Here are the two rules. 1. If you are open carry, you gun is visible. 2. If you are concealed carry, your gun is concealed.
If your gun is visible and you put your shirt or jacket over it, it is now concealed. If your gun is not visible and you take off your jacket or your shirt rides up, you are now open carry. That does not affect your mind thought pattern whether to remove from holster and shoot if a BG is threatening you.
What additional rules need to be changed when you go to or from OC to CC, none? Why do politicians think they have to have more control by passing additional laws to require you to hold your left hand in the air with three fingers pointing up while turning around in a circle clockwise 2 times while you are pulling your shirt out of your pants to now be open carry? But you can be arrested if you do not put four fingers in the air and turn around in a circle 4 times counterclockwise to go to concealed carry. Follow the laws explicitly or get arrested, all 226,497 of them.
If some form of ability to carry openly does not get through this session due to "running out of time", etc. I will be TICKED!
If that happens, I think as many of us as possible should go to the statehouse on 2A day (or whatever they call it) and openly wear empty holsters as a visual reminder of how many voters they have disappointed by their "trickery"
If that happens, I think as many of us as possible should go to the statehouse on 2A day (or whatever they call it) and openly wear empty holsters as a visual reminder of how many voters they have disappointed by their "trickery"
People here have the situation pretty well down pat.
As amended by Senate Public Safety yesterday, HB 2522 no longer requires an SDA license (= concealed carry permit) to carry openly in public. This amended bill will now have to go back to the House before it can go to the Governor. In its amended form it is unlikely to clear the House.
Even if it did, it is questionable whether Gov. Fallin would sign it. She could say, "Look, I said I'd sign an appropriate open carry bill, and I will, but this one doesn't even require background checks." Not a crazy stance from most Oklahomans' point of view, and not one that would have much political cost to Fallin -- unlike a refusal to sign a permit-based OC bill, which would basically mean there was no OC bill she would sign, so her campaign promise would be a lie.
What's in play now is SB 1733, an OC bill that requires an SDA license to open carry. It has cleared the Senate and is scheduled to be taken up by House Public Safety, perhaps next week. SB 1733 is a somewhat acceptable, bare bones, OC-with-your-SDA-permit bill, but it is not as detailed or carefully drafted with protections as Rep. Martin's HB 2522 was when it was engrossed to the Senate (before Sen. Russell "gutted" 2522).
Things SB 1733 currently lacks that engrossed HB 2522 had:
(1) permitless OC on your private property;
(2) reform to the duty-to-notify provision (engrossed HB 2522 reduced the obnoxious penalties and changed it to allow notification at the "first opportunity" instead of first contact w/ LEO - very good things);
(3) clarified the state's "parking lot protection" law to expressly include ammunition as well as firearms (should be obvious but you can't be too careful);
(4) clear acknowledgment of the LEO's authority to ask to see an OCer's license, coupled with clear protections for the citizen: the LEO can't disarm or physically restrain an OCer unless there's other criminal activity afoot or the OCer refuses to produce a valid SDA license.
(5) express pre-emption of municipal disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace statutes as applied to otherwise legal OC.
The absence of (4) and (5) in particular is a serious deficiency of current SB1733 when you compare it to engrossed HB2522. Those were direct responses to actual problems encountered in interaction between OCers and law enforcement in other states. If these issues aren't expressly addressed in whatever OC statute gets enacted, then they will be decided in practice by the Oklahoma courts. I predict gun owners won't like their answers as much.
So a good outcome at this point would be for House Public Safety (or the House floor) to amend SB 1733 to include the same types of protections that were in HB 2522 originally.
As amended by Senate Public Safety yesterday, HB 2522 no longer requires an SDA license (= concealed carry permit) to carry openly in public. This amended bill will now have to go back to the House before it can go to the Governor. In its amended form it is unlikely to clear the House.
Even if it did, it is questionable whether Gov. Fallin would sign it. She could say, "Look, I said I'd sign an appropriate open carry bill, and I will, but this one doesn't even require background checks." Not a crazy stance from most Oklahomans' point of view, and not one that would have much political cost to Fallin -- unlike a refusal to sign a permit-based OC bill, which would basically mean there was no OC bill she would sign, so her campaign promise would be a lie.
What's in play now is SB 1733, an OC bill that requires an SDA license to open carry. It has cleared the Senate and is scheduled to be taken up by House Public Safety, perhaps next week. SB 1733 is a somewhat acceptable, bare bones, OC-with-your-SDA-permit bill, but it is not as detailed or carefully drafted with protections as Rep. Martin's HB 2522 was when it was engrossed to the Senate (before Sen. Russell "gutted" 2522).
Things SB 1733 currently lacks that engrossed HB 2522 had:
(1) permitless OC on your private property;
(2) reform to the duty-to-notify provision (engrossed HB 2522 reduced the obnoxious penalties and changed it to allow notification at the "first opportunity" instead of first contact w/ LEO - very good things);
(3) clarified the state's "parking lot protection" law to expressly include ammunition as well as firearms (should be obvious but you can't be too careful);
(4) clear acknowledgment of the LEO's authority to ask to see an OCer's license, coupled with clear protections for the citizen: the LEO can't disarm or physically restrain an OCer unless there's other criminal activity afoot or the OCer refuses to produce a valid SDA license.
(5) express pre-emption of municipal disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace statutes as applied to otherwise legal OC.
The absence of (4) and (5) in particular is a serious deficiency of current SB1733 when you compare it to engrossed HB2522. Those were direct responses to actual problems encountered in interaction between OCers and law enforcement in other states. If these issues aren't expressly addressed in whatever OC statute gets enacted, then they will be decided in practice by the Oklahoma courts. I predict gun owners won't like their answers as much.
So a good outcome at this point would be for House Public Safety (or the House floor) to amend SB 1733 to include the same types of protections that were in HB 2522 originally.
Last edited:
so they have f****d with it so much it won't pass.
..I'm starting to think this is a big joke...on us....the politicos say "oh I would vote for open carry" then screw with the bill so much as to make it un passable..."I was for it before a I was against it"....hell all I want is to be able to take my jacket off in the car and not be afraid of some hoplophobe calling the police on me, or walking out to the mailbox without covering up my pistol, I probably would never "open" carry, but I don't want to get in a hassle for flashing my gun by accident
..I'm starting to think this is a big joke...on us....the politicos say "oh I would vote for open carry" then screw with the bill so much as to make it un passable..."I was for it before a I was against it"....hell all I want is to be able to take my jacket off in the car and not be afraid of some hoplophobe calling the police on me, or walking out to the mailbox without covering up my pistol, I probably would never "open" carry, but I don't want to get in a hassle for flashing my gun by accidentThe idea is that when you are open carry, everyone can see and knows you are carrying. Your intentions are "known". If you are concealed, then your intentions are "not known". It's more about the approval process than the whys and wherefore. If you want to OC then no background check would be required. If you want to CC then the background check would be required.
This is what needs to happen. After the house puts those 5 things back into it, it goes back to the senate floor, they pass it and on to the governors desk it goes.
"It's good to be the king", especially when you can convince others that they're not carrying the bucket.
And they wonder why we hate them.
I'll make sure to send Senator Russell an email and let him know what his game playing means to me.
I'll make sure to send Senator Russell an email and let him know what his game playing means to me.
