Legally carrying more than 1 pistol/revolver

[Pigeon]

Does OK state law address carrying more than 1 pistol or revolver at a time?

I have looked thru the ok Self Defense Act, and dont see anything that seems to address this issue.

Any LEO's encountered this (by permit holders) ?
How did you handle it?

[Michael Brown]

I have never encounteres it but the law does say "A pistol, A revolver or A derringer"

I am generally a rules follower so I would take it literally.

Michael Brown

[J.P.]

What section adress this,Michael?

[Michael Brown]

J.P.,

I'll have to check tomorrow via the statutes book as I can't get the version posted here to load because of the memory required.

I believe its the section that refers to application.

Reading it wouldn't kill you J.P. :buttkick:

Michael Brown

[J.P.]

Have you ever tried to read that PDF?
It's like trying to read backards,upside down,under water. ;)

[Michael Brown]

:anyone:

Michael Brown

[J.P.]

I'm trying to dig up my hard copy....I can't read that PDF.

[Michael Brown]

Just looked at the most recent title 21 book and some of the wording has been changed and at least one subsection has been added since I looked at it last year.

The "a" wording has been changed to "some combination" in reference to multiple types of handguns. Whether this means you can carry multiple guns at once is just not clear. It clearly refers to the fact that someone who is authorized to carry a semi-auto is also authorized to carry a revolver or derringer.

If you want to carry more than one, I'd contact a criminal attorney and get his or her opinion.

Michael Brown

[capmarine]

i'll look at my copy.remember in any decision you have case law-judge-made law if you will.a statute might say one thing,but a judge in some oklahoma jurisdiction might say the statute"means" this.just like we all live under the 10th circuit ct of appeals(denver).they might rule one way and the 9th out of calif.might say differently on the same type of case.

[J.P.]

here it is....
Title 21 2190.14 sub-section E

"the course shall provide an opportunity for the applicant to qualify himself with a derringer,semiautomatic pistol,a revolver,or any combination of a derringer,a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol provided no pistol shall be capable of firing larger than .45 caliber ammunition."

So it says "opportunity to qualify" not to carry but it doesn't say you can't either.
Traditionally,if there is no law against it,it is allowed.

Personally,I can't see why any LEO would care.Some don't.

*Then again,some don't even care if you have a CWL,as long as you're square.
*(that doesn't mean to go ahead and test this because according to the State of Oklahoma it is *illegal*)

[kjones99]

i try not to carry more than a dozen at a time these days...more than that really makes my pants droopy.

[DrBaker]

i try not to carry more than a dozen at a time these days...more than that really makes my pants droopy.

As long as your pants stay above your knees, you should be okay. In fact, that might make you very trendy in some areas. Especially those were you would want a back up weapon.

[capmarine]

my personal opinion is that the singlar would also mean plural.(carrying a firearm)there is nothing i can see that says you cant carry more than one-if you have the required licenses,ammo and firearm(s) you are qualified with,what would be the problem?

[Michael Brown]

The problem would be the prosecutor, not any written law.

I am of the opinion than unless you feel incredibly strongly about an issue of interpretation in the law, you should err on the side of caution.

Michael Brown

[J.P.]

The problem would be the prosecutor, not any written law.

I am of the opinion than unless you feel incredibly strongly about an issue of interpretation in the law, you should err on the side of caution.

Michael Brown

Actually Michael,the 'problem' would be the police officer's discretion.
Unless you are charged or arrested,ther would be no prosecutor. ;)

I know some LEOs that could care less.Others disagree.

[Michael Brown]

Actually it could occur a number of ways. If you were simply stopped on a traffic stop, it would be up to the officer's discretion as to whether you were CITED but not prosecuted as the concealed carry laws are now not arrestable barring other arrestable offenses.

However if you were forced to use your weapon it would most certainly be the prosecutor's discretion as to whether you were violating some law by carrying two weapons. Arrests and prosecutions often occur non-contemporaneous with the incident.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I had a conversation with a friend's son who just received his CCW and he clearly misunderstood some issues as it relates to law enforcement contact:

There are some misunderstandings as to how to interact with an officer during a contact of some sort as it relates to the officer's ability to temporarily disarm a CCW holder.

The legislature added a section to the notification section this past year which emphasized that an officer is not directly authorized to inspect an already concealed weapon after notification has been given.

It is the position of most enforcement officials (D.A.'s, police, sheriffs) that the U.S. Supreme Court has trumped this section via an opinion that gives an officer almost unlimited control over a driver or passenger in a vehicle's movement, positioning, etc during a traffic stop or other detention. The rationale being that officers are not required to inform detainees of the true nature of the stop (i.e. a traffic stop that is truly a narcotics investigation) so the detainee would not be able to articulate that he was not committing a crime as the officer would not be informing he/she of the nature of the investigation.

All that translated means, if an officer demands your firearm or that you do something with it during the course of a traffic stop or other detention, just do it because you may not be aware of the true nature of the investigation. If you feel you have been wronged, seek recourse later but comply during the incident. It may be an error but its not worth taking a chance and getting arrested since obstructing police (disobeying a lawful command) is still a crime even if the original reason for the stop turns out to be a non-issue.

Michael Brown

[J.P.]

Correct me if I'm wrong,Micahel but doesn't it say something to the effect of...
"An officer has no right to disarm unless probable cause exists that a crime has occured"....something like that.

In Oklahoma,ANY traffic offense is a crime.

[capmarine]

it took a supreme court decision just for an officer to legally take the passenger out of the car-i remember all these aclu types having a fit over pulling little old grandma out of the car.they can kill you just as easy as anyone.when the Court takes a case it is in relation to a federal question,in this case a 4th amendment question-search and Seizure(of the person)

[LastManStanding]

Ok, I still am of the belief (and I asked a criminal lawyer) that if a police officer stops you and you inform him you are carrying a concealed weapon AND you have a valid CCW license it is ILLEGAL for that officer to disarm you.

However, in any incident in which you have to deal with a police officer (traffic stop , etc..) ALWAYS comply with his/her every request, if he wishes to disarm you then give him your gun. The officer has full control during that stop, you can take it up with the courts later but argue right there and then and you may not make it to the courtroom.

Most officers really could care less if your carrying concealed with a license but you never know and like Michael Brown says always err onthe side of caution.

You'll live a lot longer that way.

[Michael Brown]

Your lawyer is either incorrect or you are mis-quoting him.

For anything to be "illegal" there must be a criminal statute detailing its illegality.

The self-defense act specifies that it is not authorizing an officer to inspect your weapon. That is a world different than it being illegal for an officer to disarm you during a contact. It is saying that the act is not giving any officer any greater authority than the officer already possesses. During any detention, an officer has the authority to control the weapons in immediate proximity to the detention.

Besides, like it or not, the United States Supreme Court trumps any state law or procedure.

Michael Brown

[mons meg]

It seems it's a matter of intent on the part of the officer. If he/she wants to disarm you because he/she has PC that you are committing some other crime, then that's a 4th amendment matter.

If, however, the officer asks to see your gun outside of a "Terry" search or other full vehicle search, then maybe that's covered by the SDA as a no-no for the officer. Am I on the right track?

[J.P.]

Again,any offense is a 'crime' in Oklahoma,so PC exists.

[capmarine]

the last person im worried about is not the person that tells me they are armed,its the one that doesnt tell me.fast is slow,slow is quick.
thank goodness for detective terry,cleveland pd,circa 1963 case.

[J.P.]

I thought it was "Slow is smooth,smooth is fast"? ;)

[DrBaker]

I guess I wasn't the only one who was wondering about that.

[capmarine]

two is one,one is none-figure that one out!
you guys ever in the military service?
when it comes to traffic stops you need to read title 22-this tells what an officer can arrest for-traffic bail bond procedure act.

[kjones99]

"speed is fine, but accuracy is final" - Eric Fuson, circa last week.

[Michael Brown]

An before that previously attributed to Bill Jordan and before that attributed to Wyatt Earp.

Michael Brown

[kjones99]

never knew the history of that statement. now i gotta tell Eric to stop taking credit for it...

[capmarine]

knew that one years ago.
was shooting ppc(police pistol combat)in the 70s,a deputy sheriff from colorado came-her name was ida younger-sound familar?ever heard of the james',youngers and dalton's?

[okla-lawman]

How many of you actually carry more than one gun off duty/ or as a civilian?
I know gun author Masad Ayoob recomennds it but in practice have you ever really found just a normal Joe?? I can only think of one and that was that guy that brandished his 45 ruger at the QT at 11th and Utica. He also had a keltec in a pocket holster. Extra mags for both and a folder. Traveling light to go to the store, I guess. My personal opinion is says concealed weaponS permit. Unless specifically spelled out by statute I think they can carry all they want.

[mons meg]

Again,any offense is a 'crime' in Oklahoma,so PC exists.

If going 75 in a 70 zone is PC to search my vehicle for drugs, then we live in Crazy World.

[skyydiver]

How many of you actually carry more than one gun off duty/ or as a civilian?
I know gun author Masad Ayoob recomennds it but in practice have you ever really found just a normal Joe?? I can only think of one and that was that guy that brandished his 45 ruger at the QT at 11th and Utica. He also had a keltec in a pocket holster. Extra mags for both and a folder. Traveling light to go to the store, I guess. My personal opinion is says concealed weaponS permit. Unless specifically spelled out by statute I think they can carry all they want.

Well, when I can, I carry more on my hip than the j-frame that rides in my truck everywhere. So unless I'm going to/from work, if I'm driving, I've probably got 2. 3 if the wife's with me. Plus a bad ass watergun if my son's in the car.

[Michael Brown]

If going 75 in a 70 zone is PC to search my vehicle for drugs, then we live in Crazy World.

In and of itself, its not enough to search for drugs, but weapons are ALWAYS the exception in law enforcement contact. An entirely different set of caselaw that drugs. Drugs searches in vehicles operate in the realm of the Carroll doctrine. Weapons fall within the scope of Terry and a myriad of other cases that make exceptions for a police officer's safety.

Michael Brown

[J.P.]

If I harken back to my days as a young Criminal justice major....

Carroll doctrine (Carroll v. US)refers to the warrantless searchs due to the mobility of vehicles.
The case was bootlegging whiskey,I believe.

Terry v. Ohio refers to a 'stop and frisk' for officer safety.
Refers to the Terry case where an officer witnessed 'casing' of a business.

Am I right?

[J.P.]

Or was Terry the "Reasonable suspicion made by a prudent man of ordinary intelligence"?

[J.P.]

If going 75 in a 70 zone is PC to search my vehicle for drugs, then we live in Crazy World.

Write your lawmakers.
In Oklahoma it's a "Crime"...in some other states it's not.

As Mike said,it probably wouldn't pass the smell test to search for drugs but still,an officer can outright ask you.
The more time an officer spends with his beak in your car window,the more he learns.He has more time to develop PC or notice suspicious activity.
It's best to get rid of him as quickly and courteously as possible.
That's my policy. :)

[Michael Brown]

J.P.

You are correct on both. Carroll relates to warrantless searches of vehicles and Terry refers to detention based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, one aspect of which is the possible stop and frisk based on the type of criminal activity.

Michael Brown

[capmarine]

traveling 75 in a 70 does not always rise to the level of PC.PC is needed for an arrest.yes,you are breaking the law and maybe the officer is stopping you for some other reason,which is lawful.reasonable suspicion is usually what comes next,the officer building on this which could lead to PC.oh,drugs are hard to hide from a dog.was on I-35 the other day and COMIT was busy like as a beaver.

[mons meg]

I guess my point was, if I were going 75 on a certain stretch of I-35 in the metro, and I was carrying with an SDA permit...it couldn't be PC to search for a) drugs, or b) weapons.

Right? Right? Again, I plan to wave my PrePaid Legal card along with my Pocket Bill of Rights at the officer as soon as he asks me for my license. ;)

Ok, just kidding...however, same scenario, and I am all pleasant and show my DL and my CWL...hello, yeah it's in the center console, oh, yeah you saw my bumper sticker, yeah I was over there in '91, too. What unit were you with...etc etc...cmon, I'm not a jerk.

[capmarine]

a Terry search can be done inside a vehicle,for the officers protection.if ive pulled out several subjects(an officer can order passengers out)and i feel there is some danger to me,i can search the interior of the auto.(pennsylvania v mimms)(michigan v long)an officer must be able to articulate this(fancy legal stuff)
oh, this Marine gave a fellow vietnam vet a ticket-he was Navy though.

[Michael Brown]

"I guess my point was, if I were going 75 on a certain stretch of I-35 in the metro, and I was carrying with an SDA permit...it couldn't be PC to search for a) drugs, or b) weapons."

Probably not, but again the issue is the officer's perception, not yours. He may see things that you don't or you may exhibit behavior you may not realize creates suspicion.

I will repeat: Do what the officer says and if you really feel there was a problem, try to deal with it later.

Michael Brown