I can report one small Oklahoma victory for gun owners and the 2nd amendment!

[WhiteyMacD]

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.

Yeah, and those 11 years make a big difference. But, whatever, guy.

 

[TerryMiller]

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

So, if Section A does not force property owners to allow firearms on their property, does that not actually allow property owners to set their own rules with carrying a concealed weapon?

As "IDtheTarget" stated, if you are NOT covered by SDA, you are in violation of Oklahoma law for carrying (21-1272).

As for interpreting, I will have to leave that to the lawyers and judges. I, for one, will not claim that my reading of the law is paramount. I also prefer to not state that someone is completely wrong. I feel it better to respectfully ask for clarification of one's opinion, as I hope this posting reflects.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

So, if Section A does not force property owners to allow firearms on their property, does that not actually allow property owners to set their own rules with carrying a concealed weapon?

As "IDtheTarget" stated, if you are NOT covered by SDA, you are in violation of Oklahoma law for carrying (21-1272).

As for interpreting, I will have to leave that to the lawyers and judges. I, for one, will not claim that my reading of the law is paramount. I also prefer to not state that someone is completely wrong. I feel it better to respectfully ask for clarification of one's opinion, as I hope this posting reflects.

Property owners rules does not equate to law. Sure, if you dont abide by their rules, you can be asked to leave. Then if you dont, trespassing.

 

[LightningCrash]

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.

No, 1290.22 says that it doesn't abridge business owners existing rights to control possession. It doesn't put fiat behind gunbuster signs. NONE AT ALL.
Understand this.
If you carry on their property when they say you can't, you may be trespassing, but not guilty of unlawful carry.
I suggest you read 1290.22 again.

ETA: When you carry against their will, you may be violating their existing rights to prohibit weapons.

 

[ez bake]

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.

So, if Section A does not force property owners to allow firearms on their property, does that not actually allow property owners to set their own rules with carrying a concealed weapon?

As "IDtheTarget" stated, if you are NOT covered by SDA, you are in violation of Oklahoma law for carrying (21-1272).

As for interpreting, I will have to leave that to the lawyers and judges. I, for one, will not claim that my reading of the law is paramount. I also prefer to not state that someone is completely wrong. I feel it better to respectfully ask for clarification of one's opinion, as I hope this posting reflects.

What you both are missing is that the only law you'd be guilty of by carrying on a private business that doesn't want you carrying is trespassing. And then only if they've asked you to leave and you refuse (and even then, most likely only misdemeanor trespassing unless they're forcing you to leave and you resist, or you vandalize something).

That's the only relevance that the SDA laws on the subject is that someone can cite the fact that they don't want you on their property by way of utilizing the SDA - its exactly the same thing as "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and yes, there are laws/ordinances that have been passed to enforce that stupid sign too (though to be fair, after watching peopleofwalmart.com I can totally understand where that law came from).


The only liability you're leaving yourself open to is brandishing - and that's if you're carrying poorly enough that you've been spotted by a business owner (and I disagree that printing=brandishing). However, a gun falling out of a holster, or a slip of the cover garment and full exposure... those are all things that if a business owner was so inclined, he could press charges for brandishing in his business.

I'm not a total douche, so I would never do that.

There is also no legal precedence for pressing any charges against someone who carries in private places with just a sign. That's because when it comes down to it - that gunbuster sign doesn't mean anything more than the no-shirt/no-shoes sign.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Woodcdi:

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

Hey they each have individual proprietors, so yes, there are some without the stupid signs and so by all means eat there often, my man - and please tell the proprietor why you eat there and none of the others!

And guess what, trespassing is ILLEGAL. So they do have the force of law. IDthetarget is correct, and anyone who said contra is wrong.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Hey Big Jake:

Originally Posted by Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow View Post
Nevermind; looks like no one agrees with me.

Like usual.

Why would you want to advertise the fact that you're not nearly as insightful as me, on issues across the board?

 

[LightningCrash]

Woodcdi:
And guess what, trespassing is ILLEGAL. So they do have the force of law. IDthetarget is correct, and anyone who said contra is wrong.

IDthetarget said carrying past a gunbuster sign was unlawful carry, he didn't say it was trespassing.

 

[hubmonkey]

IDthetarget said carrying past a gunbuster sign was unlawful carry, he didn't say it was trespassing.

That is correct..

to summerize... According to ID's posts... The No Firearms Allowed Sign stamps Void and Null on your Conceal Carry Permit and you will be charged with Illegally Carrying a Concealed Weapon.

According to my SDA instructor... You can carry into a place with a No Firearms Allowed sign and if discovered you have a weapon, you are asked to leave, you refuse, you can be cited for CIVIL TRESSPASS by the LEOs.


Hub

 

[BIGJAKE]

Hey Big Jake:



Why would you want to advertise the fact that you're not nearly as insightful as me, on issues across the board?

Insightful, is that the same as Full Of It.