Oklahoma HB1059 - SDA Amendment

[NikatKimber]

Next change is school property.

POSSESSION OF FIREARM ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
B. “School property” means any publicly or privately owned
property held for purposes of elementary, or secondary or
vocational-technical education, and shall not include property owned
by public school districts or private educational entities where
such property is leased or rented to an individual or corporation
and used for purposes other than educational.

This simply removes vo-tech schools from the barred list. Good.

POSSESSION OF FIREARM ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
C. Firearms and weapons are allowed on school property and
deemed not in violation of subsection A of this section as follows:
1. A gun or knife designed for hunting or fishing purposes kept
in a locked privately owned vehicle and properly displayed or stored
as required by law, or a handgun carried in a vehicle pursuant to a
valid handgun license authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act,
provided such vehicle containing said gun or knife is driven onto
school property only to transport a student to and from school and
such vehicle does not remain unattended on school property;
2. A handgun carried in a vehicle by a person in possession of
a valid handgun license issued pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense
Act on any property set aside for the use or parking of any vehicle,
whether attended or unattended, provided the handgun is hidden from
plain view and locked in a vehicle or locked in a compartment that
is securely attached to the vehicle;

I wish they had just changed the whole section to allow any gun/knife to be stored in a vehicle on school grounds provided it was secured. However, it is still a positive step here: they allow for a CHL holder to carry onto school grounds provided it is secured.

 

[NikatKimber]

Next change is punishment for possession on school property.

POSSESSION OF FIREARM ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
D. Any person violating who has not been issued a handgun
license pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act and who violates
the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, be guilty of
a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars
($5,000.00), and imprisonment in the custody of the Department of
Corrections for not more than two (2) years.
E. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this
section after having been issued a handgun license pursuant to the
provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall have the license
permanently revoked and shall be liable for an administrative fine
of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) upon a hearing and determination by
the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that the person is in
violation of the provisions of this section, upon conviction, be
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed Two
Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).

Previously, there was no misdemeanor, but you permanently lost your carry permit. Here, you get a misdemeanor, but don't necessarily lose your permit permanently. Oh, the fine is $250 instead of $100 as before.


Changes in what will preclude you from getting the CHL

OTHER PRECLUSIONS
A.
10. An arrest for an alleged commission of, a misdemeanor
offense or a misdemeanor charge pending for, or the in this state or
another state. The preclusive period shall be until the final
determination of the matter; or

As changed:
"10. An arrest for an alleged commission of a misdemeanor
offense or a misdemeanor charge pending in this state or
another state. The preclusive period shall be until the final
determination of the matter; or"

So if you have an arrest or charge pending for a misdemeanor you are precluded until it is resolved? That doesn't make sense. If you get convicted, you're still fine? Just can't have a charge or arrest?

 

[NikatKimber]

Businesses

BUSINESS OWNER’S RIGHTS
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing
contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section
1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict
or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person,
property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the
possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the
person or business entity.
B. A property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity may
prohibit any person from carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm
on the property. If the building or property is open to the public,
the property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall post
signs on or about the property stating such prohibition.
C. The carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a
person who has been issued a handgun license on property that has
signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall not be a criminal
act but may subject the person to being denied entrance onto the
property or removed from the property. If the person refuses to
leave the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may
be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed One Hundred Dollars
($100.00).
D. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business
entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has
the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from
transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any
property set aside for any vehicle.

Subsection B says if it is open to the public, the business must be posted. IE, verbal warning DOES NOT count.
Subsection C says explicitly that it is not a crime, and that the fine is at most $100.

All good in my opinion.

 

[NikatKimber]

My opinion as a whole is that this is good, other than the removal of parks/fairgrounds from the legally allowed list, and the nosensical blanket misdemeanor charge/arrest statement (but not conviction).

 

[abajaj11]

Ok guys and gals, here is this individuals contact info in case anyone wants to let him know that his idea is a bad one

Capitol Address:
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd.
Room 435A
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 557-7414

Legislative Assistant:

Dana Reyna
(405) 557-7414

Email:

[email protected]

Called her up and talked to her. She was very nice and polite.
She said McCullough is pro-open carry and has no intention of banning it.
Apparently, last year he had some bill about requiring locks on holsters and (thankfully) that bill was defeated. But overall, he is for open carry and has no intention of proposing legislation to do away with it.
I quoted the BIll number to her (HB 1059 in 2013) and she said the House BIlls have not been assigned numbers yet. So not sure where the OP got the Bill from.
I finally ended by saying I am very much pro Open Carry and she said she did notthink it was ever going to be banned here.
SO maybe this is much ado about nothing...except I am curious where the OP got the Bill copy from.

PS: God, I love living in OK, after seeing the craziness of the folks in NY, Ill and other States, not to mention the circus that is the media and POTUS, talking to this lady was like a breath of fresh air.

 

[jrusling]

I really like a lot of the changes, but it does appear to ban open carry.

 

[Werewolf]

It appears to me that it is written in such a way that a strict interpration makes OC illegal.

3. For any person carrying a handgun with a valid handgun
license issued pursuant to the provision of the Oklahoma Self-
Defense Act to intentionally fail to conceal the handgun within the
meaning of the definition provided for in Section 1290.2 of this
title; provided, however, that accidental exposure of the handgun
shall not constitute an offense under the provisions of this
section.

That's the sneaky part. His intent may just be to clarify that accidental exposure when carrying concealed is no longer a crime but that's not the way it reads. The statement is ambiguous enough that OC is iffy IMO.

Then again IANAL. We need some of our legal eagles like JB or Henschman to weigh in on this.

 

[hrdware]

I don't think this is a backdoor anti OC bill. I do think the new language has a lot of gray area when it comes to what is intentional and unintentional exposure when concealed.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

Hate legalese. They should be required to supplement all bills with a legally binding version in English.

This is America dag nabbit!!! Speak Spanish!!!

 

[mons meg]

HB1059 for 2013 is on LSB...

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14 INT/hB/HB1059 INT.PDF