What Oklahoma law forbids open carry?

[flybeech]

Now, I'm thinking like a computer programmer here, not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. I believe the or in this clause indicates that if a new piece of legislation, such as the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, places a restriction on the legal means of carrying a firearm, then regardless of what the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971 states is legal, you are still in violation of Oklahoma Law if you are in violation of the newer legislation.

Referring to the SDA, TITLE 21 § 1289.6 CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH FIREARMS MAY BE CARRIED:

A. A person shall be permitted to carry loaded or unloaded shotguns, rifles and pistols, open and not concealed, and without a handgun license as authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1 through 26 of this act, pursuant to the following conditions:

6. For any legitimate purpose not in violation of the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971, Sections 1289.1 through 1289.17 of this title or any legislative enactment regarding the use, ownership and control of firearms.

What in the heck is "any legitimate purpose" if it isn't self defense as allowed in the Oklahoma SDA?

I'm hoping every devil's advocate chimes in with statutes, or cases where an otherwise lawful Oklahoman has been arrested and subsequently convicted of OC, because the law as I see it, allows OC in the State of Oklahoma. If it's legal now and nobody exercises OC because we all need a law that specifically grants us the right to exercise our 2A, then that is yet another freedom lost. Now, the legislature is considering allowing us to exercise our 2A, if we've taken the class, driven everywhere, paid hundreds of dollars, submitted fingerprints and a background check and waited months for our card. I'm thinking the proposed OC legislation is perhaps backdoor gun control and we'll end up thanking them for doing it.

I welcome anyone poking holes in my argument, because I'd rather y'all shoot at me than the police, when I try it. Call me crazy, but if no one can cite actual statute or a case where an otherwise law abiding Oklahoman has been arrested and convicted for OC, I'd really like to get some other ol' boys and march down Lincoln Blvd to the Capital, peacefully carrying guns, signs and cameras. I'm too chicken to go it alone, but I would be a part of a group. I sure wish an activist lawyer would get involved in an open carry march.

 

[okiebryan]

You have already had case law pointed out to you where Oklahoma Supreme Court found that self defense did not meet the standard of "any lawful purpose". Vague statute + overreaching case law = unambiguous law

 

[flybeech]

You have already had case law pointed out to you where Oklahoma Supreme Court found that self defense did not meet the standard of "any lawful purpose". Vague statute + overreaching case law = unambiguous law

To be sure I didn't miss anything, I've been given three cases, which are;

Pierce v State

OSBI v Warren

Gileo v OSBI

I'm not the expert that others here are, so I'll humbly explain my problem with each case that was presented as the reason that OC is illegal.

Pierce v State was long before the SDA and the act of 1971, so I would think that anything that was done under the Firearms Act of 1971 and SDA would take the teeth out of Pierce v State in that we can carry a revolver in our home. If that's not the case and Pierce v State trumps 1971 and SDA, then is 1971 and SDA invalid?

Weapons - Carrying Revolver Unlawful Even on One's Own Premises. Under section 1921, providing, "It shall be unlawful for any person in the state of Oklahoma to carry upon or about his person any pistol, revolver, bowie-knife, dirk-knife, loaded cane, billy, metal knuckles, or any other offensive or defensive weapon, except as in this article provided," held, that a defendant may be properly convicted of carrying on or about his person a revolver, and that the fact that the revolver is carried upon his person within the curtilage of his own premises is immaterial.)

If this is what makes OC illegal, then carrying a pistol in our house is illegal, since this case would trump the Act of 1971 and the SDA.

In OSBI v Warren, I fail to make the connection to the issuance or non-issuance of an SDA permit when the question was whether Warren was a felon, or not. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the gist of OSBI v Warren, how does this case relate to a lawful citizen openly carrying a firearm with or without any permit as seemingly allowed within the SDA?

In Gilio, v OSBI, Gilio (a permit holder) was fined for failing to reveal the presence of firearms to LE when they were inside his home. How does a case over a fine imposed on a CC permit holder relate to someone who openly carries a firearm, with or without a permit?

If these are the cases that make it illegal to OC in Oklahoma, I'm just too thick to see the connection. If these are the cases that prove that OC is illegal and show what an otherwise lawful citizen who OC's will be charged with and convicted of, I need further explanation from those who understand the logic better than I do.

 

[TerryMiller]

It has been pointed out to you and the statute given in an earlier post on the thread.

Good luck with nit-picking statutes and ignoring others.

 

[cw821]

The mans just trying to have conversation here about a something he's trying to understand better. No need to be rude to the man. I agree with him some and also with some already stated opinions. I too fail to see where either OSBI v Warren or Gileo v OSBI prohibit OC. I do see that Pierce v state prohibits it, and there was a very good dissenting opinion against, but even then the case would only apply to the home and yard thereof. IMHO

 

[kcatto]

To be sure I didn't miss anything, I've been given three cases, which are;

Pierce v State

OSBI v Warren

Gileo v OSBI

I'm not the expert that others here are, so I'll humbly explain my problem with each case that was presented as the reason that OC is illegal.

Pierce v State was long before the SDA and the act of 1971, so I would think that anything that was done under the Firearms Act of 1971 and SDA would take the teeth out of Pierce v State in that we can carry a revolver in our home. If that's not the case and Pierce v State trumps 1971 and SDA, then is 1971 and SDA invalid?

Weapons — Carrying Revolver Unlawful Even on One's Own Premises. Under section 1921, providing, "It shall be unlawful for any person in the state of Oklahoma to carry upon or about his person any pistol, revolver, bowie-knife, dirk-knife, loaded cane, billy, metal knuckles, or any other offensive or defensive weapon, except as in this article provided," held, that a defendant may be properly convicted of carrying on or about his person a revolver, and that the fact that the revolver is carried upon his person within the curtilage of his own premises is immaterial.)

If this is what makes OC illegal, then carrying a pistol in our house is illegal, since this case would trump the Act of 1971 and the SDA.

In OSBI v Warren, I fail to make the connection to the issuance or non-issuance of an SDA permit when the question was whether Warren was a felon, or not. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the gist of OSBI v Warren, how does this case relate to a lawful citizen openly carrying a firearm with or without any permit as seemingly allowed within the SDA?

In Gilio, v OSBI, Gilio (a permit holder) was fined for failing to reveal the presence of firearms to LE when they were inside his home. How does a case over a fine imposed on a CC permit holder relate to someone who openly carries a firearm, with or without a permit?

If these are the cases that make it illegal to OC in Oklahoma, I'm just too thick to see the connection. If these are the cases that prove that OC is illegal and show what an otherwise lawful citizen who OC's will be charged with and convicted of, I need further explanation from those who understand the logic better than I do.

This is what I have gotten from this thread in post #5 of this thread title 21 sec 1272 states the definition of unlawful carry. and part A. 2. states you can only carry under the authorization by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act. so that sums it up right there?

the only exception for carry that i understand is hunting or target shooting, but the castle doctrine i think has made carrying weapons in your house legal for self defense I believe trumping the pierce vs state, or at least some of it???? but I am no attorney... just a guy with common sense....

 

[flybeech]

The mans just trying to have conversation here about a something he's trying to understand better. No need to be rude to the man. I agree with him some and also with some already stated opinions. I too fail to see where either OSBI v Warren or Gileo v OSBI prohibit OC. I do see that Pierce v state prohibits it, and there was a very good dissenting opinion against, but even then the case would only apply to the home and yard thereof. IMHO

Thank you for checkin' my six cw.

You're right. I am just trying to have a conversation and so I can see it in black and white in words that a dumb ol' boy like me can understand. I have trouble accepting that OC is illegal "just because" and the more I go along, the more I'm convinced that OC is actually legal. I've been admonished to see the other threads that explain everything and go ahead and strap one on to see what happens. Well, I have a mind to do just that and walk down Lincoln Blvd with a rifle strapped on my back and a pistol on my side, but I don't yet have the guts to go alone. Oklahoma seems just like what happened in Michigan, where they also didn't have a law but for years, thought they did. The only difference was, in Michigan, they didn't roll over, like we do here.

OSBI v Warren and Gileo just don't seem to apply and the 1929 Pierce v State appears to be made moot by the passage of the SDA. If the SDA did anything, it codified that carrying a firearm for self-defense is a "legitimate purpose". The more I go along, the more I'm convinced that OC is illegal, "just because". Unless I am missing something, there is no case law of ANY otherwise law-abiding Oklahoman who was convicted of openly carrying after the passage of the SDA. Is it because everyone is of the mindset that EVERYTHING is illegal unless the government says it's OK and we've submitted fingerprints, personal information, been investigated and of course paid FEES or because after the passage of the SDA, a lawful Oklahoman hasn't been convicted of openly carrying a firearm, because he cannot be convicted of a law that just doesn't exist?

 

[264killer]

When the creek is up i have to go down county road & across bridge to get to the rest of my land, Was walking across the bridge with semi auto mac10 when here comes Grady county sheriff . He stops, says where are u going ,CLASSIC, i say just going for a walk & do some shooting. I also said i have a concealed weapon permit. he says have a nice day & drives on down the road.

 

[Fatboy Joe]

Thank you for checkin' my six cw.

You're right. I am just trying to have a conversation and so I can see it in black and white in words that a dumb ol' boy like me can understand. I have trouble accepting that OC is illegal "just because" and the more I go along, the more I'm convinced that OC is actually legal. I've been admonished to see the other threads that explain everything and go ahead and strap one on to see what happens. Well, I have a mind to do just that and walk down Lincoln Blvd with a rifle strapped on my back and a pistol on my side, but I don't yet have the guts to go alone. Oklahoma seems just like what happened in Michigan, where they also didn't have a law but for years, thought they did. The only difference was, in Michigan, they didn't roll over, like we do here.

OSBI v Warren and Gileo just don't seem to apply and the 1929 Pierce v State appears to be made moot by the passage of the SDA. If the SDA did anything, it codified that carrying a firearm for self-defense is a "legitimate purpose". The more I go along, the more I'm convinced that OC is illegal, "just because". Unless I am missing something, there is no case law of ANY otherwise law-abiding Oklahoman who was convicted of openly carrying after the passage of the SDA. Is it because everyone is of the mindset that EVERYTHING is illegal unless the government says it's OK and we've submitted fingerprints, personal information, been investigated and of course paid FEES or because after the passage of the SDA, a lawful Oklahoman hasn't been convicted of openly carrying a firearm, because he cannot be convicted of a law that just doesn't exist?

As with most laws, you won't see it in black or white. Most laws contain grey areas. Only one true way to know, test the waters and let us know how it turns out.

 

[flybeech]

As with most laws, you won't see it in black or white. Most laws contain grey areas. Only one true way to know, test the waters and let us know how it turns out.

Fatboy, you're absolutely right about there being only one true way to know for sure. I intend to test the waters in early April. I understand I will be standing all alone and the laughing stock of shooters everywhere if I fail.