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

[TerryMiller]

While it is tempting to interpret 21-1290-22 as only rights and that violation of that is merely trespassing, I for one don't want to be the one that becomes a test case to "set precedent". Both "Trespassing" and "Unlawful Concealed Carry" are both misdemeanors, but I don't care to be arrested for either.

As for following the advise of SDA instructors, with all due respect, they are not necessarily required to be lawyers to be instructors. I also believe that a LEO does have the option of arresting an individual under either of the above stated laws if they find someone carrying in a posted business or other property that is posted.

Once an arrest is made, then the DA's office has the option to proceed with charges with either violation. At that point, it again becomes the decision of a lawyer, not an SDA instructor or LEO. So, unless someone comes on the forum and gives opinion as an attorney or judge, I'm not going to follow the conjecture of forum posters who want to interpret the law themselves.

I don't ever recall seeing a posting on this, or any other forum, where an attorney or judge has clarified the statute of 21-1290-22. However, after my vacation here is over, I will try to get clarification from a couple of different attorneys that I know.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

It doesn't matter at ALL whether there's any crime beyond trespassing. Trespassing itself is both of these things:

-ILLEGAL

-UNLAWFUL

So it most certainly has SOME force and effect of law, by creating a trespass scenario, however minor that CRIME may be. So it's technically incorrect to say that the stupid signs "don't have any legal effect" or "don't have the force and effect of law". So I understand the distinction you're making - you're right, LC, that it's not "unlawful carry", DEPENDING UPON how you define unlawful carry. But you are correct that it's not unlawful carry as most people define and use that term when talking about the SDA act.

Bottom line here is, that ignoring the signs is NOT "unlawful carry", but it IS "unlawful".

Good thing BigJake chimed in - he's contributed a lot to the substance of this thread. That's just so far - and I'm sure he's just getting warmed up.

 

[ez bake]

Carrying past the sign isn't unlawful - it isn't even trespassing (not in a public business anyways). Trespassing doesn't even come into play even if the business owner spots you going against their sign. At that point, they can ask you to leave. If they call the police before asking you to leave, guess what the police are going to do? If you said "ask you to leave", you have a basic understanding of the law.

I love how the argument about how "there are no laws regulating blue shoes" is used against the SDA, but somehow that makes it where the SDA is subject to a different level of trespassing and somehow you will be immediately arrested. This is a major misunderstanding of how the laws (specifically regulating trespassing in a public business) work.

Case precedence has been set - numerous public businesses have had to ask someone to leave for a variety of reasons. Upon being asked, if the individual complies, there has never been an arrest (that I can find) so long as the citizen complied peacefully and without doing any harm to the public's business.

If you resist, then that's another story (also, if you get caught - again, poor concealed carry effort).

If it has nothing to do with the SDA, and we're only talking about trespassing - then look at the numerous examples of trespassing (on public business property - not private homeowners' property).

This is a flawed argument that is attempting to shoehorn a specific agenda into the twisted interpretation of current laws. No current law or regulation says that if you carry past a gun-buster sign that you are guilty of breaking any law - period.

Who's side are we all on?

 

[LightningCrash]

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=441492

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

ok, ezbake, I buy that; I think you're right. But it's just kind of a fine line here, depending upon how you define "unlawful" - probably stompin on piss ants anyway.

 

[Jza]

So yeah, this placed closed down... and a bunch of people lost their jobs.. That really sucks for them.

 

[vvvvvvv]

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=441492

That has to do with school property, which is already quite clearly on the "prohibited places" list.

 

[ez bake]

That has to do with school property, which is already quite clearly on the "prohibited places" list.

Yeah I was gonna ask - LC knows that - what was that post supposed to mean?

 

[LightningCrash]

Oops, meant this one:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=62610

 

[hubmonkey]

Oops, meant this one:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=62610

That is the Library... Isn't that county owned for the use of the public?


Hub