Legal Updates Resource

[HeyEng]

I have seen a few members ask about specific changes to the law that have taken effect today. There is a pretty good resource that summarizes the changes fairly well (specific to areas that law enforcement would be involved in) that is put out by OK CLEET.

The 2019 changes can be found here: http://www.ok.gov/cleet/documents/2019 Legal Update 7-16-19 .pdf

The main page is here: https://www.ok.gov/cleet/Legal_Updates/index.html

 

[chuter]

Thanks for that.
Looks like now you can go to jail for not leaving a business when asked to; before it was just a fine.

21 O.S. 1290.22, Business Owner’s Rights, is amended to reflect that if a person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm on property that has signs prohibiting possession of firearms, has been advised by the owner, business entity, or manager that he/she is in violation and refuses to leave, and the police have been summoned, is punishable as provided in 21 O.S. 1276 (misdemeanor, not more than $250 and 30 days for first offense). Previously this was not a criminal violation and was subject only to a citation of not more than $250.

(my emphasis)

 

[HeyEng]

Thanks for that.
Looks like now you can go to jail for not leaving a business when asked to; before it was just a fine.



(my emphasis)

Yep. They have pretty much made it criminal trespass.

 

[Glock 40]

Gonna be some 2A auditors in jail tonight!

 

[MacFromOK]

Hmmm... So now it's a jailable offense (30 days, 1st offense) along with a fine if you're dumb enough to refuse to leave a business that prohibits carrying weapons when asked to do so (21 O.S. 1290.22).

But ya gotta love this one...

"SB 21 (effective November 1, 2019) creates new law at 25 O.S. 98.18 to designate and adopt the rib eye as the state steak of Oklahoma. Until November 1, 2019 we are/were, unfortunately and apparently, without an official state steak."

@HeyEng - Thanks for posting the links.

 

[HeyEng]

Gonna be some 2A auditors in jail tonight!

Well, I think they would deserve it. I am a staunch 2A supporter however, I also support the rights of business owners too. If you are stupid enough to NOT LEAVE when asked to do so, then yes...you should be put in the corner to think about what you have done. Personally, I try and avoid places that don't support my right to carry but sometimes it unavoidable. Conceal carry tends to mitigate most of these problems though.

 

[Shadowrider]

So lets talk about the highlighted portion on this:

21 O.S. 1290.22, Business Owner’s Rights, is amended to reflect that if a person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm on property that has signs prohibiting possession of firearms, has been advised by the owner, business entity, or manager that he/she is in violation and refuses to leave, and the police have been summoned, is punishable as provided in 21 O.S. 1276 (misdemeanor, not more than $250 and 30 days for first offense). Previously this was not a criminal violation and was subject only to a citation of not more than $250.

The way I read this is you still have to be asked to leave and refuse to in order to be charged. Or is it saying that the mere posting of the sign is notice enough? Discuss...

 

[HeyEng]

So lets talk about the highlighted portion on this:



The way I read this is you still have to be asked to leave and refuse to in order to be charged. Or is it saying that the mere posting of the sign is notice enough? Discuss...

The sign isn't enough, you have to be TOLD to leave, hence the "and" connector. Unlike so many sections of the code, this one is pretty clear.

It's a little clearer when it's displayed as written in the code:

E. The otherwise lawful carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person on property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property. If the person:

1. Has been informed by the property owner, business entity or manager of the business that the person is in violation of a policy that prohibits firearms on the property; and

2. Refuses to leave the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may be punished as provided in Section 1276 of this title.

 

[Shadowrider]

The sign isn't enough, you have to be TOLD to leave, hence the "and" connector. Unlike so many sections of the code, this one is pretty clear.

It's a little cleared when it's displayed as written in the code:

E. The otherwise lawful carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person on property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property. If the person:

1. Has been informed by the property owner, business entity or manager of the business that the person is in violation of a policy that prohibits firearms on the property; and

2. Refuses to leave the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may be punished as provided in Section 1276 of this title.

That's exactly how I read it, but I can see how some would "twist" it into something completely different.

ETA: Change those ands to "or" and you get something similar to Texas' 30.06 law..

 

[AKguy1985]

Concealed is concealed.