But try it while mowing your lawn in mid-town and you aren't going to enjoy the response very much.
- Status
But try it while mowing your lawn in mid-town and you aren't going to enjoy the response very much.
That is correct, according to the research I have done.
see Fritz Pierce v State
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...+v+state&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1
Pierce v State also found that a pistol was not part of the state's RKBA
The Gilio v State case reviews Open Carry a bit and does not overturn Pierce, but affirms it
http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw...=eeCN.Gjea.aadj.edCN&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
"As the law now is in this state, a person may lawfully own and possess any of the weapons named in sections 1991, 1992, [pistols and revolvers] and may move such weapons from room to room in their place of residence, but may not wear them on their person and transport them about the yard as shown by the evidence to have been done by the defendant in this case. 42 Okla. Crim. at 279, 275 P. at 395."
Did any of this from case one change with the castle doctrine? as the Castle doctrine passed after this second case was heard??
The second case you mentioned was more about the fact the permit holder had a SDA permit and lied to the deputies about having a concealed firearm when he was asked, and weather he was legally required to divulge this information when asked? His compliant was had he not had the SDA he would not have had to divulge this information as they were in his home and not out in public property creating an unconstitutional double standard for permit holders and non permit holders.... he was not charged for the loaded guns, and they were returned before the deputies left.... which is fine as the deputies have a right to make sure they are safe when they are on a scene (since domestic abuse calls are the most dangerous time for officers).... but also if you read, this man who owns the house was not part of the domestic violence call... It was his daughter and son-in-law that were in the domestic altercation that were living at the residence.... he was levied a $50.00 fine for not divulging the concealed weapon to officers when asked as law states....
I do not think the officers should ask about firearms in the house but rather ask are there any firearms immediately present? because do the police officers really need to know about or have the legal right to ask about firearms in the house? like what is in my gun safe etc???? but they have every right to be secure in their investigation, so an immediate firearms could pose an immediate threat to a peace officer.... Sounds like to me the officers acted in a very professional manner in this case....
If you feel like reading it, they spoke about the "Make My Day Law" in the case opinion
And Heller v DC was just about pistols. The portion I quoted contained part of the relevant laws that resulted in the reversal of the initial Gilio decision. The SDA part of Gilio is immaterial, it is only relevant that Pierce /Open Carry decision was agreed with in 2001.
Was the case opinion in there??? I read through real quick.. wife, daughter and her friends all bugging me (not a bad thing but hard to concentrate) etc....
I find this amazing I have never had a bit of problem with open carry on my property....
Yep, the second link was the opinion of the appeals court on Gilio v State.
You'll probably never have a problem open carrying in your own yard, most police don't bother with it and only that ********* DA around Tulsa would bother prosecuting anyway.
I guess it is a good thing I live west of okc area for just a few more months.... then off to live on our farm in very rural NW oklahoma....
thank you for the information.... very interesting....
Where is the list of exempted places for open carry on my own property? I am very confused about this and after reading the Stand Your (My) Ground, Make My Day and SDA. Just point me at it and I will be more than happy to read it. Thank you.
21-1272 is correct.
- Status
Similar threads
