HB1439, which expands the "Castle Doctrine" to business owners, employees, managers, etc, passed the Senate and has been sent to the Governor. The only question I would have is how this affects prohibited places in the SDA, and employees carrying there? Also, how does this law affect businesses that have a policy prohibiting firearms by employees, even with a permit? Not sure I want to be the "test case" for this law, but if there is an attorney out there willing to shed some light on the subject, it would help. There is no explicit language going either way added to the bill.
I would think that ultimately what the business owner says goes. If they have signs up then it trumps the blanket statement made by this legislature. If there are no signs visible you are under the assumption they operate under HB1439.
Read the bill...
Nothing has changed from the original Castle Doctrine bill except that its provisions now also apply to businesses. In fact it is the original Castle Doctrine bill. All that has happened is that the word business has been added where appropriate.
What's the issue?
Nothing has changed from the original Castle Doctrine bill except that its provisions now also apply to businesses. In fact it is the original Castle Doctrine bill. All that has happened is that the word business has been added where appropriate.
What's the issue?
Yes, I did read the bill and I do appreciate the fact you are attempting to be as elitist and patronizing as possible here. Sorry for the disturbance to your slumber and forum. I won't ask clearly stupid questions again. However, might I point out you didn't seem to read my original post.
You did not ask a stupid question, at all. And to your point, I do not think a dismissive answer helps the discussion. I am an SDA instructor, and I too would be interested in thoroughly understanding ramifications of the change.
I think the distinction here is that section isn't about firearms, or even 2A. It's about responding with force.
It has now been signed by the Governor.
http://newsok.com/fallin-signs-self-defense-rights-law/article/3562026
http://newsok.com/fallin-signs-self-defense-rights-law/article/3562026
What about the law (don't remember the exact name or bill number) that was passed saying basically that you can defend yourself, with deadly force if necessary, if you are anywhere that you are lawfully allowed to be? Wouldn't that also include your place of employment, provided that your employer doesn't ban guns. It seems like a waste of time to me. I wish our tax dollars were paying for more change and less lawyering.
The standards for use of force are different in your "castle" as defined, and "in any place you have a right to be."
Thus the justification needed for use of deadly force inside the "castle" is different (less) than elsewhere.
There is at least one Oklahoman in prison today that probably would not be if he had stayed inside his castle instead of going outside to confront an individual he finally shot and killed.
It would be beneficial to become familiar with these differences.
