Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Michael Brown" data-source="post: 34996" data-attributes="member: 18">I have no idea what he is talking about and asked an A.D.A as well who also did not know anything about it.This does not mean its not true, but I can&#039;t find anything.To research the issue I also looked on the Oklahoma Supreme Court&#039;s website and could find nothing in title 21 that appeared new.I did find an interesting set of opinions that affirmed an officer&#039;s right to secure/unload a lawfully transported firearm during a traffic stop.I also found an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling on carrying knives not specifically prohibited by the six named versions.&nbsp; Its worth a read but I think it supports the position that intent is required in the definition of &quot;offensive weapons&quot; since the individual arrested was a known violent subject currently on probation for assault and battery.Michael Brown</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Michael Brown, post: 34996, member: 18"] I have no idea what he is talking about and asked an A.D.A as well who also did not know anything about it. This does not mean its not true, but I can't find anything. To research the issue I also looked on the Oklahoma Supreme Court's website and could find nothing in title 21 that appeared new. I did find an interesting set of opinions that affirmed an officer's right to secure/unload a lawfully transported firearm during a traffic stop. I also found an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling on carrying knives not specifically prohibited by the six named versions. Its worth a read but I think it supports the position that intent is required in the definition of "offensive weapons" since the individual arrested was a known violent subject currently on probation for assault and battery. Michael Brown [/QUOTE]

Verification