Not particularly, however this was one of the provisions in HB2522 that made it passable. LEO would not be required to do this, but they would have the option. This was something put in for all those people who went, "how would we know someone openly carrying was not violating the law by not having a permit". While I don't agree with the "papers please" approach, I understand it can be removed later (by courts if need be) in order to make a step forward.
Not particularly, however this was one of the provisions in HB2522 that made it passable. LEO would not be required to do this, but they would have the option. This was something put in for all those people who went, "how would we know someone openly carrying was not violating the law by not having a permit". While I don't agree with the "papers please" approach, I understand it can be removed later (by courts if need be) in order to make a step forward.
On the first part of my statement about preemption - if municipalities can cite open carriers for disturbing the peace for simply open carry, will people want to put up with the citations and fines just so they can open carry, probably not, hence we need the preemption clause. This has been a problem in other states.
On the second part for LEO to demand to see a permit - the illogical argument has been made that criminals would open carry if open carry passed so there needs to be a way to make sure those who do open carry have been licensed. To satisfy these people in the legislature, this has been added.
Without satisfying the unfounded fears of those who do the voting, this will never be moved forward. Do what needs to be done to move it forward, then clean it up later in courts if need be.
<sarcasm>This alleged incident was at a college, which is a gun free zone, and since those laws work, the shooting could not have happened. <end sarcasm>
This just proves (again) that criminals don't care what laws you put into place, they will violate those laws and only the law abiding citizen is affected.
I have found case law back to 1907 that cites the same wording that in in the 1971 law, just with different numbers. I think at some point the Oklahoma law was restructured and renumbered. The basis for these case laws are that in the Oklahoma Constitution it says something to the effect of ...keep and bear arms for militia use... which was long guns not hand guns. Courts back then decided that hand guns were not protected under the Oklahoma Constitution because they were not used by the military at the time.
If anyone wants, I can dig up the cites and post.
As others have posted, call and try and get the senate to not take Thursday off so the senate public safety committee can hear more good firearm related bills.
Call your senator and ask them to either support HB2522 or as them to try and get it into a conference committee with SB1733 so a single open carry bill comes out of it.
Call the house public safety committee and ask them to support the firearms legislation they will be hearing in committee tomorrow.
Here is contact info for them:
Chair Rep Sue Tibbs ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7379
Vice chair Rep Steve Martin ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7402
Rep John Bennett ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7315
Rep Dough Cox ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7415
Rep Fred Jordan ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7331
Rep Pat Ownbey ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7326
Rep Paul D. Roan ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7308
Rep Ed Cannaday ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7375
Rep Tommy Hardin ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7383
Rep Charlie Joyner ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7314
Rep Pam Peterson ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7341
Rep Todd Thomsen ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7336
Rep Josh Cockroft ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7349
Rep Chuck Hoskin ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7319
Rep Al McAffrey ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7396
Rep Brian Renegar ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7381
Rep Steve Vaughan ( [email protected] ) - (405) 557-7355
Okay, but that makes one ask just how far can municipalities go? Would some be worse then others?
Yes, without preemption, municipalities could decide who to enforce this. MO has this problem. I live in Moore and work in Edmond. Let say that Moore decides to follow the spirit of the law and allows people to open carry, they respond to every MWAG call and observe, report and leave. Then lets say I go to the Circle K down the street from where I work, 1 person calls in, they show up contact me get my name, tell me people are nervous...blah blah blah. Then I go to Lowes and 2 more people call in, that makes a total of 3 in one day that have called on me for the same thing, the Edmond PD might decide to cite me for disturbing the peace since so many people called to report this. Eventually I would get tired of being hassled by the cops and just not OC in Edmond. Now Edmond has not cited me for open carry since it is legal, but that have cited me for disturbing the peace, a back door to prevent the exercise of a lawful activity. Some municipalities may even do this on the first call.
Maybe the county is OK with it, cities within the county aren't. Or many one particular city in the county is OK with it but the others aren't. The patchwork of local gun laws becomes increasing more complex without state preemption. Imagine if we didn't have preemption with our CCP and some county sheriff did not want anyone in their county to have one, or the county sheriff was fine with it, but a particular city didn't want it and that city made it illegal. Preemption makes it easier for the LAC.
This kind of municipal inconsistency would make it very difficult for say a traveling salesman who works all over the state to know what city and county ordinances were in place at all times.
Thanks, I see what you mean now, It's all a learning curve for me.
When I started riding motorcycles in the late 60's our helmet laws were the same way. I remember riding to Ponca city and meeting an officer who would stop you if you were not wearing a helmet. He would look on his list to see if you had been stopped before and if you had he would write you a ticket. If you were not on the list he would add you to it for the next time you were stopped. This was your one warning. If you rode to other towns you needed to have a helmet with you just incase their laws required one.
This made going for a all day ride a bit of a hassle for those wishing not to wear one.
While I do favor State preemption on most laws I might consider doing like a few other States do in that they allow Major Cities to opt out on Open Carry. If for instance the Two major cities in Oklahoma were the only stumbling block in allowing the citizens in the rest of the State to exercise their freedom would it be wrong to compromise? So long as it was written to make it mandatory that those Cities had to issue a warning first before an actual ticket that would protect those not aware of this special exception allowed to those Cities.
Michael
MLR said:
You do NOT want to introduce the notion of "Home Rule" Cities here. OKC and Tulsa would take that and run like hell with it. Look at states like Pennsylvania, where Philly has to routinely be taken to court to respect state preemption.
