of the preemption provisions of this section have been violated, the person shall have the right to bring a civil action against the persons, municipality, and political subdivision jointly and severally for injunctive relief or monetary damages or both.
E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed or unconcealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed
TITLE 21 § 1289.13A
B. When the arresting officer determines that a valid handgun license exists, pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act or any provision of law from another state, for any person in the stopped vehicle, any firearms permitted to be carried pursuant to that license shall not be confiscated, unless:
1. The person is arrested for violating another provision of law other than a violation of subsection A of this section; provided, however, if the person is never charged with an offense pursuant to this paragraph or if the charges are dismissed or the person is acquitted, the weapon shall be returned to the person; or
2. The officer has probable cause to believe the weapon is:
a. contraband, or
b. a firearm used in the commission of a crime other than a violation of subsection A of this section.
C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require confiscation of any firearm.
So, unless she violated any part of the SDA, the officer violated her rights, and I would think she has a case. He violated multiple parts of the SDA.
Last edited:
I had an officer in Norman disarm me and frisk me with the whole hands on the hood routine. I was being pulled over for speeding on Robinson not bank robbery. When I asked my LEO friends about it they confirmed he had the right but it was a douche move from a man with a history of such douchery.
Often times, the officers enforcing the law are just doing what they are told and are not completely knowledgable of what the laws actually state. One of the most common examples I see and hear of are officers that use the palm of their hand to measure the blade length of a knife and claim if it extends the hand width, it is illegal. Oklahoma has no limit on blade length and this "law" doesn't exist.
This is not a knock on LEO by any means. Hell, with 20,000+ gun laws on the book alone, no way they could know them all anyways.
This is not a knock on LEO by any means. Hell, with 20,000+ gun laws on the book alone, no way they could know them all anyways.
Bigfug, what was the effective date of the passages you quoted? Are they a part of the original sda law or ammendments added later on?
Amendments, that is the Nov 12 SDA I pulled that from. Some were in previous versions
E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed.
That part was in the 2009. Havent found the 2011 copy, so some may be in there. There is also a clause that any one dutifully exercising their rights cant be cited for disturbing the peace, etc. These werent in the original wording for 2012, but I think added in response to Mid-Del etc who stated they would stop anyone open carrying.
E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed.
That part was in the 2009. Havent found the 2011 copy, so some may be in there. There is also a clause that any one dutifully exercising their rights cant be cited for disturbing the peace, etc. These werent in the original wording for 2012, but I think added in response to Mid-Del etc who stated they would stop anyone open carrying.
This.
Some municipalities do. The OKC area can be tricky.
Last time I checked, Nichols Hills was no knives on your person, Del City was no knives in parks, and Norman and maybe a few other suburbs had 4" length limits. Keep in mind that Oklahoma doesn't preempt municipal laws on knives. What's legal in one jurisdiction might be illegal in another jurisdiction.
Seems some of our members are misinformed as well. I havent looked to see when the amendment was added, it was either Nov 12, or after 2009, but key parts highlighted.
The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand.
The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand.
Similar threads
