p
Yet, both locations have multiple gun shows throughout the year, with probably a large number of CC folks attending. Is it a matter of tolerance, acceptance, appearance, or just not worth the effort to enforce?
Yet, both locations have multiple gun shows throughout the year, with probably a large number of CC folks attending. Is it a matter of tolerance, acceptance, appearance, or just not worth the effort to enforce?
I thought only certain areas of the Tulsa fairgrounds were prohibited. According to Wanenmacher :
All guns must be unloaded and tied inoperable. A crowded gun show is no place for a loaded gun.
Can I bring a gun to sell or trade?
Bring as many guns as you can carry.(no carts) They must be unloaded in the building.
CONCEALED CARRY?
Bring it, but unload it before you get in the building. Guards can hold your ammo at the door so you don't have to walk through parking lot unarmed
OPEN CARRY?
Bring it, but unload it before you get in the building.
http://www.tulsaarmsshow.com/homenoframes.html
Isn't this state law still in effect https://newsok.com/article/2550599/state-fairs-gun-ban-called-bluff?
IANAL, but...
I believe the section referencing the Fairgrounds is under Subsection B, which states:
"B. For purposes of subsection A of this section, the prohibited place does not include and specifically excludes (emphasis mine)the following property:"
and then
"...Any property designated by a city, town, county or state governmental authority as a park, recreational area,
wildlife refuge, wildlife management area or fairgrounds (emphasis mine); provided, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to authorize any entry by a
person in possession of a concealed or unconcealed handgun into any structure, building or office space which is specifically prohibited
by the provisions of subsection A of this section;"
To me that says that the fairgrounds are okay, but the buildings contained on the fairgrounds are no-go since they are owned/operated/leased by the city.
Also, the liability they mention is removing any liability for schools that adopt a policy allowing guns to be carried, unless negligence/etc, or that is how I read it. Again, IANAL.
Not sure where the link(HB3353) in my post you're replying to came from, could have sworn I linked to SB 288 BUSINESS OWNER'S RIGHTS
which states...
provided that carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm may be prohibited in the following places:
3. The fairgrounds during the Oklahoma State Fair or the Tulsa State Fair;
And the liability issue I was referring to was this,
F. A person, property owner, tenant, employer, holder of an event permit, place of worship or business entity that
does or does not prohibit any individual except a convicted felon from carrying a loaded or unloaded, concealed or
unconcealed weapon on property that the person, property owner, tenant, employer, holder of an event permit,
place of worship or business entity owns, or has legal control of, is immune from any liability arising from that decision.
State Fair;
I brought up the liability issue in reference to what has been done in Tennessee...
The state of Tennessee is adding an interesting responsibility to the concealed carry debate. As of July 1, the state passed a law that business owners who demand that law-abiding concealed carry permit holders disarm themselves inside their business are responsible for the safety of those permit holders. The law, which was part of SB 1736, places liability for injuries received while on no-carry properties on the business owners who disarmed the patron.
https://americanconcealed.com/artic...-liability-on-businesses-that-disarm-patrons/
Ah, that makes more sense. Yes, it does definitely read that way now, and more so, I just checked the SDA and it shows the same in the published version. I stand corrected, and should have checked the SDA as well as the link. That is very disappointing that exceptions keep getting carved out. I did find one lawyer's website talking about it and saying that it's under the same category as walking past a sign in terms of penalty, and while IANAL and he is; that's not a risk I feel like taking, plus I don't like to give money to those who don't want the business of concealed carriers.
As for the liability law, I definitely like Tennessee's version much better than ours, but at least ours gives immunity for allowing carriers as well. But, Tennessee's makes more sense, allow someone to be responsible for their own security, or you are; not neither.
As shown in the "Carrying at the fair" thread there's room for confusion when it should be clear and easy to understand.
I like what Tennessee did also, seems reasonable that if someone stops a person from being allowed to protect themselves then they should take on that responsibility.
https://www.readfrontier.org/storie...-on-rules-enforcement-at-the-gathering-place/
Received the above link in an email from OK2A
Received the above link in an email from OK2A
"OK2A
The group that started the furor, the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, held a rally outside the Gathering Place earlier this month to advocate for more open gun rights inside the park.
Perhaps it was partly due to the dreary weather (and relative lack of parking spaces at the park) but the rally went off with more of a whimper than a bang.
Still, a few dozen firearm advocates stood in the rain and listened to OK2A president Don Spencer, and state Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, for a short time. Then a few supporters, including Tim Harpe — the man who was recorded being kicked out of the park for open carrying a firearm during the grand opening — walked unbothered through the Gathering Place."
What's sad is that only a couple dozen showed up. If that had been anti gun, thousands would have shown up, mostly paid to do so, but numbers matter.
I'm a member of OK2A but I sure didn't get an email or text to show up.
I'm contacting them to see why. BTW, where is the Oklahoma Rifle Association on this subject? They claim to be advocates of the 2A?
Interesting article on multiple levels - thanks for posting. An article on this subject appears to be posted on the Tulsa World site this morning but I can't access it due to their paywall.
As to the article - loved the dancing around the issue about whether the park is public or private. When a lawyer tells you that there is no way to defend your position, the smart play is to admit the obvious and comply with that which you can defend. The Kaisers and the City of Tulsa thought they could pull off a version of three-card monte with the various subterfuges they executed in turning a public agency property to private use. They are pulling a similar scam at 71st & Riverside in the attempt to get an REI store built on public property that is part of the River Parks Authority.
This is going to be a hard lesson for TPD to learn. It may require a few civil rights proceedings that put the officers' livelihood and assets at risk to get the notorious hard cases in the public events division to adjust their attitude.
I’m of the opinion that TPD was put into a difficult position in reguard to policing this park and they were just trying to make the best out of a bad situation.
Similar threads
