Mirge, it is my understanding from talking to a couple of attornies who deal w/ this type of situation that the phrasing on that is actually pretty good. That it's vague wording actually works in the citizen's favor, not the prosecutor's.
Would they be willing to be quoted? Might help gain some support behind the bill. Until then though, I'm not a fan of the bill. I don't want to be questioned by an officer should I decide to OC.
From what I can tell, OC this year is dead again.
Ask them to back up such a statement with their name attached to it. I would say "good luck" considering that such wording would be subject to the legal fiction of the reasonable man. A defense attorney would have to articulate why the defendant had a reasonable fear of bodily harm. This involves identifying the specific threat that existed as statistical vagaries such as an increasing crime are not necessarily enough for a reasonable man to become fearful.
A person carrying openly could still be arrested for unlawful carry with the original wording in HB1647. Does OK2A therefore, in supporting the original language of the bill, support the legal harassment of citizens who reasonably believe that they are following the law when they carry openly? The defendant would then need to show why he had a "reasonable fear of bodily harm". The State's job then is to show why that "fear" is not "reasonable". Unless specifics are given that could not reasonably be addressed another way, that should be an easy slam dunk for the State.
The reason I won't quote them is because it was in a private conversation and I wouldn't want to quote them on something that another person might consider as "legal advice" without their consent. But I'll ask if they mind going on record. As for being questioned by a police officer, as I've said, from the beginning we planned to add a line that says that a person cannot be detained or questioned by police for carrying open unless they are committing a crime already. I believe that would cover your concern, Mirge.
Veggie Meat, again, look at the wording that I have said we intended to add in the Senate numerous times. It is simple language that would have dealt with all the concerns mentioned. If they cannot detain you, then they cannot harrass you.
You have not mentioned specific wording, only the general idea that a citizen could not be detained unless they were committing a crime. Without being specific as to what crimes are included, they would technically be in violation of 21 O.S. § 1272 if they offered a reason to carry that the officer posing the question did not consider to constitute something to cause a "reasonable fear of bodily harm". The inherent vagueness would make available the opportunity for posing such question during detainment for a disturbing the peace or posing a public nuisance complaint based on carrying a firearm openly.
First of all, I don't see this conflict in Section 1272 that is going to cause such a problem with anything in Section 1289.6. However, here is the language I'm talking about:
First, we would have replaced Section 1289.6.A.6 to with: "When carried in a holster that is wholly or partially visible or in a scabbard, case or with a sling designed for carrying firearms that is wholly or partially visible and the person is eighteen (18) years of age or older. Any person who carries a firearm in the manner provided for in this paragraph shall be prohibited from carrying the firearm into any of the places prescribed in subsection A of Section 1277 of this title; or"
Second, we would have added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly openly holstered or concealed without probable casue that a crime has been committed." The exact location this language would be placed in the section is still being debated. But, it will be added as well.
Got an email back from ABbie Alford. Quick reply.
"I appreciate your insight and thank you for bringing these statistics to my attention. Would you mind attributing these statistics so if I report on a future open carry story I can include some of these statistics? Thank you again, I appreciate your efforts and your voice on this matter,"
By attribute the statistics does she just mean telling her how I got them? Because I just took the Census Bureau-sourced 2010 census information from Wikipedia on the percentages of the U.S. population that live in each state that has similar laws to what's being proposed here. (The sum of the percentages of the populations of WA, OR, ID, NV, SD, AZ, CO, NE, KS, WI, MI, LA, AL, OH, PA, WV, DE, NC, VA, and KY). I'll work on finding a non-Wikipedia source, even though the numbers came straight from the 2010 census.
"I appreciate your insight and thank you for bringing these statistics to my attention. Would you mind attributing these statistics so if I report on a future open carry story I can include some of these statistics? Thank you again, I appreciate your efforts and your voice on this matter,"
By attribute the statistics does she just mean telling her how I got them? Because I just took the Census Bureau-sourced 2010 census information from Wikipedia on the percentages of the U.S. population that live in each state that has similar laws to what's being proposed here. (The sum of the percentages of the populations of WA, OR, ID, NV, SD, AZ, CO, NE, KS, WI, MI, LA, AL, OH, PA, WV, DE, NC, VA, and KY). I'll work on finding a non-Wikipedia source, even though the numbers came straight from the 2010 census.
I think she means could you write the story for me, get it past my anti gun editor, and not tell anyone you wrote it.
