Why do we need new laws for open carry?

[Slack]

Since I didn't feel like retyping....

Excellent, I am pretty sure I have a strong rebuttal in regards to these also, but I also know I have not looked at them recently enough to quote the relevant information right now. I will be reviewing and responding in the next day or so.

I am glad there is some more recent case law, as the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971, specifically 21 O.S. § 1289.6, is the legislation that does define how we can open carry. So anything before 1971 would likely be very different, and even after 1971 it has been amended several times.

 

[Slack]

The law has not changed to the contrary of those cases, though.

Here's the OSCN link to Pierce v. State (1929) http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?CiteID=38162

They address what was then Section 1992, C.O.S. 1921, which stated "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..."

The wording here is very similar to 21 O.S. § 1272. It is similar enough to show that the former is the origin of the latter prior to the reorganization of Oklahoma laws.

I agree that unlawful carry as defined in 21 O.S. § 1272 has its origins in Section 1992, C.O.S. 1921. In both Pierce v. State (1929) and Byford v. State (1949) unlawful carry was the issue. I don't see how this effects 21 O.S. § 1289.6 which provides exceptions to 21 O.S. § 1272. As far as I know 21 O.S. § 1289.6 didn't go into effect until 1971, many years after both of these cases.

Gilio v. State (2001) further held that Pierce applied to firearms outside the confines of the home.

It does quote Pierce in regards to firearms outside the house, but only to establish the legality of firearms within the home. The legality outside the home is not relevant in Gilio v. State (2001). This involved concealed firearms within the home. The open carry of firearms as regulated by 21 O.S. § 1289.6 did not come into play.

So in fact, there is caselaw as recent as 2001 that addresses the validity of the Pierce ruling in light of modern laws, including the Oklahoma Self Defense Act.

Once again none of these address lawful open carry as regulated by 21 O.S. § 1289.6.

Is there any case law that involves 21 O.S. § 1289.6?

 

[BadgeBunny]

I understand your logic and can support your reasoning until it requires me to be a "test case" where I have to get an expensive lawyer to keep me out of jail. The recent open carry confrontation in Madison WI comes to mind. It always comes down to what the officer on the scene thinks he/she can pull out his shiny bracelets for while giving you a lift to the local graybar hotel.

You may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride or the opportunity to expend significant sums for a lawyer.

This, except I am not sure I understand the logic without researching further, including case law and Shepardizing. Interpreting statute without taking into consideration case law and common law and legislative intent is a common mistake people make. I am not too excited about being anybody's test case either.

Since I didn't feel like retyping....

LOL. Veggie, you tickle me sometimes!!

 

[vvvvvvv]

This, except I am not sure I understand the logic without researching further, including case law and Shepardizing. Interpreting statute without taking into consideration case law and common law and legislative intent is a common mistake people make. I am not too excited about being anybody's test case either.

These are the two biggest issues here for me. I would like to comment further, but I'm about to go to bed for the night. That aTm - OSwho game was tiring.

LOL. Veggie, you tickle me sometimes!!

I'm glad I can be of service.

 

[Rod Snell]

In the military, we called this kind of legal analysis "barracks lawyers" advice.
All harmless and sometimes interesting, until somebody acted on it and wound up having to get a real lawyer.

Even with the caveat that there is an element of uncertainty in any court, the reality of arrest, trial, and possible conviction should put a damper on accepting any barracks lawyer advice.

Like the airman who found out the military CAN convict him of smoking pot while on leave in CA, even though CA says it is legal.

Or the Sgt who proved the military could not make him pay his civilian debts, but got busted and booted out of service.

Or the Sgt whose Commander ordered her taken into custody and given a drug test, and "knew" it was not a random test and "there was no probable cause" thus was an illegal search. Five years in Leavenworth for dealing coke.

 

[Slack]

In the military, we called this kind of legal analysis "barracks lawyers" advice.
All harmless and sometimes interesting, until somebody acted on it and wound up having to get a real lawyer.

I agree entirely.

WARNING: PLEASE DO NOT OPEN CARRY IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA BASED UPON OPINIONS AND INFORMATION IN THIS THREAD.

 

[Slack]

So is this discussion at an end?

 

[BadgeBunny]

So is this discussion at an end?

Apparently.

 

[RETOKSQUID]

When any government is involved the short and sweet of it is, play our game or we will make you a criminal and remove the rights we allowed you to have.

 

[oklaccer]

To add another level of confusion...
Since black powder/muzzle loaded rifles and pistols are not considered firearms subject to the NICS system, are they legal to carry openly?
I am not advocating this, but just wondering!