I would bet that many city dwellers back in those days did conceal carry derringers, pocket pistols and such.
"4. Any property designated by a city, town, county or state governmental authority as a park, recreational area, wildlife refuge, wildlife management area or fairgrounds; provided, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to authorize any entry by a person in possession of a concealed or unconcealed handgun firearm into any structure, building or office space which is specifically prohibited by the provisions of subsection A of this section; and"
No where in there does it say anything about who manages it, just that its property designated by Tulsa as a park, which the Tulsa zoo is. It surely doesn't fall under any of the provisions of subsection A unless they want to claim the Zoo as an educational facility. Not saying you're wrong, just not understanding how they can have a no firearm policy when the law clearly states that city parks can not have a no firearms policy.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. I'm literally just providing that the structure of management now and the reasoning for the push back for opposing CC or Open carry by lets say the Gathering Place. These entities likely won't be able to afford the insurance in certain circumstances because the carriers that would be competitive won't write the coverage. These entities loose the umbrella protection of the city.
City of Tulsa lists 134 "parks", so apparently this is not just about the Gathering Place and Zoos. And there are a ton of WMA's, during warm months when I'm out taking pictures I like to have my Judge loaded with .410's for snakes OWB. My question is, has the right to open carry in such areas now been changed to concealed only, to be able to pass Constitutional Carry?
Last edited:
You were also born spittin' up without warning and poopin' & peein' yerself.
This may be the dumbest argument I've ever seen anywhere.
I'm glad to see you guys are having your fun with this but it is not about whether one needs to open carry or not.
It is about another restriction to our carry rights and those that are willing to give up yet another piece of those rights because they don't see it as any infringement on them personally.
Yes, there are those that are laughable in the way they open carry and there are those that cringe at, or quake in fear of the sight, but it is our right and it should be supported, especially by those of us that believe in freedom and less government control.
Carry on.
I'm more scared of a MAGA cap! Those folks are crazy!
Yes they did. Derringers and pin guns were very common and concealabled.
This is a separate bill being pushed to address the perpetual issue with places that have been turned over to trusts and private entities...it changes nothing in regards to carry in WMA's, city parks, and other locations addressed by the body of law dealing with carry.
Here is the important verbiage from HB2010:
"E. In any municipal zoo or park of any size that is owned, leased, operated or managed by: 1. A public trust created pursuant to the provisions of Section 176 of Title 60 of the Oklahoma Statutes; or 2. A nonprofit entity, an individual shall be allowed to carry a concealed handgun but not openly carry a handgun on the property."
So under this provision, anti-gun municipalities can't get around the "park carry" provisions and implement a back-door ban on the carry of firearms by turning the property over to a private trust like they tried to do with The Gathering Place.
You can put a shirt over your gun or shove it in a pocket and go hang out with the freaks and geeks that congregate in those places if you so choose lol.
Last edited:
Similar threads
