NRA and OK2A work against open carry in parks and zoos.

[dennishoddy]

No. HB2010 has not been through the legislature and been signed by Sitt yet.

Right now, parks and zoos that are owned, leased, managed, or operated by public trusts or private entities are the subject of a lot of legal wrangling and online arguments etc regarding the status of lawful carry. See the recent events surrounding carry in The Gathering Place. If HB2010 passes, that discussion and confusion will effectively end. Concealed carry will be allowed on those properties and the entities that manage them cannot say otherwise.

If and when it passes, it only applies to municipal parks and zoos operated by public trusts or private entities. It has nothing to do with WMAs or city/state run parks.

I find it amusing that legislators are OK with a person walking up to a park or zoo operated by public trusts or private entities with a pair of hog legs in finely tuned leather holsters with a bandolier of ammo around their shoulder, but once crossing the property line, they create a safe place by a wearing a cover. More great thinking by our legislators that makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Tanis143]

I find it amusing that legislators are OK with a person walking up to a park or zoo operated by public trusts or private entities with a pair of hog legs in finely tuned leather holsters with a bandolier of ammo around their shoulder, but once crossing the property line, they create a safe place by a wearing a cover. More great thinking by our legislators that makes absolutely no sense.

But the children! Think of the children! They are impressionable! (says the mom who lets her 10 year old play CoD or whichever FPS is popular now and listens to them curse like a sailor over the mic).

 

[JD8]

I find it amusing that legislators are OK with a person walking up to a park or zoo operated by public trusts or private entities with a pair of hog legs in finely tuned leather holsters with a bandolier of ammo around their shoulder, but once crossing the property line, they create a safe place by a wearing a cover. More great thinking by our legislators that makes absolutely no sense.

The pressure is coming from the Non-profit/trusts. It's not a matter of safe, it's a matter of the non-profits not being able to afford the insurance if they allow open carry. So while everyone here knows this won't do anything to deter real criminals they honestly don't care either way. They are trying to become compliant with standard (non-E&S insurance carriers) so they can afford to keep running the entity. For example, no matter the scenario if there was a shooting in self defense, momma and poppa BG are gonna sue every entity they can and see what sticks. This will include the non-profit, whom isn't under the city's umbrella. Unfortunately this is the way of commercial liability nowadays..... i.e contingent liability.

 

[dennishoddy]

The pressure is coming from the Non-profit/trusts. It's not a matter of safe, it's a matter of the non-profits not being able to afford the insurance if they allow open carry. So while everyone here knows this won't do anything to deter real criminals they honestly don't care either way. They are trying to become compliant with standard (non-E&S insurance carriers) so they can afford to keep running the entity. For example, no matter the scenario if there was a shooting in self defense, momma and poppa BG are gonna sue every entity they can and see what sticks. This will include the non-profit, whom isn't under the city's umbrella. Unfortunately this is the way of commercial liability nowadays..... i.e contingent liability.

Would they not sue the entity under the same scenario when a shooting happened by a person that was concealed carrying? I don't understand the difference?

 

[TerryMiller]

But the children! Think of the children! They are impressionable! (says the mom who lets her 10 year old play CoD or whichever FPS is popular now and listens to them curse like a sailor over the mic).

I don't do games, but I've heard that Fortnight is something else.

 

[JD8]

Would they not sue the entity under the same scenario when a shooting happened by a person that was concealed carrying? I don't understand the difference?

Sure they would. The problem is again, compliance with the carrier, not the actual act of being sued. The carrier will have stipulations before they agree to cover the property. I guarantee you, open carry would be one of them. Does it make sense from a loss standpoint? Nope. It's perceived contingent liability. Doesn't make it right, but it's the reality of the situation.

 

[dennishoddy]

I don't see the difference. A shooting is a shooting concealed or not, but I'll take your experience for the answer.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I sometimes OC and I don’t think I am tough. And I sure don’t do it for show. It’s more comfortable sometimes. And I don’t have a problem with someone using a thigh rig. Those are actually really easy to draw from. I try not judge people who OC. I don’t know them and I don’t pretend to. I sure don’t bad mouth them for doing it.

 

[Legend]

I still remember when the only organization looking out for our rights locally was the ORA.
History lesson, they were against us getting CCW.
Now we have this conversation, my how times have changed.

 

[Glocktogo]

On the original point, I'm not opposed to public trust parks banning open carry. CC IMO is more "polite" and so long as they're not trying to ban all carry, I think it's worth the compromise to get Constitutional Carry. JMO, YMMV!