Oklahoma HB1059 - SDA Amendment

[Werewolf]

I note McCullough did not address the removal of the parks and recreation area exemption from the prohibited places list. Not good. They should remain exempted from the the list of prohibited areas.

The fact that he wants to make them prohibited areas is disturbing and indicative of a politician who is reacting to events in a manner meant to curry favor with antis by using places children go regularly to appeal to their illogical reasoning process that by turning them into gun free zones they somehow become safer.

 

[abajaj11]

I note McCullough did not address the removal of the parks and recreation area exemption from the prohibited places list. Not good. They should remain exempted from the the list of prohibited areas.

The fact that he wants to make them prohibited areas is disturbing and indicative of a politician who is reacting to events in a manner meant to curry favor with antis by using places children go regularly to appeal to their illogical reasoning process that by turning them into gun free zones they somehow become safer.

He's a pro-2A guy. I'd cut him some slack. We win our freedoms one small step at a time.

 

[okiebryan]

I agree, while this language is awkward at best, and seriously messed up at worst, Rep McCullough is a pro 2A guy. We need to work with him on this to find out what he's trying to accomplish before anyone leads the charge for public stoning...

Has anyone invited him to this thread? It would be awesome if he would come here to respond.

 

[shooterdave]

Good idea, Bryan.

 

[NikatKimber]

I note McCullough did not address the removal of the parks and recreation area exemption from the prohibited places list. Not good. They should remain exempted from the the list of prohibited areas.

The fact that he wants to make them prohibited areas is disturbing and indicative of a politician who is reacting to events in a manner meant to curry favor with antis by using places children go regularly to appeal to their illogical reasoning process that by turning them into gun free zones they somehow become safer.

He didn't really address much of anything directly in his response. Considering he responded within 2 hours, I'm fine with that. He did say that he's willing work on the language. Considering the positive parts of this, I'd rather work on fixing the ambiguous or poor language than starting from scratch.

He is not my personal representative, and he responded quickly. Let him know of your concerns.

My assumption is that he was not intending to make parks/fairgrounds prohibited places, but that they would be covered under the "armed security and metal detectors clause." I'm with you on preferring to keep them on the explicitly legal list.

He's a pro-2A guy. I'd cut him some slack. We win our freedoms one small step at a time.

Not so much cut him slack, but work with him. This is basically a political version of a first draft.

I agree, while this language is awkward at best, and seriously messed up at worst, Rep McCullough is a pro 2A guy. We need to work with him on this to find out what he's trying to accomplish before anyone leads the charge for public stoning...

Has anyone invited him to this thread? It would be awesome if he would come here to respond.

I have now.

 

[hrdware]

I note McCullough did not address the removal of the parks and recreation area exemption from the prohibited places list. Not good. They should remain exempted from the the list of prohibited areas.

The fact that he wants to make them prohibited areas is disturbing and indicative of a politician who is reacting to events in a manner meant to curry favor with antis by using places children go regularly to appeal to their illogical reasoning process that by turning them into gun free zones they somehow become safer.

Unless there is a state law that says you can't carry at a park or recreation area, then by default, you can. And since the state has preemption, no need to worry about cities making up their own law about parks and recreation areas.

 

[Werewolf]

Unless there is a state law that says you can't carry at a park or recreation area, then by default, you can. And since the state has preemption, no need to worry about cities making up their own law about parks and recreation areas.

What???

The bill I read submitted by McCullough specifically removes the current prohibited place parks exemption. If that is done then no more carry in a park because as government owned properties open for business with the public they will become prohibited places.

NOTE the lines in the bill as submitted are lined out (can't show that in the quote) to remove this language from the current SDA prohibited places section:

4. Any property designated by a city, town, county, or state,
governmental authority as a park, recreational 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 into any structure, building, or office space which is
specifically prohibited by the provisions of subsection A of this
section.

Once that language is removed from the SDA parks... become prohibited. Period.

Talk to your buddy McCullough about this. He's lucky he isn't my rep or he'd be getting an earful.

 

[hrdware]

What???

The bill I read submitted by McCullough specifically removes the current prohibited place parks exemption. If that is done then no more carry in a park because as government owned properties open for business with the public they will become prohibited places.

NOTE the lines in the bill as submitted are lined out (can't show that in the quote) to remove this language from the current SDA prohibited places section:



Once that language is removed from the SDA parks... become prohibited. Period.

Talk to your buddy McCullough about this. He's lucky he isn't my rep or he'd be getting an earful.

Here is the prohibited places list:

UNLAWFUL CARRY IN CERTAIN PLACES

A. It shall be unlawful for any person in possession of a valid handgun license issued pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act to carry any concealed or unconcealed handgun into any of the following places:

1. Any structure, building, or office space which is owned or leased by a city, town, county, state, or federal governmental authority for the purpose of conducting business with the public;

2. Any meeting of any city, town, county, state or federal officials, school board members, legislative members, or any other elected or appointed officials;

3. Any prison, jail, detention facility or any facility used to process, hold, or house arrested persons, prisoners or persons alleged delinquent or adjudicated delinquent;

4. Any elementary or secondary school;

5. Any sports arena during a professional sporting event;

6. Any place where pari-mutuel wagering is authorized by law; and

7. Any other place specifically prohibited by law.

B. For purposes of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of subsection A of this section, the prohibited place does not include and specifically excludes the following property:

1. Any property set aside for the use or parking of any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, by a city, town, county, state, or federal governmental authority;

2. Any property set aside for the use or parking of any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, by any entity offering any professional sporting event which is open to the public for admission, or by any entity engaged in pari-mutuel wagering authorized by law;

3. Any property adjacent to a structure, building, or office space in which concealed or unconcealed weapons are prohibited by the provisions of this section; and

4. Any property designated by a city, town, county, or state, governmental authority as a park, recreational 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 into any structure, building, or office space which is specifically prohibited by the provisions of subsection A of this section.

Nothing contained in any provision of this subsection shall be construed to authorize or allow any person in control of any place described in paragraph 1, 2, 3, 5 or 6 of subsection A of this section to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person in lawful possession of a handgun license from possession of a handgun allowable under such license in places described in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 4 of this subsection.

No where in the prohibited places does in prohibit carry on government property. Prohibition in government buildings: check. Prohibition on government property: nope.

So unless you are reclassifying a a park, recreation area, or fairgrounds as a "structure, building, or office space" I don't see how carrying in a park will automatically become illegal.

For the record, McCullough is not my buddy nor my representative.

 

[Werewolf]

Lawyers and politicians and especially judges have a bad habit of twisting and interpreting laws to mean what ever they want them to mean. My GOD! They've taken a simple phrase like "shall not be infringed" and turned it into 20,000+ laws that don't work to do anything but infringe and now they're going to make even more.

In the current SDA parks, recration areas etc are specifically exempted. Why is that? Probably because the authors of the SDA wanted to make sure that some governmental entity orsome person thru civil action didn't try to make them a prohibited place based on the prohibited places listed.

3. Any property adjacent to a structure, building, or office space in which concealed or unconcealed weapons are prohibited by the provisions of this section; and

Guess what. There are two parks adjcent to and directly connected to the Del City library, a prohibited place. So that makes the little park outside the library and trosper park which is adjacent by way of a purposefully built asphalt trail from the library to it prohibited places. I can connect the dots and interpret the way the new SDA may be interpreted and so can anyone else - especially anyone else that doesn't like guns. All they have to do is convince a judge that's what the law means and - that's what the law will mean. How many LEOs might want to interpret it the same way?

People that don't like guns and don't think they should be in a citizen's hands or anywhere near them or anyone else will do what ever is necessary to get their way.

McCullough has either submitted a poorly worded piece of legislation or he has an agenda.

Why did he specifically remove the parks exemption?

WHY???

What is to be gained by removing it?

Why not leave the exemption in and remove all doubt that parks, recreation areas etc are OK places to carry.

That one exercise that purposely removes the exemption has the appearance of being just another political trick so McCullough can tell his anti buddies or those in his district - see - I removed parks as an exemption to prohibited places - either that or he's stupid - and I certainly don't think he's stupid.

He's pulled the wool over your eyes. Which is really a shame because OKOCA is gaining a voice in Oklahoma - don't throw it away by trying to cover for a stupidly crafted piece of legislation or worse yet one crafted for reasons you either refuse to acknowledge or have been fooled into believing that which is a lie.

 

[okiebryan]

Lawyers and politicians and especially judges have a bad habit of twisting and interpreting laws to mean what ever they want them to mean. My GOD! They've taken a simple phrase like "shall not be infringed" and turned it into 20,000+ laws that don't work to do anything but infringe and now they're going to make even more.

In the current SDA parks, recration areas etc are specifically exempted. Why is that? Probably because the authors of the SDA wanted to make sure that some governmental entity orsome person thru civil action didn't try to make them a prohibited place based on the prohibited places listed.



Guess what. There are two parks adjcent to and directly connected to the Del City library, a prohibited place. So that makes the little park outside the library and trosper park which is adjacent by way of a purposefully built asphalt trail from the library to it prohibited places. I can connect the dots and interpret the way the new SDA may be interpreted and so can anyone else - especially anyone else that doesn't like guns. All they have to do is convince a judge that's what the law means and - that's what the law will mean. How many LEOs might want to interpret it the same way?

People that don't like guns and don't think they should be in a citizen's hands or anywhere near them or anyone else will do what ever is necessary to get their way.

McCullough has either submitted a poorly worded piece of legislation or he has an agenda.

Why did he specifically remove the parks exemption?

WHY???

What is to be gained by removing it?

Why not leave the exemption in and remove all doubt that parks, recreation areas etc are OK places to carry.

That one exercise that purposely removes the exemption has the appearance of being just another political trick so McCullough can tell his anti buddies or those in his district - see - I removed parks as an exemption to prohibited places - either that or he's stupid - and I certainly don't think he's stupid.

He's pulled the wool over your eyes. Which is really a shame because OKOCA is gaining a voice in Oklahoma - don't throw it away by trying to cover for a stupidly crafted piece of legislation or worse yet one crafted for reasons you either refuse to acknowledge or have been fooled into believing that which is a lie.

Your quoted piece of state law is taken completely out of context, and means exactly the opposite of what you think it means. That's part of a list of places where you can be in possession of a handgun.

B. For purposes of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of subsection A of this section, the prohibited place does not include and specifically excludes the following property:

1. Any property set aside for the use or parking of any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, by a city, town, county, state, or federal governmental authority;

2. Any property set aside for the use or parking of any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, by any entity offering any professional sporting event which is open to the public for admission, or by any entity engaged in pari-mutuel wagering authorized by law;

3. Any property adjacent to a structure, building, or office space in which concealed or unconcealed weapons are prohibited by the provisions of this section; and

4. Any property designated by a city, town, county, or state, governmental authority as a park, recreational 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 into any structure, building, or office space which is specifically prohibited by the provisions of subsection A of this section.

Nothing contained in any provision of this subsection shall be construed to authorize or allow any person in control of any place described in paragraph 1, 2, 3, 5 or 6 of subsection A of this section to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person in lawful possession of a handgun license from possession of a handgun allowable under such license in places described in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 4 of this subsection.

Exactly none of what you predict is going to result from this bill, but Rep McCullough agrees that it's confusing.

I spoke to Rep McCullough today. Walked with him to a committee hearing. There is a committee substitute being filed tomorrow that will remove some of this language that is confusing you.