/sigh
We've been over this many times before...
Self-defense is not a legitimate purpose under Oklahoma case-law. Furthermore, under Oklahoma case-law, the RKBA only includes those arms ordinarily carried by militiamen, and is not recognized as absolute (should be fairly evident by the wording used in the Oklahoma Constitution). Also, the SDA is cumulative to and not a replacement for established case-law.
Pierce v. State, 1929 OK CR 91, 42 Okl.Cr. 272, 275 P. 393
State v. Warren, 1998 OK 133, 975 P.2d 900
Gilio v. State, 2001 OK CIV APP 122, 33 P.3d 937
Keep in mind that Pierce also says that you cannot open carry on your private property, either.
We've been over this many times before...
Self-defense is not a legitimate purpose under Oklahoma case-law. Furthermore, under Oklahoma case-law, the RKBA only includes those arms ordinarily carried by militiamen, and is not recognized as absolute (should be fairly evident by the wording used in the Oklahoma Constitution). Also, the SDA is cumulative to and not a replacement for established case-law.
Pierce v. State, 1929 OK CR 91, 42 Okl.Cr. 272, 275 P. 393
State v. Warren, 1998 OK 133, 975 P.2d 900
Gilio v. State, 2001 OK CIV APP 122, 33 P.3d 937
Keep in mind that Pierce also says that you cannot open carry on your private property, either.