Places that are off limits for CCW?

[7point82]

Sorry JP I know you were wanting specific places but I think this is relavent.



There was quite a lengthy discussion on this topic over on GlockTalk.... http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=407684&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=1


The way it was explained at my SDA class was like this: If you have been notified either verbally or in writing that you can not carry concealed somewhere and you still chose to carry there that you are not covered under the OK SDA law and are therefore carrying illegally.

Thanks for posting the link to that thread. I was not aware that there was any confusion or conflicting opinions on the matter. I had always heard that it was NOT a criminal issue. Looks like I'll be sending some letters to our legislators requesting some clear language be added to the SDA one way or the other.

 

[madmax]

Hey Everyone,

First time poster here. This particular issue really has me bugged. I've read through all the posts in the link, and all the posts in this thread as well. The LEO on the other site seems convinced that carrying in a place with a sign that says "no firearms" is a crime and punishable as a misdemeanor yet:

1. I see no provision in the statute indicating any specifics of what a business owner must do in order to alert folks that no weapons are allowed on his/her premises.

2. Without such specifics, it would seem that anyone could reasonably and innocently fail to be aware that the owner has made any such prohibition. (The sign wasn't obvious, you were preoccupied on entry into the business, etc.)



I really think this issue needs to be addressed and clarified with some kind of explicit ammendments to the statute.

 

[NikatKimber]

2. Without such specifics, it would seem that anyone could reasonably and innocently fail to be aware that the owner has made any such prohibition. (The sign wasn't obvious, you were preoccupied on entry into the business, etc.)



I really think this issue needs to be addressed and clarified with some kind of explicit ammendments to the statute.

It does need to be clarified. the "not obvious" could be valid, but "preoccupied" isn't in my opinion. that'd be like saying "i wasn't paying attention so i didn't see the speed limit sign."

 

[madmax]

It does need to be clarified. the "not obvious" could be valid, but "preoccupied" isn't in my opinion. that'd be like saying "i wasn't paying attention so i didn't see the speed limit sign."

Hmm. I can understand the obligation to pay attention while driving a motor vehicle. But somehow just walking into a store while talking with one's kids or wife, it doesn't seem the same. I suppose if the sign is an obvious one that stands out from all the other posters and such that cover most storefront windows, that'd be different.

 

[SMS]

I would like to hear the explanation about that because they are conducting business with the public. You walk in and buy a RV, buy a sandwich, etc. I will go with what my SDA instructor told me because this specific question was asked about carrying at the fair. I am avoiding the fair anyway. Too many freaks.


Hub

sure, but you are not buying the RV, sandwich or whatever from the State or local government are you? Therefore the SDA clause doesn't apply in that situation.

You are right though, the freak factor is getting too high to really enjoy it with the kids.

 

[skyydiver]

sure, but you are not buying the RV, sandwich or whatever from the State or local government are you? Therefore the SDA clause doesn't apply in that situation.

You are right though, the freak factor is getting too high to really enjoy it with the kids.

+1

and +1, but we'll still go. The wife won't let me off that easy. And the kids enjoy the mullet watching.

 

[trade_sniper]

A buddy asked me about this scenario. He works in a multi-story office building that rents office space out of the building, so several companies occupy the offices inside. His employer doesn't have any particular policy on carrying, basically it doesn't say you can't. The building has a gun ghostbuster sticker on the main entry doors. Not on the very outside rather, but on the second set of doors once you enter the building, but still in the entry way.

If he was carrying, working late one evening, he's attacked before he gets to his car and draws his weapon. It could be determined that he hadn't reached his car yet when he was attacked, so therefore, he had the gun on him, which means he was carrying in the building. He may have saved his life, but in doing so, will he lose his SDA, preventing him from having that liberty in the future?

I see from Title 21 Section 1276 that he would be charged with a misdemeanor, fined or jailed. It also states that your SDA would be suspended for six months and another fine levied once the hearing and determination by the OSBI shows that the person was in violation.

The first fine or jail time varies depending on whether or not its the first, second, etc. offense. The SDA suspension and accompanying fine doesn't state any specifics for number of offenses or whether it would become a revocation instead of suspension.

 

[SMS]

1276 applies to those who violate 1272 and 1273....Neither of which apply to the SDA permit holder in the hypothetical you put forward.

The new "stand your ground" law doesn't create the right to self defense in public places, it merely codifies it......we've always been able to defend ourselves in public, but sometimes the legal system opened you up to attack by money hungry lawyers or DAs with an agenda.

So your buddy would be fine, as long as had his SDA permit and the shooting was deemed justifiable.

 

[CoryHawk]

I see from Title 21 Section 1276 that he would be charged with a misdemeanor, fined or jailed. It also states that your SDA would be suspended for six months and another fine levied once the hearing and determination by the OSBI shows that the person was in violation.

This has been debated here many times. There is no law in Oklahoma (such as in Texas where a SPECIFIC sign must be posted to make carry illegal).

Basically.. as I understand it, and as a few LEO's here have tip toed around, business owners can post the sign but there is nothing illegal about carrying there save a Trespass, and even then you must refuse to leave when asked. Your firearm should be concealed anyway so it should be a non issue. As long as you don't carry into any of the CLEARLY stated places in the law.. you should be fine.

 

[NikatKimber]

the first time it is a trespass is what i understand, it's not clear in the law. there are no prescribed consequences that i have found. however, if the business place chose to, they can terminate employment for violating company policy, but there have not been state laws violated to my understanding.