She signed it, fellas

[dowmace]

I haven't said much on the topic of open carry but the possibility of being stopped for no good reason because I'm open carrying creates an idea. Would there not be a market for a holster that has a slot on the outside that you could slide your license in so that anyone around could see you are carrying legally? Or is that a bad idea? Just popped into my head and I'm sure theres a serious problem with it but it sounded good.

 

[Glocktogo]

Did we not have the Second Amendment lets say in the era of Dodge City Kansas many years ago. If history is correct you had to check your hogleg when entering town. So maybe Midwest City might have the right to do what they are saying. In my judgement it should take a mature critical thinking person to carry a instrument of death. The true way of the Gun.
Is serious business. Not to be taken lightly. To organize a open carry show of force in Midwest City. To confront the Police is madness in my judgement. Some of the post I have been reading make no sense to me. To open carry in this day and time is going to be hard work. You best not have your head in your ass. Good Luck.

Short answer, no. Long answer, Oklahoma has a preemption law that forbids any county or municipality from making any laws on firearms. The state laws are it in Oklahoma as far as guns go. If MWC uses the wording of the law to actively discourage OC, then they are going to wind up on the wrong end of this law and will get spanked for it. They have certain authorities they can exercise, but not punitively.

I haven't said much on the topic of open carry but the possibility of being stopped for no good reason because I'm open carrying creates an idea. Would there not be a market for a holster that has a slot on the outside that you could slide your license in so that anyone around could see you are carrying legally? Or is that a bad idea? Just popped into my head and I'm sure theres a serious problem with it but it sounded good.[/QUOTE

Your SDA card has sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII) on it, which should be safeguarded. I wouldn't display mine for anyone but a LEO.

 

[rda1911]

It's going to be a nonissue in 60 days of implementation just like every other OC state. A few knuckle draggers will push the envelope at first and a few over zealous super cops will be spanked by a judge and we will all go on wiser. Rember the CCW and game enforcement officers busting hunters? The courts straightened it all out real quick and no more issues.

 

[BallisticBiker]

I've seen a handful of posters asking about displaying their licenses while open carrying...
Personally, I don't think that's a really good idea and here's one reason why - YOUR ADDRESS IS ON THE STUPID CARD.
Man...showing off the shiny steel isn't enough? Now, you want to show 'em where you keep it when you're not wearing it? People notice that sort of thing, ya know? Haven't you ever been next in line and noticed the person that's writing a check or has their ID out for whatever reason? Name and address is pretty damn easy to see, huh? A nefarious person can use that little tidbit of information in any number of unsavory ways...

After reading just about every post on the subject of "open carry" on this forum...I sure see much ado about nothing. A whole lot of people here are getting really excited and lots more are truly showing their asses on the subject. It really is going to be an interesting time for our great state during the transitional period of this new law going into effect....

Everyone is so quick to point out how responsible most permit holders are when discussing about businesses that have gun-buster signs. Has everybody forgotten how "responsible" permit holders are now that it's legal for our guns to be exposed? Seems like some guys are being elitist pricks on the subject and some are behaving like little kids that just got handed their first dirty magazine.

Carry your gun concealed or carry your gun exposed - just carry your gun. And continue to be responsible, please.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

Correct.

This scenario is not really a "Federal right" question. Officers do not have a right to make a stop, they have authority to make a stop, subject to the rights of the subject. In Terry, the court held that an officer performing a brief frisk does not violate the suspect's rights so long as there is some reasonable suspicion to believe he has done something nefarious. If a state wants to put a restriction on the officer's authority to do so, such restriction in no way steps on anybody's rights, nor would it offend the Court's ruling: it's the state saying "even though the feds say your authority may extend this far, we're not going to give you that much power." (Note that such a state rule would only apply to state and local agents; Federal authorities would not be subject to such restrictions.)

As to your scenario, it skips right over reasonable suspicion and hits probable cause pretty cleanly: torn clothes and blood suggest an altercation, and matching the description puts him in a specific altercation. The gun is almost irrelevant at that point, and if the officer is using the gun as the primary reason, instead of the torn, bloody clothes, well, he needs to go back to school on criminal procedure.

Thanks... I think I should get a "C" on todays work. LOL It's been a long time since I sat in those classes...

But the flip side is... he finds the same man in the same alley. But in fact, this man fell down the stairs or experienced some other injury prior to contact with that officer.

The way 1733 and other procedurals are written the officer has authority to disarm that person until he can clear up the situation... I guess all parties are at the same peril of they are today. In reality I can see 1733 ending up a "non problem" if everybody does their job

 

[Glocktogo]

FWIW, if you get injured and EMS shows up before the LEO's, most of them will not work you until the firearm has been secured by a LEO.

 

[HackerF15E]

It's going to be a nonissue in 60 days of implementation just like every other OC state.

This is it: once it's not a new thing, it will be essentially like it was before.

 

[sanjuro893]

Yeah, ya'll are probably right about the "new" wearing off. Personally, I'm pretty excited (probably WAY more than I should be) because there are many of us who spent a lot of time and effort over the past few years to get this done so that ALL of us could enjoy a little more freedom whether we choose to exercise it or not. This whole process has given me back a little faith in the system that we don't have to go to the "powers that be" with torches and pitchforks , demanding heads on a platter just yet to be able to exercise a right. I've already misunderstood a couple of things and stirred the pot in my excitement and for that I apologize.

 

[tntrex]

Remember when people use to have gun racks in the trucks?

Sure don't remember all the histerics being thought up here.

 

[Werewolf]

FWIW, if you get injured and EMS shows up before the LEO's, most of them will not work you until the firearm has been secured by a LEO.

Are you saying that there are EMT's out there that would allow an injured person to die rather than provide necessary medical aid just because the injured person had a firearm on them and no LEO was present to remove it?

Please. Tell me that's not what you're saying because if it is that's just seriously messed up - hell - messed up doesn't even begin to describe that - that's just evil! Any EMT so afraid of a gun that they would refuse to provide life saving care shouldn't be one.