The SYG law does not allow you to protect your house, car, boat, train, etc with deadly force. It allows you to protect yourself against violent felony criminal attack anywhere but gives you extra consideration if you are in an inclosure where you have a right to be.
Thanks for all the helpfull info
Can someone clarify this for me?
My vehicle does not have a trunk. It is a small SUV. I do not yet have my CCW although my application is submitted. I often carry my unloaded pistol and two loaded mags in a case on the floor. From the sound of this i am transporting it illegally. Can someone verify this for me, preferably pointing me towards the correct and current law? Would it be legal if the case was locked?
Also, do we still have SYG now or has it moved to Castle Doctrine? If so, anyone have that law?
Thanks
B
I know I'm late to the party, but I thought I'd toss in my 2 cents anyhow.
Section 1289.25 is titled "Physical or Deadly Force Against an Intruder" and primarily it deals with intruders on your property (residence) and your personal vehicle. You'll note that it specifically says you don't have to be licensed to use a 'pistol' to defend your residence. And that's true since you don't have to be licensed to carry to keep a weapon in your home.
Section D deals with when you are away from your residence and goes into the topic of 'places where you have a right to be'. Since you are presumably away from your residence or vehicle if you fall into this part of things, the first requisite would be to be carrying your weapon legally at that location. This is the part of the law that provides your right to self defense while walking back to your car after that scary visit to WalMart or as you leave the AMC with the wife and kids and are met by some assailant. Or you are sitting in Luby's calmly enjoying a meal when some lunatic with an assault rifle decides to turn it into a drive through.
What I find decidedly odd about it all is that Oklahoma's laws still almost require you to shoot to kill if your weapon is drawn and aimed, or even just drawn. If you pull it out just to scare the wannabee bad guy off, then he can go cry "assault! assault with a deadly weapon" to the nearest badge he can find, and now who's in deep, dark, stinky stuff?
for listening.
Section 1289.25 is titled "Physical or Deadly Force Against an Intruder" and primarily it deals with intruders on your property (residence) and your personal vehicle. You'll note that it specifically says you don't have to be licensed to use a 'pistol' to defend your residence. And that's true since you don't have to be licensed to carry to keep a weapon in your home.
Section D deals with when you are away from your residence and goes into the topic of 'places where you have a right to be'. Since you are presumably away from your residence or vehicle if you fall into this part of things, the first requisite would be to be carrying your weapon legally at that location. This is the part of the law that provides your right to self defense while walking back to your car after that scary visit to WalMart or as you leave the AMC with the wife and kids and are met by some assailant. Or you are sitting in Luby's calmly enjoying a meal when some lunatic with an assault rifle decides to turn it into a drive through.
What I find decidedly odd about it all is that Oklahoma's laws still almost require you to shoot to kill if your weapon is drawn and aimed, or even just drawn. If you pull it out just to scare the wannabee bad guy off, then he can go cry "assault! assault with a deadly weapon" to the nearest badge he can find, and now who's in deep, dark, stinky stuff?
for listening.
Not really. Oklahoma law says you have no duty to retreat in any place you have a legal right to be in, not just your home or car.
See above. In addition, if your are carrying concealed in a posted place it does not necessarily mean you are breaking the law. If discovered the business owner has the right to ask you to leave, and if you don't it is a trespass, but just because it is posted does not make it illegal.
That is totally wrong. I have heard people say that over and over, and honestly it is BS. If you have an occasion to pull your CCW, it is wise to call LEO before the BG and explain. Actually if it has escalated to that point, the bad guy is not wanting the attention. Everyone needs to remember pulling your weapon is the last resort, not the first. You are required to meet like force with like force. In other words, you don't pull your gun when someone slaps you. You must be in fear of death or have a reason to expect great bodily harm. For that to happen, there needs to be a disparity of force. Refer back to your CCL class. Do you have a CCL?
What I find decidedly odd about it all is that Oklahoma's laws still almost require you to shoot to kill if your weapon is drawn and aimed, or even just drawn. If you pull it out just to scare the wannabee bad guy off, then he can go cry "assault! assault with a deadly weapon" to the nearest badge he can find, and now who's in deep, dark, stinky stuff?
I've never understood the logic of killing someone to keep from getting a brandishing/assault charge. That's just dumb. You think you're in deep dark stinky stuff for pointing a weapon, just wait until you shoot and kill someone and see how your day goes.
If I have reason to believe that somebody has entered my house with any ill intent whatsoever, I will shoot them only as many times as I have rounds in whatever gun or guns I have laying on my bedside table. And I will be really angry if they bleed on my rug! One man's interpretation of the castle doctrine, I guess you could say.
The only part I don't like is that they actually have to be entering unlawfully IN FACT for you to be immune. This means that even if you have the reasonable belief that they are unlawfully entering, if they are in fact LAWFULLLY entering and you pop them, you are no longer immune.
A recent story out of Virginia made me think about this... a young man had just been broken into so he bought a pistol. One night while he was sleeping, he was awakened by somebody kicking in his door. He walked in and saw a big armed guy in all black busting through his door, so he shot several times, hitting him in the head and killing him. Turns out it was a plainclothes Sheriff serving a no-knock warrant in the middle of the night. So even though from the guy's perspective he was just defending himself from an unknown intruder, the entry was in fact lawful because it was pursuant to a warrant. Virginia has a statute just like ours. The guy went to prison over this. Turns out the time he was broken into before, it was a police informant, who would break into the houses of people the police suspected and would tell them if there were drugs in there, and the cops would use his testimony to get a warrant. He saw the guy's banana plant he had in his garage on a heat lamp and told cops the guy was growing weed. Virginia's law sent a man to jail who wasn't doing anything wrong and just did what anyone who is interested in continuing to live would do in his situation.
I bet if we opened up this law to include even LAWFUL entries that a reasonable man in the position of the defendant would believe to be unlawful, it would make cops be a lot more careful when executing warrants, and might make them think twice about using the dangerous practice of no-knock, after dark warrants.
A recent story out of Virginia made me think about this... a young man had just been broken into so he bought a pistol. One night while he was sleeping, he was awakened by somebody kicking in his door. He walked in and saw a big armed guy in all black busting through his door, so he shot several times, hitting him in the head and killing him. Turns out it was a plainclothes Sheriff serving a no-knock warrant in the middle of the night. So even though from the guy's perspective he was just defending himself from an unknown intruder, the entry was in fact lawful because it was pursuant to a warrant. Virginia has a statute just like ours. The guy went to prison over this. Turns out the time he was broken into before, it was a police informant, who would break into the houses of people the police suspected and would tell them if there were drugs in there, and the cops would use his testimony to get a warrant. He saw the guy's banana plant he had in his garage on a heat lamp and told cops the guy was growing weed. Virginia's law sent a man to jail who wasn't doing anything wrong and just did what anyone who is interested in continuing to live would do in his situation.
I bet if we opened up this law to include even LAWFUL entries that a reasonable man in the position of the defendant would believe to be unlawful, it would make cops be a lot more careful when executing warrants, and might make them think twice about using the dangerous practice of no-knock, after dark warrants.
Similar threads
