Will Rogers World Airport carry

[acope]

City Building=No Carry.

BC

First, I appreciate you taking the time to get it straight from the horses mouth and I have no doubt that this is the way it would work in practice.

However, the law states where the city does business with the public. The airlines, food vendors, etc certainly conduct business at the terminal and "they" pay the Airport Trust (ie, the city) to lease the space. But I am not aware of any business transaction with the city that "I" can complete at the terminal.

Just another viewpoint.

 

[RyansFortyFives]

First, I appreciate you taking the time to get it straight from the horses mouth and I have no doubt that this is the way it would work in practice.

However, the law states where the city does business with the public. The airlines, food vendors, etc certainly conduct business at the terminal and "they" pay the Airport Trust (ie, the city) to lease the space. But I am not aware of any business transaction with the city that "I" can complete at the terminal.

Just another viewpoint.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

 

[vvvvvvv]

That's what I was getting at, because if it was truly no city building, then we'd be screwed in a lot of places.

Either an AG opinion on whether the business is direct or indirect with the public, or some case law would really help.

 

[Burk Cornelius]

First, I appreciate you taking the time to get it straight from the horses mouth and I have no doubt that this is the way it would work in practice.

However, the law states where the city does business with the public. The airlines, food vendors, etc certainly conduct business at the terminal and "they" pay the Airport Trust (ie, the city) to lease the space. But I am not aware of any business transaction with the city that "I" can complete at the terminal.

Just another viewpoint.

Good point. The one thing that is presumed in your viewpoint is that the business has to be DIRECTLY between the city and the public. I am not sure that presumption would stand up in court. There is plenty of business being conducted however, most of it is with people that lease space from the city. Even the business of "airporting" is indirectly with the City

 

[radiant_shooter]

what if you carried on a city bus? would that be off limits too?

 

[KOPBET]

Tulsa World - Friday, February 13, 2009 pp E3.

http://oiec.org/news/021309_ONG proposal sparks_TW.pdf

"Trustees also approved installation of signs at passenger terminal entrances and security gates warning against the carrying of concealed weapons in the terminal. The signs provide legal notice to persons authorized under the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act to carry concealed weapons that the terminal and airport property is exempt from the statute."

Has anybody seen these signs? I haven't been to TIA in a good while.



May be the same at WRWA since the airport is similar in city ownership and operation.

 

[bettingpython]

Glocktogo are you allowed to weigh in on this?

The trust really needs to reread their legal boundries, they may be an inderect government entity doing business with the public and that could very well be a grey area of our CCW laws but to attempt to exclude the entire property would infer that the parking is off limits as well. I wish I were rich and could fight that battle. The Oklahoma constitution and Statutes clearly state no government entity is allowed to create laws superceeding their decisons regarding ownership and carry of firearms.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Good point. The one thing that is presumed in your viewpoint is that the business has to be DIRECTLY between the city and the public. I am not sure that presumption would stand up in court. There is plenty of business being conducted however, most of it is with people that lease space from the city. Even the business of "airporting" is indirectly with the City

As would going to a park pavillion for a concert.

I've been through Will Rogers many times (not since I've carried, though) and have never once done business with the city of Oklahoma City, unless you count that deposit I made in the stall in the men's restroom as business.

 

[Burk Cornelius]

First, I appreciate you taking the time to get it straight from the horses mouth and I have no doubt that this is the way it would work in practice.

However, the law states where the city does business with the public. The airlines, food vendors, etc certainly conduct business at the terminal and "they" pay the Airport Trust (ie, the city) to lease the space. But I am not aware of any business transaction with the city that "I" can complete at the terminal.

Just another viewpoint.

OK, Here is another update on the issue of DIRECT business with the public in a city owned building (in this case Will Rogers World Airport). This time the message came to me from the Assistant Municipal Counselor for the Dept. of Airports. In the message, he states:

"21 O.S. §1277 (A)(1) clearly encompasses an airport, including the pre-security areas, as it is within the statutory description of any structure, building, or office space that is owned by a city for the purpose of conducting business with the public. The statute does not require the City, who owns the building, to be directly or indirectly involved in transactions with the public." (emphasis added by me)

So, it is the counselors opinion that if business is being conducted with the public in the building owned by the city, regardless of whom it is being conducted between, then that building falls under the exclusion of permissible carry.

BC

 

[Buzzdraw]

OK, Here is another update on the issue of DIRECT business with the public in a city owned building (in this case Will Rogers World Airport). This time the message came to me from the Assistant Municipal Counselor for the Dept. of Airports. In the message, he states:

"21 O.S. §1277 (A)(1) clearly encompasses an airport, including the pre-security areas, as it is within the statutory description of any structure, building, or office space that is owned by a city for the purpose of conducting business with the public. The statute does not require the City, who owns the building, to be directly or indirectly involved in transactions with the public." (emphasis added by me)

So, it is the counselors opinion that if business is being conducted with the public in the building owned by the city, regardless of whom it is being conducted between, then that building falls under the exclusion of permissible carry.

BC

First I am not a lawyer. However methinks that the city counselor is twisting a statute to suit himself. This is one that the legislature may have to explain what it meant the statute to read. I do note that the city counselor is not the Attorney General, who could probably be asked by the airport for an official clarification in the form of an AG's Opinion.