I can report one small Oklahoma victory for gun owners and the 2nd amendment!
- Thread starter Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
- Start Date
Like usual.
Incorrect. The signs ARE law.
1) Title 21 O.S. Section 1290.4 says that "...it is unlawful for any person to carry a concealed handgun in this state, except as hereby authorized by the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act..."
2) Title 21 O.S. Section 1272 says that "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry upon or about his or her person, or in a purse or other container belonging to the person, any pistol, revolver...or any other offensive weapon, whether such weapon be concealed or unconcealed...Any person convicted of violating the foregoing provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable as provided in Section 1276 of this title." which is a fine of $100 - $250 and up to 30 days in county jail for the first offense.
3) Title 21 O.S. Section 1290.22 gives a business owner the right to prohibit concealed firearms on their property, which they exercise by posting the sign. By ignoring the sign and entering the property while armed, you are no longer covered by the SDA, and are guilty of a misdemeanor.
I know that this isn't a popular opinion, but I have researched this extensively and spoken with four different attorneys, including one guy who helped write the law and one guy who interprets it for the state. (sorry, I'm not allowed to give names) Going into a posted business while carrying makes you a criminal.
So they believe it so strongly that they won't put their name behind it? I call BS. I have researched BS extensively and spoken with four different bulls. Why don't you go ahead and quote 1290.22, like you did the others?
The business owner's rights to prohibit arms on their property are equal to the business owner's rights to prohibit blue sneakers on their property.
If 7-Eleven has a sign up that says No Blue Shoes, and you accidentally walk in with blue shoes, you haven't broken any laws, because there's no fiat enforcing that like there is in Kansas with CCW. The store rep can tell you to leave, and at that point you could be trespassing. Not noticing a gunbuster sign in OK doesn't make you guilty of unlawful carry.
Hmm... The Outback I go to doesn't have a gun-busters sign. I probably go to Outback more than all the other places I go to combined! (Every other time we eat out, it always ends up to be Outback!) If their policy has changed, it has been within the last month!
Woody
Woody
Sorry, you are wrong
This means the person referred to in A can request you not carry. This is a request. If you are carrying, and they find out (must be carrying concealed poorly) they can only ask you to leave. It is not a crime. That is what is meant by "this does not limit the ability of the property owner." If signage determined legal carry it would have been listed in TITLE 21 § 1277.
So, I leave you with this SAT question:
A crisp $100 bill lies in the middle of an intersection. At equal distances from the $100 bill on each road is the following. Your Law Making Buddy and your Attorney Friends, Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny and Charlie Manson. Who gets to the $100 bill first?
Charlie Manson.
Why? The others are figments of your imagination.
Respectfully, I may disagree with you. In this:
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.
the law allows the above listed to set limits or outright bans of weapons in possession by an individual.
Now this:
B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.
seems to refer to preventing those above listed entities from outlawing an individual from storing a weapon in a locked vehicle in the parking lot of said business or entity. This is the newly enacted law, which was ruled constitutional by the Federal Appeals Court, that prohibits an employer from denying his employees from keeping a weapon in their locked car.
First of all, each of the lawyers in question were giving me their informal opinions for which I had not paid. IANAL, but was told in each case that this meant I could only speak of their opinions informally, not "and so-and-so said this!". I don't really understand why, but I gave my word. To some of us this means something.
Second, go back and read my post again, and read the laws here:
http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2007_2_.pdf
In Oklahoma, the underlying law is that it is a criminal act to carry a concealed weapon. The only law that gives you the right to carry concealed is Title 21 Section 1290, and you are only legal in carrying a weapon when you are acting within its provisions. When you carry against its provisions, you are in violation of the underlying law that says concealed carry is a crime. Part of the law states that business owners can say that you can't carry on their property. If you carry on their property when they say you can't, you are in violation of the SDA, and therefore not covered by it, and therefore carrying illegally.
I see. Some of us around here honor our given word. Some of us don't. Those of us who don't automatically assume that those of us who do must be liars.
thanks for the tip.
As for the "request", go back and read 1272 again. by default, you are not allowed to carry concealed in this state. The law allowing you to do so is 1290. If you carry in a way prohibited by 1290, then you are no longer covered by it, and are then covered by 1272, which means that you are now in violation of Oklahoma criminal code.
That cute example earlier about the blue shoes doesn't fly, because there's no underlying law in Oklahoma banning the wear of blue shoes.
I firmly believe in the 2nd amendment and its defense. This is one reason why I teach SDA classes, and have never taken one penny of profit from doing so. I just get tired of all the kids on this board who start crying when they learn that there are legal limits to what they're allowed to do.
Section A is stating that the SDA does not force property owners to allow firearms on their property (with the exception of Section B). Big difference between allowing property owners to set their own rules and unlawful carry. Once again, if it was unlawful, their would be an inclusion to prohibited places that states "Where posted".
If it were unlawful (under SDA) to carry in "posted areas" not included in 1277, why does it not say it is unlawful (according to SDA)? If the business owner had a hunch, and called the cops, I would think it would be "Cop asks you to leave. if you dont, trespassing."
I guess you have your interpretation, I have mine. Only way
Similar threads
