It's complicated, but don't do it. If you are caught, you'll be arrested and charged with violating 1277, and that will make your life hell. It sounds like common practice is for election boards to lease private facilities (even when they say it's donated) for $50, which means it is possible it becomes a prohibited place (depending on the legal definition of "conducting business with the public"). The other problem is that poll workers are technically appointed government officials for the day (they're sworn in by a judge the morning of the election as I understand), and it's likely a prosecutor would argue that a polling place is a "meeting" of the appointed poll workers. It's my opinion that both lines of logic stretch the legislative intent of the law pretty far, but that won't stop them from charging you.
It's complicated, but don't do it. If you are caught, you'll be arrested and charged with violating 1277, and that will make your life hell. It sounds like common practice is for election boards to lease private facilities (even when they say it's donated) for $50, which means it is possible it becomes a prohibited place (depending on the legal definition of "conducting business with the public"). The other problem is that poll workers are technically appointed government officials for the day (they're sworn in by a judge the morning of the election as I understand), and it's likely a prosecutor would argue that a polling place is a "meeting" of the appointed poll workers. It's my opinion that both lines of logic stretch the legislative intent of the law pretty far, but that won't stop them from charging you.
Like Ethan said, 21-1277 applies.
It has pretty much been validated by the charges filed against him, his guilty plea, and his receipt of a deferred sentence, D.A. supervision (a.k.a the DA slush fund), and associated fines/penalties.
So, regardless of any contrary opinion, it's pretty much the law of the land now, unless someone wants to step up to be test case #2 LOL. I'm sure Ethan would not encourage anyone to go that route.
Yes and no.
You're right that I wouldn't recommend anyone test this again. It was indescribably costly for me in terms of the anxiety and uncertainty of the situation. If I had ever thought that I would have been arrested you could never have convinced me to carry into a polling place. In the end, it is very likely illegal, and it is incumbent on us as lawful citizens to honor the law.
However, whether the simple act of carrying a firearm into a polling place is a violation of 21 O.S. 1277 still has not been tested in court. Since my case didn't go to trial, there is no case law. The facts of my case were never argued in court, so a summary of my case is that charges were filed and I accepted a plea bargain. I screwed up bad enough that, had I even wanted to go to trial (didn't), my case would have been a poor test case and I almost definitely would have been convicted.
That doesn't mean someone else couldn't come along and test it, go to trial, and win. I still think that even in the most favorable circumstances they would lose because the law is vague enough to fit polling places in. It's such a small issue, though. If someone disagrees with it, it would be better for them to try to change it legislatively, not judicially.
Ultimately, I think the correct course of action is to act as if 1277 expressly lists polling places from now on.
Mr. Sisson, you sound like a much more reasonable man than the media made you out to be (and definitely more reasonable than some of the armchair lawyers here).
In the end guys, THIS is the crux of the deal. He didn't set out to be a test case. I have all kinds of respect for this man because he did what he thought was right, was reasonable about it it seems and when he found out he was wrong he manned-up and dealt with the situation without a lot of unnecessary carrying on ....
Testing the boundaries of laws as they are written by trying to circumvent the reasonable interpretation of said laws (i.e., arguing that a polling place is not a "protected facility" under the law is just ludicrious). You guys have plenty of places you can open carry without making a scene at some place you really shouldn't be making a scene. After all, open carry's not about making a scene, or showing off, it's about protecting yourself, right??
It means a lot for you to say this and to care enough to understand what this has been like from my perspective.
Last edited:
Similar threads
