Stand your ground law

[Okie with a g27]

I saw this posted in this or another forum and I was wondering if it has past or is going to pass? Also, Is this basically how it sounds..."stand your ground, no need to try to retreat?" Oh and is it past or passed, I'm pretty drunk and can't quite figure it out? :pokeowned

Ahhh, I think I should have put this in legal and political issues. Sorry, still feelin out the site and all it's glory. :)

[F16mickey]

I did not know that OK had a must retreat clause in the SDA act. I thought that if you felt your life was in danger you had the right to draw and fire! I am glad I have never been put in that position.BTW I am pretty buzzed to, good thing I am already at home.

[Michael Brown]

Perhaps everyone should be sober prior to checking state statutes. :wink2:

Michael Brown

[blake711]

Perhaps everyone should be sober prior to checking state statutes. :wink2:

Michael Brown
+1 good thing there isn't a PUI Law Posting under the influence or the Internet police might get you..

[Mack45]

I don't think that it has passed yet. I just checked the Oklahoma Legislature website and couldn't find anything about it there.

[skyydiver]

I kind of chuckle at some of the things we (myself included) "PUI". A little alcohol, and we start wondering, "Now, if I go out back to bring in another sixer off the porch, and a zombie jumps out, I ain't gotta run before I bop 'em with the Louisville Slugger. But what if I'm in the street at the mailbox???" We're a funny group of gunnies. Anyway, everybody have a happy new year!!! NEVER SURRENDER! :)

[okla-lawman]

I know Ohio and other state have a must retreat clause in the law. I did some training up there several times and Ohio is unique...especially Kent. They call it the back against the wall statute and not only must you retreat but to the point you can not do so any more... I also found out it is legal for cops to carry guns
anywhere including bars as we were at one and they all started comparing them and pulling them out. It was no big deal..the bartender did not even blink....I found I needed to go to the restroom..drunks and guns dont match. I dont care who is carrying them.

[TSQUARE]

One of my last few deliveries of Guns and Ammo magazine was talking about the no retreat law lately passed in (I think) Florida. It stated that you did not have to retreat, just start blasting if you feel you are in life or death situation, or whatever reason one might find the need to fire. I am all for it in my opionon, the article brought up a good point about you, as a legally armed citizen have just as much right to be in a public place as a criminal, and in no way shape or form should you have to leave just because some idiot decided to cause crap. I personally like it, because if I am out at the mall, and something happens, I should not have to leave, but be able to protect myself and family.

[JCW355]

I believe it is HB2615. I checked the Ok legislature sight yesterday and didn't find anything. I think I read it was in committee right now.

[ok_patriot]

There was a very good report by Channel 6 news about this law. It was presented from a very pro gun attitude. It has passed one side of our legislature and is on its way to the next as we speak.

[alank2]

Hi everyone,

I keep hearing about this on the news, but they don't actually tell you what the law covers. Does anyone know the specific differences this would bring if it passes?

Thanks,

Alan

[Subsonic]

Fox 23 did a peice on it tonight as well but Mia Fleming was talking more about "concealed to carry" law and not so much as to what this bill is about.

[ok_patriot]

alank2-
This law by design will remove the retreat part of ccw in Oklahoma. So you can do just what the law says, Stand your ground. If you have a lawful reason to be somewhere and you start getting attacked you don't have to run or back into a corner before you can use self defense with your firearm.

[alank2]

Sounds good.

Still, I was hoping it was along the lines of "you can't be sued in civil court" as long as it was a justified shoot...

Thanks,

Alan

[J.P.]

Sounds good.

Still, I was hoping it was along the lines of "you can't be sued in civil court" as long as it was a justified shoot...

Thanks,

Alan

I believe that is the case as well.
*double check it though*

[UnSafe]

Oklahoma HB 2615, AKA the "Stand your ground" bill, authored by Kevin Calvey, Rep from from Del City, was passed by the House Corrections and Criminal Justice Commitee and referred to the full House.

I got this from our paper this morning, now am wondering what the rough time line is to finish it into a law.

FYI, my non expert read of the SDA rulebook and scraps of case law examples that I've read suggests that while we MAY have a duty to retreat if possible, there's nothing that makes it automatically a crime if we are forced into a position where retreat is impossible or impractical in the face of imminent danger.

It's a call you might have to make in about 1/2 second...

And, let us not forget that the definition of our "Homes" is not necessarily limited to the inside of the structure that we sleep in.

As I understand it, my barn and corral are part of my home, as are the grounds surrounding the structures.

The proposed new law will supposedly simplify things and support us.

So, who's found the details about all of this, or do I need to search for prior posts?

Probably worth a sticky post if someone was willing to follow the progress on this one.

[DRC458]

From NRA-ILA Alert this morning ...

OKLAHOMA

Early this week House Bill 2615, the "Stand Your Ground Law," passed the House Corrections and Criminal Justice Committee. HB 2615, sponsored by Representative Kevin Calvey (R-94), recognizes that the citizens of Oklahoma have the right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. Also, HB 2696 passed the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee. HB 2696, sponsored by Representative Trebor Worthen (R-87), will eliminate any threat of restrictions being imposed on lawful uses of firearms or ammunition during a state of emergency. Both bills are expected to be up for first reading in the House as early as next week. Please contact your State Representative at (405) 521-2711 and ask him or her to support HB 2615 and HB 2696.

[DReed]

I agree; contact your representative to support the bill. This is a very important piece of legislation as is the the legislation to preclude illegal seizures in a time of emergency.

Common sense should dictate that a person has the right to defend themselves with whatever means are at their disposal when attacked without having to retreat, and no public body should be able, under the guise of a "state of emergency" to confiscate firearms, but as we all know common sense is missing from the anti-gun crowd and they will stop at nothing regardless of whose rights they abuse or trample to try to take firearms away.

[CiscoKid]

The bill was introduced by Kevin Calvey.
This is not the same as the Florida stand your ground law.
This extends the make my day law to: your car, and anyone else's home you may be in at the time.

On his website, he has the following to say:
http://www.kevincalvey.com/3-3-06.htm#1

My Stand Your Ground bill, House Bill 2615, passed out of committee this week. It would extend the current Make My Day law, which allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves in their own homes against intruders, to two additional circumstances: when one is in someone else’s home, or when one is in one’s own car. It has been incorrectly reported in some venues that the bill would allow someone in a Wal-Mart or on a public sidewalk to shoot anyone by whom they felt “threatened.”

[kgull85]

HB2615 doesn't only limit the protections to someone else's home or your car.

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


This is interesting....

F. A person who uses force, including but not limited to deadly force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsection subsections B and D of this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable and civil action for the use of such force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the reasonable use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

D. G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.


That comes from here: http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/2005%2D06bills/hb/hb2615%5Fcs.rtf

[UnSafe]

http://www.okhouse.gov//OkhouseMedia/pressroom.aspx?NewsID=595

It passed the House of Representatives 96-2. Now on to the Senate, then Gov. Henry.

Anyone know an estimate of how long it'll take to make it throught the next 2 stops, and any predictions of problems along the way?

[kgull85]

"House Bill 2615 amends Oklahoma’s "Make My Day" law to allow residents to use deadly force to protect themselves when they believe they are in danger in their cars or in another person’s home."

Why do they keep saying that? The way it's worded it will extend your rights to any place you have a legal right to be as long as you are not comming a crime there.

[SMS]

Shhhhh! They keep saying that so the soccer moms and gun-grabbers won't get too upset. If they realize the bill will provide much broader protection, the opposition will become equally broader....

[mons meg]

D. G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

I take it this is to avoid the "arrest everyone until we figure out what happened" scenario? Local LEOs have a take on this?

[mikeyinokc]

According to ChannelOklahoma.com today, this bill has passed the House and is on its way to the Senate.

[Snyperc]

Do we have any updates on the status of this bill?

[ok_patriot]

According to a couple of School Supers, their are some people that are balking at this due to school carry. I think Sandy Garrett is one of them who is trying to put pressure on this. I don't think that it is part of the stand your ground bill( I Could be wrong), but is attached seperatly to be signed by our Govenor Henry.

[mons meg]

School carry? How does that fit in with the text of the SDA, which I thought was clear on the no-gun-in-a-school provision?

[ok_patriot]

It is a provision for Superintendants and Principals who have a ccw that they can carry on school grounds anytime. There are a lot of principals and superintendants I know who have a CCW.
And those of who drop off are kids at school and leave can carry on school property we just can't get out of the vehicle.

[skyydiver]

That is a totally separate bill if I recall correctly.

[ok_patriot]

I sure hope that it is a seperate bill, because combined it might not get signed.

[mons meg]

I'd go for the principal carry, if they extended it to teachers with a CWL. Better make that concerned parents, too. ;)

[skyydiver]

I'd go for it too, but I'd bet Stepper's short pants that the NEA and OEA wouldn't.

[ok_patriot]

You know the fisrt opponet of this would of course be the first step towards failure in our public schools. Sandy Garrett, I think if voters would ever get rid of her sorry butt, that we could finaly start having quality education. She is more worried about kids passing special test instead of keeping quality teachers in the class rooms.

[Jack T.]

Got an update this morning from my Rep on the Stand your Ground and Principal Carry bills:

HB 2144 by Jerry Ellis dealing with
defending yourself out side of our home has been put in HB 2615 and is
currently still working its way through the legislature. HB 2075 by Bud
Smithson allowing administrators to carry a weapon at school died in
committee. HB 2118 by John Carey died in committee also. It dealt with
changing the law on carrying a weapon into the state capitol.

Edit: I had asked him to support HB2144/2615 and 2075. I asked him to oppose HB2118

[okie of crosstimbers]

http://www.kotv.com/main/home/storiesPrint.asp?id=102912&type=t

Law Enforcement Voices Concern Over Self Defense Bill


OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) _ Oklahoma law enforcement officials are voicing concern over legislation they say could impede their ability to investigate deadly shootings in which the shooter claims he acted in self-defense.

Officials at the Oklahoma Chiefs of Police Association, the state District Attorneys Council and the Department of Public Safety say the measure, which was passed in the House and is pending in the Senate, needs more work before it becomes law.

``While it's a well-intentioned law, I think it can be abused,'' said Richard Smothermon, district attorney for Pottawatomie and Lincoln counties and vice chairman of the DA's council.

Officials said the immunity against prosecution the law grants to gun owners who use deadly force might be invoked by gang members who claim they acted in self-defense after killing members of a rival gang.

``It causes law enforcement some concern,'' Smothermon said.

The measure, entitled ``Stand Your Ground,'' is similar to a law in Florida that provides greater legal protections to people who shoot or use other deadly force when threatened or attacked.

The measure clarifies existing law on self-defense and expands the right to protect yourself against attack in your own home to other places, including someone else's home, a vehicle or a street corner.

Supported by the National Rifle Association, the measure is opposed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.

Jim Cox, executive director of Oklahoma Chiefs of Police Association, said the group's board of directors is concerned the bill's self-defense language could place in jeopardy police officers engaged in the lawful performance of their duties.

``It needs to be very clear that there is an exception for law enforcement,'' Cox said.

In 1999, Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper David ``Rocky'' Eales was shot to death in an unmarked vehicle that led a caravan of police cars to a rural Sequoyah County home to serve a ``no-knock'' search warrant for drugs.

The homeowner, Kenneth Eugene Barrett, said he did not know he was shooting at police. Defense attorneys argued Barrett was defending his home from unknown attackers whom he could not see in the dark of night.

``We don't want this to lend itself to the furtherance of that kind of confusion,'' Cox said of the self-defense measure.

At his 2002 state murder trial, Barrett's jury deadlocked on a murder charge that could carry the death penalty. In a subsequent state trial in 2004, Barrett was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Last year, a federal jury convicted Barrett of intentionally killing a law enforcement officer engaged in his duty and sentenced him to death.

Law enforcement authorities also said the bill will prevent investigators from arresting, detaining and prosecuting someone who uses deadly force unless they find there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

``Obviously, we can't investigate adequately if we can't detain people to investigate,'' Cox said. ``We can't determine whether it was lawfully done if we don't have the capability to detain him.''

``You've had a shooting. You need to detain people for safety reasons basically,'' said Van Guillotte, legislative liaison for DPS.

The bill's author, Rep. Kevin Calvey, R-Del City, said he will work with law enforcement on the bill.

``No one has ever raised concern about anything like that,'' said Calvey, a candidate for Congress.


Created: 4/22/2006
Updated: 4/23/2006 8:53:39 PM Source: Associated Press
www.KOTV.com

[YukonGlocker]

And the plot thickens...

[ok_patriot]

I am wondering what the Govenor's stance on this bill is?

[skyydiver]

It's whatever the polls tell him it should be.

[okie of crosstimbers]

Then make sure the polls show him the right way.

[mons meg]

I don't get it...if you knew someone was a gang member and that he had been in a shootout with a rival gang, wouldn't that give you PC that it was not a legitimate use of force?

Or what about this question? Does gang membership mean you give up the inherent right of self defense?

[Chuck S]

``Obviously, we can't investigate adequately if we can't detain people to investigate,'' Cox said. ``We can't determine whether it was lawfully done if we don't have the capability to detain him.''

``You've had a shooting. You need to detain people for safety reasons basically,'' said Van Guillotte, legislative liaison for DPS.

This is the part that concerns me. It almost sounds like you are guilty until we decide otherwise, and you will be coming with us to jail. Where is the presumption of innocence? References made to gang members or career criminals confuse the issue as well. Are we all in the same category? I'd like to think not. How many of them have CWLs? What does the reference to safety mean? Who's safety?

[Michael Brown]

``Obviously, we can't investigate adequately if we can't detain people to investigate,'' Cox said. ``We can't determine whether it was lawfully done if we don't have the capability to detain him.''

``You've had a shooting. You need to detain people for safety reasons basically,'' said Van Guillotte, legislative liaison for DPS.

This is the part that concerns me. It almost sounds like you are guilty until we decide otherwise, and you will be coming with us to jail. Where is the presumption of innocence? References made to gang members or career criminals confuse the issue as well. Are we all in the same category? I'd like to think not. How many of them have CWLs? What does the reference to safety mean? Who's safety?

"Detain" does not equal "Go to jail".

The problem of the wording of this bill is that self-defense is an affirmative defense. In other words, it must be actively asserted. If it is not actively asserted, this may be the path to the anti-gunners chipping away at the right to self-defense.

The wording should reflect the need to investigate any use of force including the need to detain the user for questioning. The law should emphasize PROSECUTION and CIVIL IMMUNITY not DETENTION.

For example, I went to a domestic violence call once where a husband had assaulted his wife, who was still inside, and tried to deny the police entry to investigate.

Any first year law student recognizes that the Supreme Court says this is a specific exception to the fourth amendment that has been applied for almost a century.

This guy's bonehead lawyer tried to apply the castle doctrine to this case.

Fortunately the judge was sharp enough not to buy it.

The problem exists in the real world, not in a courtroom, where people believe they can do things they can't do legally.

Michael Brown

[okie of crosstimbers]

Law enforcement authorities also said the bill will prevent investigators from arresting, detaining and prosecuting someone who uses deadly force unless they find there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

And what exactly is different from the current situation? If the force is determined to be lawful (a lack of Probable Cause to believe a crime's been committed), where's the crime? And if there's no crime, why would someone be arrested, or "detained" as some like to call it? Cannot Material Witnesses be taken into custody under existing law should authorities fear that they may flee?

It would seem to me that an officer answering a call to a shooting, and finding evidence that a shooting did take place, would at that point have Reasonable Suspiscion that someone present, if anyone, did the shooting. At what point does this Reasonable Suspiscion become Probable Cause for an arrest? At the point that someone tries to flee the scene? Refuses to cooperate? If witnesses identify the shooter are they then not material to the case?

And, what effect does an Affirmative Defense, which must be raised at trial, have on the patrolman responding to the scene? An Affirmative Defense doesn't question the facts of the prosecution. It instead justifies the behavior based on legal exceptions to certain acts, like the taking of a life.

It would seem that there are sufficient tools for investigating crimes. Conversely, I'm not really concerned about being arrested or "detained." The part that bothers me is the prosecution, both criminal & civil. So, I don't really see where modifying the language to give police greater power to cast a wider net after a shooting will harm the innocent.

I do have a problem with the article's use of the killer of Rocky Eales as a tool against this bill. Any defense attorney worth his fee is going to use whatever legal trickery he can to get his client off. It's his job like it's the prosecutor's job to convince a jury that a person he believes is guilty gets convicted. In spite of it all, it didn't work. The thug is still getting what he's got coming. So, why even bring it up?

[Michael Brown]

And what exactly is different from the current situation? If the force is determined to be lawful (a lack of Probable Cause to believe a crime's been committed), where's the crime? And if there's no crime, why would someone be arrested, or "detained" as some like to call it? Cannot Material Witnesses be taken into custody under existing law should authorities fear that they may flee?

It would seem to me that an officer answering a call to a shooting, and finding evidence that a shooting did take place, would at that point have Reasonable Suspiscion that someone present, if anyone, did the shooting. At what point does this Reasonable Suspiscion become Probable Cause for an arrest? At the point that someone tries to flee the scene? Refuses to cooperate? If witnesses identify the shooter are they then not material to the case?

And, what effect does an Affirmative Defense, which must be raised at trial, have on the patrolman responding to the scene? An Affirmative Defense doesn't question the facts of the prosecution. It instead justifies the behavior based on legal exceptions to certain acts, like the taking of a life.

It would seem that there are sufficient tools for investigating crimes. Conversely, I'm not really concerned about being arrested or "detained." The part that bothers me is the prosecution, both criminal & civil. So, I don't really see where modifying the language to give police greater power to cast a wider net after a shooting will harm the innocent.

I do have a problem with the article's use of the killer of Rocky Eales as a tool against this bill. Any defense attorney worth his fee is going to use whatever legal trickery he can to get his client off. It's his job like it's the prosecutor's job to convince a jury that a person he believes is guilty gets convicted. In spite of it all, it didn't work. The thug is still getting what he's got coming. So, why even bring it up?

The difference is in the definition of "arrest" in the bill which also includes detention. If you eliminate detention then I have no problem with the bill and am very much in favor of it.

The material witnesses issue relates to just that: material witnesses not potential suspects. Material witnesses have a high percentage of showing up in court if not arrested. Suspects do not.

The Supreme Court has often used the standard of detention as opposed to arrest as not being:

1) Booked

2) Charged

3) Placed in a location where prisoners are kept for over 24 hours i.e. a police station as opposed to a jail.

Now, reference the reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause issue:

If you really want to address this issue, then it will largely trump this bill since Terry vs. Ohio would override this since there is no stipulation regarding length of detention in Terry stops. It all relates to the severity of the crime and a shooting would certainly be considered very serious.

The questions you pose can be part of probable cause or may not be depending on the situation and that is just my point: When someone who isnt familiar with the practical aspects of dealing with laws, writes a law like this, it inevitably has problems.

An affirmative defense must be raised at trial but it may be denied if it was only raised at trial depending on the judge. It is far more likely to be effective if it is raised during the investigative process or at the very least, at preliminary hearing.

This is the difference between paper law and trial law.

Regarding whether changing the language will give the police greater power is a ridiculous assertion of an otherwise valid argument. This bill offers the police nothing in terms of investigative authority that isn't already granted by legislative process.

Regarding the Rocky Eales case, this is EXACTLY what occurred in Barrett's trial. This is EXACTLY why a bill like this needs to be carefully constructed. Barrett did NOT get convicted of the crime that he did commit until the third trial. Its very relevent to this bill.

Where this bill will assist cases such is this is that the Troopers were acting on the authority of a lawfully issued warrant. If the judge denies an affirmative defense based on this bill because of the requirement to be doing something legal, then I think it's fine.

I will close by saying I am in favor of this bill as long as they change the definition of arrest to eliminate investigative detentions as defined by the Supreme Court.

I don't think the bill will last anyway if it doesn't since it will be trumped by Terry.

Michael Brown

[okie of crosstimbers]

Do you happen to have any links to any sites that will help educate people on how these issues interelate?

[Michael Brown]

I'm sorry I don't have any internet info reference this issue.

I have always simply done legal research through books and optional legal update training. I receive relevent updates from our legal advisor and have done expert witness work for lawyers specializing in use of force and police litigation.

That coupled with having to actually apply the rules on a daily basis has given me a fairly good working knowledge of how caselaw affects the average citizen.

Terry vs. Ohio is a pretty commonly quoted case in police work so I'm sure a Google search would reveal most of what you're interested in.

Some other cases that could be relevent as it applies to arrest in these types of situations, although not as directly as Terry vs. Ohio, are:

Wardlow vs. Illinois
Hodari (sp?) vs. California

Both relate to reasonable suspicion and detention.

Michael Brown

[okie of crosstimbers]

Thanks!

[trade_sniper]

HB2615 doesn't only limit the protections to someone else's home or your car.

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

snip...

That comes from here: http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/2005%2D06bills/hb/hb2615%5Fcs.rtf

I noticed the phrase "...to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another...", which is different (more broad) that our current limitation of ourselves, family or employer. So we would be able to protect others, even strangers if we so chose right? I hope thats the case, I want the option of choice.

I can't believe they have 'employer' in the current statute. Like they (employer) garner more right to protection/self defense than say a woman (stranger) being raped or a little old woman being beaten unconscience or killed for her social security money.

Are those the same employers that so often prevent you from carrying concealed in the workplace? Yet outside of the workplace they are entitled to have the same level of protection as a family member? Sorry, but that always struck me funny.

Anyway, if I remember correctly, thats the way its worded. I couldn't find the specific paragraph in my SDA booklet (its late, I'm tired) and for some reason the OSBI site won't pull up right now.

[UnSafe]

from www.okinsider.com

"The current status of this bill is Enrolled - House taken on 05/04/2006"

OK, when is Gov Henry scheduled to sign it?

[Buzzdraw]

The OK Legislature web page, status of measures shows HB 2615, Stand Your Ground, sent to Gov. on 5/8.

[trade_sniper]

I'm going to have to send him a HTFU email! :)

[mikeyinokc]

Channel 5 is reporting that the bill has been signed by the Governor.

http://www.channeloklahoma.com/news/9206439/detail.html

[trade_sniper]

w00t!

[trade_sniper]

Channel 5 is reporting that the bill has been signed by the Governor.

http://www.channeloklahoma.com/news/9206439/detail.html

Make sure you go to that link and vote!

[UnSafe]

A big Atta Boy! to Gov Henry and State/ House reps.

The vote is looking pretty good right now:)

[soonerjh]

great deal for us! the new law goes into effect November 1st.

quote:
OKLAHOMA GOVERNOR SIGNS
NRA-BACKED "CASTLE DOCTRINE" BILL INTO LAW

Today, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry (D) signed HB 2615, the NRA-backed
"Castle Doctrine" self-defense bill, into law.

"I want to thank Governor Brad Henry for signing this victims' rights
bill into law," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "When
you're confronted by a criminal, you don't have the luxury of time.
This bill states that if victims choose to stand their ground and fight,
their decision will not be second-guessed by the State of Oklahoma. The
ability to protect yourself, your children, or your spouse from harm is
important, whether you're in your home or outside."

HB 2615 simply states that if a criminal breaks into your home, your
occupied vehicle or your place of business, you may presume he is there
to do bodily harm and you may use any force necessary against him. It
also removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you
have a legal right to be.

Further, HB 2615 provides protection from criminal prosecution and civil
litigation for those who defend themselves from criminal attack. The
"Castle Doctrine" bill met with overwhelming, bipartisan support,
passing 96-2 in the state House and 83-4 in the Senate. Oklahoma joins
eight other states that have signed similar legislation into law this
legislative cycle.

"On behalf of all NRA members in Oklahoma, I want to thank Governor Brad
Henry for signing this important bill into law. I'd also like to thank
the bill's chief sponsors, Representative Kevin Calvey (R-94) and
Senator Harry Coates (R-28), for their leadership in passing this vital
measure," concluded Cox. "The 'Castle Doctrine' bill is about putting
the law back on the side of the victim, the way it's supposed to be."

[trade_sniper]

Too bad it has to wait till Nov. 1st. They passed it, almost unanimously, why can't it go into effect immediately. :(

[Ram_Tough_Truck]

Some states allow you to carry a weapon in your vehicle and consider the vehicle to be an extension of the home. I know that is not the case here in Oklahoma. But does this bill allow for that? Or does it only protect you from prosecution should you be threatened in your vehicle and have to use deadly force? Wouldn't a person (non-CCW) still be subject to a lessor charge for carrying a loaded weapon in vehicle?

[zwhite97]

Ram Tough,
I had that question too. Also, what about the people who travel all of the time for a company? I know its a policy thing but where does that leave the people who are licensed to carry that must drive a company vehicle all of the time. I wonder does this new law cover or blanket the companies policy against carrying while performing duties for that company?

[kgull85]

I would think if it's a company car and the company says no guns allowed, then it's pretty much a no carry zone.

I also don't think this bill changes the requirements for carrying a gun legally in your car. If you don't have a SDA permit and you are carrying a loaded firearm in the car you are breaking the law still.

[Buzzdraw]

From what I've read, this is supposed to be a broadening (and replacement for/enhancement of) of Title 21 Sec. 1289.25, "Make My Day" home defense statute. I'm thinking of it from that mind-set. So far, the OK Legislative Web Page is not listing the new "stand your ground" version in it's place. Does anyone have a link to the final version, as actually signed by the Gov?

[DRC458]

Too bad it has to wait till Nov. 1st. They passed it, almost unanimously, why can't it go into effect immediately. :(

Because they didn't pass it with "the emergency clause." And, keep voting on the survey, if you haven't already. Last I looked, it was at 77% in favor. I'd like to see more like 97%. Or, as someone once said, ... "Vote early and vote often."

[trade_sniper]

Then the percentage is dropping, it was in the high 80's percentage when I first visited it.

[UnSafe]

Too bad it has to wait till Nov. 1st. They passed it, almost unanimously, why can't it go into effect immediately. :(


Here's a thought-

A person shoots someone else in a situation that would be a "Good Shoot" under the new law, but before 1 Nov, so it's not protected/ covered under current standing laws.

Think most DAs would prosecute?

I think there's a case in Florida that falls into this situation, will look up later.