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: 1760374" data-attributes="member: 7815">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.</blockquote>

Verification