Has any otherwise lawful Oklahoman ever been convicted of open carry since the SDA?

[Glocktogo]

People can get real sanctimonius about their beliefs here and then rush off.I think the real question is,as henschman so eloquently put it,who wants to be the "test case"? Not me,you can be right as rain and a jury will hang you.








Don't let it go to your head GTG.

Hey, we know you secretly enjoy it!

I appreciate your input, but I have seen you "bow up" on occasion when the discussion didn't go the way you wanted.

For instance, on the "flying with firearms thread", you posted:



One might interpret that type of statement as a bit of "jackbooted thuggishness" slipping out! Especially when you couldn't/wouldn't provide a citation to prove what you were claiming. You may not like it, but many of us don't automatically believe something just because a LEO says it is so.

I feel your pain though, I'm a moderator on another hunting forum and it gets tedious dealing with idiots at times!!

Mea Culpa! Trust me, I wish I could share half of what I know. But, those little warning statements in red tend to overpower my desire to share!

 

[David2012]

I was standing in a major name department store this evening and suddenly realized I had put my concealment vest on inside out [pockets in].

Somehow, I momentarily forgot that I was wearing my Glock 23 in a pancake holster [I guess because it rides so comfortably] and just took my vest off and casually turned it right ways and put it back on. I was standing next to a 1/2 dozen or more people who had to have seen my weapon..... and I didn't notice anyone give me a wild eyed look or go for their cell phone to call the police or Pee themselves. And I cetainly don't look like a LEO with my beard and jeans. But as soon as I realized I had exposed my weapon I went to my vehicle and left without any incident.

The fact that a 1/2 dozen or more men & women saw me take my jacket off while wearing a firearm and didn't react with any kind of alarm or comment about the weapon makes me believe that 'open carry' wouldn't cause any panic if it were to pass! For the majority of people, the day the law passed would simply be another day of the week... nothing more.

 

[Glocktogo]

I was standing in a major name department store this evening and suddenly realized I had put my concealment vest on inside out [pockets in].

Somehow, I momentarily forgot that I was wearing my Glock 23 in a pancake holster [I guess because it rides so comfortably] and just took my vest off and casually turned it right ways and put it back on. I was standing next to a 1/2 dozen or more people who had to have seen my weapon..... and I didn't notice anyone give me a wild eyed look or go for their cell phone to call the police or Pee themselves. And I cetainly don't look like a LEO with my beard and jeans. But as soon as I realized I had exposed my weapon I went to my vehicle and left without any incident.

The fact that a 1/2 dozen or more men & women saw me take my jacket off while wearing a firearm and didn't react with any kind of alarm or comment about the weapon makes me believe that 'open carry' wouldn't cause any panic if it were to pass! For the majority of people, the day the law passed would simply be another day of the week... nothing more.

There are several categories of people in public. I'm sure my rough estimates are not correct, but they probably aren't too far off.

You have about 70% of the people who wouldn't know to get out of the way if a bus were bearing down on them. They're in condition white, 24/7.

You have about 20% of the people who are in condition yellow(ish). They're generally aware that they're out in public and need to keep an eye out, but they're not really trained on what to look for. Observing a critical piece of key information may or may not penetrate to the control module far enough to spur them to actually deviate from their intended path.

You have about 5-7% who are in condition red. They're in a half panic at everything around them. They rarely do more than make hysterical noise, but they sure do get everyone's attention! These nervous nellies will sound the alarm on real threats, but 90% of the time they sound the very same alarm about harmless events, things and people. They generally mistrust everyone, usually from a conditioning standpoint of having been traumatized early in life.

Then you have about 3-5% who are in a hard yellow/soft orange whenever they're out in public. They appear calm and casual. They rarely draw attention to themselves, but very little escapes them. When they see a potential threat or vulnerability, they recognize it for what it is and deviate accordingly. They very rarely become crime victims. They do not send off prey signals and they don't go to bad places or associate with bad people. They're usually polite, but can respond with force if necessary. They've likely received some form of Hoplology training.

So it doesn't surprise me at all that you were in the presence of 6-8 people and none of them tuned in to what happened. The odds are against that in general.

 

[AKguy1985]

people out in public are pretty oblivious most of the time.

 

[flybeech]

OK flybeech, you've convinced me... I certainly believe that self defense is a legitimate purpose for carrying a gun. Of course our real job will be in convincing the judges in the District Court and in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, who will ultimately hear any case prosecuted under a violation of 1289.6. I think I could make a pretty compelling argument to that effect, and I am willing to take the case for free... now we just need to find a sucker with a clean criminal record who looks good on a witness stand to go get arrested and prosecuted for open carry! Anybody feeling lucky? It might be really hard to get you arrested if we don't get it done before this November, when the new Open Carry law goes into effect, so time is of the essence!

I'm a sucker and would be honored to be a test mule. I would greatly like to have some other suckers with me in an organized, peaceful and orchestrated open carry walk somewhere, rather than being the lone nut-case who dared to open carry and end up being the laughing stock of Oklahoma. Strength in numbers you know, but unlike the Michiganders, I don't think we've got the cajones. Based on reactions of others, I don't expect much in the way of support from my fellow Okies, but if I could weigh the risks and benefits beforehand and there was a plan, I would be willing to be the lone "sucker".

Beforehand, I would like to explore what could happen, what laws I could be convicted of violating and what the subsequent punishment would be. I would need to know if my CC permit would intensify charges, punishment and of course, would I forever loose my 2A rights, much less my 'privilege' to CC. I'm not opposed to turning in my CC permission slip beforehand, if necessary.

I understand the time is of the essence thing, because I truly believe in my heart that there is nothing illegal about open carry in Oklahoma. Maybe I'm as stupid as the other posters have indicated, but if we pass an OC law when we were really a near Constitutional carry state that was un-exercised, I think it would be a terrible shame to thank legislators for passing an OC statute that in reality was nothing more than backdoor gun control.

I'm in provisionally, but I suppose I would be standing alone.

 

[TallPrairie]

* NOT LEGAL ADVICE *

Here's how it works. 1272 (the oldest statute) bans all handgun carrying except for a few enumerated expections, such as hunting and recreational purposes, and carrying with a license under the authority of the SDA, which requires concealment. It does not allow open carrying for self-defense.

1289.6.6 (which is part of the OFA of 1971, NOT part of the SDA) then says you can carry openly for any legitimate purpose that is "not in violation of ... any legislative enactment regarding the ownership, use and control of firearms."

But 1272 was not repealed by the OFA of 1971, and has never been repealed. It is still on the books. Thus 1272 is a separate "legislative enactment regarding the ... use and control of firearms," within the meaning of 1289.6.6. Thus the "any legitimate purpose" language in 1289.6.6 excludes anything that is banned by 1272. And 1272 bans open carry for self-defense. Therefore, the "any legitimate purpose" language in 1289.6.6. does NOT authorize open carry for self-defense.

That's the argument that is widely accepted. It is logically sound. I agree that the laws are not worded as simply as they should be, especially in an area like this, but there you go.

* NOT LEGAL ADVICE *

 

[flybeech]

* NOT LEGAL ADVICE *

Here's how it works. 1272 (the oldest statute) bans all handgun carrying except for a few enumerated expections, such as hunting and recreational purposes, and carrying with a license under the authority of the SDA, which requires concealment. It does not allow open carrying for self-defense.

1289.6.6 (which is part of the OFA of 1971, NOT part of the SDA) then says you can carry openly for any legitimate purpose that is "not in violation of ... any legislative enactment regarding the ownership, use and control of firearms."

But 1272 was not repealed by the OFA of 1971, and has never been repealed. It is still on the books. Thus 1272 is a separate "legislative enactment regarding the ... use and control of firearms," within the meaning of 1289.6.6. Thus the "any legitimate purpose" language in 1289.6.6 excludes anything that is banned by 1272. And 1272 bans open carry for self-defense. Therefore, the "any legitimate purpose" language in 1289.6.6. does NOT authorize open carry for self-defense.

That's the argument that is widely accepted. It is logically sound. I agree that the laws are not worded as simply as they should be, especially in an area like this, but there you go.

* NOT LEGAL ADVICE *

By far, yours is the best and most informative explanation I've yet heard and I really appreciate your time. If I understand correctly, everything is illegal, unless State statute says otherwise. Therefore the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment means nothing, unless the State grants express permission for any activity. I'm still wondering if any lawful Oklahoman has ever been convicted of openly carrying a firearm, since 1995?

 

[Werewolf]

the Second Amendment means nothing, unless the State grants express permission for any activity.

Exactly RIGHT!

The 2nd (except for the exception provided by the Heller decision) has not been fully incorporated. In other words it only applies at the national level and not the state level.

The original intent of the BOR by the founders was to prevent the national government from messing with our rights not the state governments (hard to believe but true). As time went on the supreme court decided that didn't really make a lot of sense and one by one thru case law most of the 10 amendments of the BOR have been "incorporated" which simply means that the states cannot infringe either regardless of what their own state constitution says.

A glaring exception to incorporation is the 2nd. It hasn't been incorporated with but one minor exception as recently decided by SCOTUS in the Heller case.

Until the 2nd is fully incorporated the states can do what ever they want re: firearms laws within the restrictions of the individual state's constitution.

A good example of that is a comparison between the constitutions of OK and VT. The part of the VT constitution that addresses weapons rights is similar to the 2nd amendment. Back in the early 1900's when they tried to regulate how a weapon could be carried the law got challenged and judged to be unconstitutional at the state level by VT's supreme court. Open carry without a license has been legal in VT since then. On the other hand OK's constitution re weapons carry though similar to the 2nd expressly grants the legislature the right to control how weapons are carried in the state thus in OK the legislature can set what ever rules and regulations it sees fit re: the carry of firearms. Totally in accordance with OK's constitution.

Until the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights is totally incorporarted just like the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th are, the states can regulate firearms any way they choose as long as the regulation is in accordance with their own constitutions.

 

[TallPrairie]

Actually, SCOTUS did hold in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment right is fully incorporated against the states. The first paragraph of Justice Alito's plurality opinion (for a total of four Justices) says: "[W]e hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States."

And the first sentence of Justice Thomas's concurring opinion states: "I agree with the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms set forth in the Second Amendment fully applicable to the States." Thomas is the fifth vote, so this was indeed a holding of the Court.

The open issue, rather, is what view the Court will take of the scope of the Second Amendment right itself. Does it include carrying handguns outside the home; what level of regulation is permissible; etc. These are likely to be addressed in future SCOTUS cases within the next 2-3 years.

But the Court did make clear in McDonald that whatever the Second Amendment restrains the federal government from doing, it also restrains state and local governments from doing.

 

[henschman]

* NOT LEGAL ADVICE *

Here's how it works. 1272 (the oldest statute) bans all handgun carrying except for a few enumerated expections, such as hunting and recreational purposes, and carrying with a license under the authority of the SDA, which requires concealment. It does not allow open carrying for self-defense.

1289.6.6 (which is part of the OFA of 1971, NOT part of the SDA) then says you can carry openly for any legitimate purpose that is "not in violation of ... any legislative enactment regarding the ownership, use and control of firearms."

But 1272 was not repealed by the OFA of 1971, and has never been repealed. It is still on the books. Thus 1272 is a separate "legislative enactment regarding the ... use and control of firearms," within the meaning of 1289.6.6. Thus the "any legitimate purpose" language in 1289.6.6 excludes anything that is banned by 1272. And 1272 bans open carry for self-defense. Therefore, the "any legitimate purpose" language in 1289.6.6. does NOT authorize open carry for self-defense.

That's the argument that is widely accepted. It is logically sound. I agree that the laws are not worded as simply as they should be, especially in an area like this, but there you go.

* NOT LEGAL ADVICE *

The typical rule of statutory construction is that if newer laws conflict with older laws, the newer laws control. Also, 1272 contains this exception to the prohibition:

2. The carrying or use of weapons in a manner otherwise permitted by statute or authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act;

which would include 1289.6, which is the only way it is legal to open carry while hunting, target shooting, or any of those other activities listed in 1289.6, including "for any other legitimate purpose."