Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Has any otherwise lawful Oklahoman ever been convicted of open carry since the SDA?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TallPrairie" data-source="post: 1754387" data-attributes="member: 7815"><p>* NOT LEGAL ADVICE *</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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." </p><p></p><p>But 1272 was not repealed by the OFA of 1971, and has never been repealed.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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>* NOT LEGAL ADVICE *</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TallPrairie, post: 1754387, member: 7815"] * 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 * [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Has any otherwise lawful Oklahoman ever been convicted of open carry since the SDA?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom