Sample letter to my bank about gun buster signs.

[KOPBET]

No.

Ad hominem much?

Wasn't ad hominem, unless of course you consider romance novels worthy of attack. You made up a fictional scenario, similar to fictional romance novels. If you refuse to carry into a bank based on that ridiculous scenario then that's up to you. Perhaps you should restrict yourself to the drive-through. For the rest of us, we go on with what we are doing (and carry) without worrying if a meteor is going to fall on us when we walk out the door.

 

[Belthos]

Wasn't ad hominem, unless of course you consider romance novels worthy of attack. You made up a fictional scenario, similar to fictional romance novels. If you refuse to carry into a bank based on that ridiculous scenario then that's up to you. Perhaps you should restrict yourself to the drive-through. For the rest of us, we go on with what we are doing (and carry) without worrying if a meteor is going to fall on us when we walk out the door.

I didn't say anything about whether or not I'd carry into the bank.
I'm saying that if you chose to carry into a bank that you know prohibits guns on their property AND you have reason to use that weapon in self defense you are in a far worse legal situation than if you chose to do business at a bank that didn't interfere with your right to bear arms.

You have the right to bear arms.
People who own private property have the right to enjoy their property, this includes forbidding you from entering their property armed.
You have the right to do business elsewhere if they won't listen to reason.

 

[Souperphly]

The sign said you cannot carry, but you did and you pull your gun and fire in self defense, Mr methhead is crippled but lives.
The bullet passed through the methhead and injures or kills an employee of the bank or another customer.

You can be sued, because the immunity you get from the self defense act only applies if you have the legal right to be there.
You violated the banks right by carrying into a location that forbids it.

I could be wrong but I don't think SD immunity would apply in this situation regardless of the sign, immunity only applies to the bad guy or his family suing you, not the innocent person struck by your stray round.

 

[rebelracer79]

The reason it matters is simple.

Lets say nothing happens in the bank. Then it doesn't matter if you have a gun, open, concealed or no gun at all.

Lets say you are in the bank when a person bursts into the bank high on meth and executes a bank teller before demanding one of the survivors get him a million dollars and he'll kill a mother@#$%ing customer every minute until his demand is met.

The sign said you cannot carry, but you did and you pull your gun and fire in self defense, Mr methhead is crippled but lives.
The bullet passed through the methhead and injures or kills an employee of the bank or another customer.

You can be sued, because the immunity you get from the self defense act only applies if you have the legal right to be there.
You violated the banks right by carrying into a location that forbids it.

Even if you manage to avoid criminal charges, you could easily lose $100,000 in attorney fees in civil actions and that doesn't count damages if you are found liable by a jury of 6 or 12 people not smart enough to avoid jury duty in the civil cases.

Crappy scenario, but the guy with the gun and the rest of the people in the bank are alive cause he ignored the sign...

 

[KOPBET]

I'm saying that if you chose to carry into a bank that you know prohibits guns on their property AND you have reason to use that weapon in self defense you are in a far worse legal situation than if you chose to do business at a bank that didn't interfere with your right to bear arms.

Of course in your described scenario people are being murdered in the bank, so I would assume the far worse legal situation you speak of is not having a will and who your estate executor will be.

And, I guess you missed this part in the OP...

major concern is open carry - they don't have a problem with properly concealed. I have been carrying concealed till the signs went up.

 

[WessonOil]

Why?

Just curious.

Because if he had to use his conceal carry gun, he'd still possibly be seeing some legal problems.

My conceal carry gun is as big as a 1911..it's an M&P Pro.
I know it prints and bulges when I carry it, but I no longer have to worry about being gigged for it.
If I "concealed" it, then it may get noticed, and me be made to leave the premises.

I think he had a very legitimate question.

 

[Dukester]

That's why I like Arvest. Their sign says, "No Open Carry".

 

[WessonOil]

That's why I like Arvest. Their sign says, "No Open Carry".

Yep, all I ask for is a chance to protect myself, and I can do that concealed.

 

[KOPBET]

Because if he had to use his conceal carry gun, he'd still possibly be seeing some legal problems.

.

Based on what premise? Previous case examples please.

Maybe you guys should just stick to the drive through where it's safe.

 

[Sanford]

From:

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized

Title 21. Crimes and Punishments

Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons

Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971

Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder​

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.

... for whatever it's worth.