Disarmed and handcuffed on a traffic stop.

[gerhard1]

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.

This was my understanding as well. My question is this: is a violation of traffic laws considered a crime or an infraction? In some states, they are not considered crimes.

 

[berettaman]

Have her lawyer up and sue

 

[bigfug]

This was my understanding as well. My question is this: is a violation of traffic laws considered a crime or an infraction? In some states, they are not considered crimes.

in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity

I think the key word is going to be the word other. for there to be an "other" there would need to be an initial cause to initiate contact, the act of speeding. This follows a subsection down or two, but still under 1290.8,

shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to identify the fact that the person is in actual possession of a concealed or unconcealed handgun pursuant to the authority of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act when the person first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this state or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop.

 

[SoonerP226]

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.

It looks like that language was added in 2003, but it was superseded on November 1, 2012. The current wording is as follows:

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.
-- http://www.oscn.net/applications/OC...+1726+1725+1724+1723+861+744+743+742+741+740+

 

[SMS]

Not sure where that rumor came from but it isn't true.

It came directly from the Assistant Chief....but maybe he doesn't speak for the department, or the official position has changed?

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-law-enforcement-prepares-for-open-carry-law/article/3676047/?page=1

Midwest City police will check for permits when they encounter someone openly carrying a gun, Assistant Chief Sid Porter said.

“When public safety comes up, that is No. 1,” Porter said. “If we see someone carrying a weapon in a holster, they have to have a permit on them and would be asked to show it. Anybody with a weapon on their side is considered a suspicious person.”

Checking everyone seen open carrying would fit the definition of taking a hard line, since the law does not require anyone to be checked just for carrying. Considering everyone with a weapon on their side a "suspicious" person, in a state that allows it, is taking a hard line.

I live in MWC, and that article was printed back when OC first passed. I haven't seen another press release that contradicts his statement, but since I don't OC I haven't been available as a test case, LOL.

(every experience I've had with MWC LEOs in my almost 20 years living here has been positive)

 

[Michael Brown]

if

The single most relevent part of all the posts so far.

Michael Brown

 

[53convert]

there is the possibility she was being a butt in the first place.......just sayin

 

[53convert]

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.

funny I thought it was no BEER in parks........

 

[akgriffin]

CoachR64 you said this quote, "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. "

What is it when LEO's tell us when we say that we didn't know it was wrong to do "so-n-so", ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[Jack T.]

there is the possibility she was being a butt in the first place.......just sayin

Ahh. . .there it is. I've been reading the 4th Amendment wrong the whole time. It actually reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . .unless you're a butt."