It looks like this section of the law has changed with constitutional carry. I read it as the result is the same, but they took out a simple phrase (in bold below) that would make it so much more clear.
From 1290.22 in the 2018 law book.
E. The carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person who has been issued a handgun license on
property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall not be deemed a criminal act but may subject the
person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property. If the person refuses to leave
the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed
Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).
From the current law book on the OSBI website.
E. The otherwise lawful carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person on property that has signs
prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed
from the property. If the person:
1. Has been informed by the property owner, business entity or manager of the business that the person is in
violation of a policy that prohibits firearms on the property; and
2. Refuses to leave the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may be punished as provided
in Section 1276 of this title.
From 1290.22 in the 2018 law book.
E. The carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person who has been issued a handgun license on
property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall not be deemed a criminal act but may subject the
person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property. If the person refuses to leave
the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed
Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).
From the current law book on the OSBI website.
E. The otherwise lawful carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person on property that has signs
prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed
from the property. If the person:
1. Has been informed by the property owner, business entity or manager of the business that the person is in
violation of a policy that prohibits firearms on the property; and
2. Refuses to leave the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may be punished as provided
in Section 1276 of this title.
I’m still under the impression that if you’re found in possession of a firearm in a space that is known to not allow them, you’re in violation of the law. My point probably wasn’t stated very well. But, the gentlemen will be prosecuted for being in possession of the firearm, as well as using during the altercation. He’s in a whole heap of trouble!!
I hope none of us ever have to find out . . .
Thank you for explaining your opinion.
Even if they do charge him with being in possession, it will be a minor misdemeanor charge. The other charge is a very serious felony charge, so the "possession" might even not happen.
Did the victim die? Last I heard I think it said he was hospitalized in critical condition.
The presence of a sign does not in itself make it illegal. To put it another way, if he can legally carry in Atwoods with no sign, he can legally carry in Target with a sign. The business owner can ask him to leave, if he refuses at that point he is subject to a fine.
I was looking at HB2597, apparently not the final version, but this is a link to current law
https://osbi.ok.gov/sites/g/files/g...9_SDA_Law_Book-_FINAL_09172019_with_COVER.pdf
1290.22 is the section on rights of business owners, but chuter posted the relevant part above. What in that is violated simply by possessing a gun where no gun signs are posted? It simply says the business owner can deny you access, and you must leave.
That is not to say that he won't be charged with other crimes (possession by a convicted felon, brandishing, attempted murder, etc.) I expect he will. But the purpose of the conversation seems to be if YOU are caught in the mall with a legally possessed firearm, can you be prosecuted? My question is, what in the SDA lawbook says you have violated any law?
I was looking at HB2597, apparently not the final version, but this is a link to current law
https://osbi.ok.gov/sites/g/files/g...9_SDA_Law_Book-_FINAL_09172019_with_COVER.pdf
1290.22 is the section on rights of business owners, but chuter posted the relevant part above. What in that is violated simply by possessing a gun where no gun signs are posted? It simply says the business owner can deny you access, and you must leave.
That is not to say that he won't be charged with other crimes (possession by a convicted felon, brandishing, attempted murder, etc.) I expect he will. But the purpose of the conversation seems to be if YOU are caught in the mall with a legally possessed firearm, can you be prosecuted? My question is, what in the SDA lawbook says you have violated any law?
If you have a copy of the 2018 SDA book, then do yourself (and others) a favor and destroy it. There were significant changes to the law in 2019 that makes the 2018 book nothing more than a bunch of BAD LAW. When you cite and mention and conjecture items that are in this book, then you are doing nothing to help the cause. Either use the 2019 book or the actual cite from OSCN (the recommended source).
The officer who spouted that he was in violation of the law for carrying in the mall is straight up wrong. Remember that you can't lie to the police but they sure as hell (and WILL) lie to you. There is no exception to the PIO being honest with the public. Cops get the law wrong ALL THE TIME. DO NOT TAKE LEGAL ADVICE FROM A COP.
The officer who spouted that he was in violation of the law for carrying in the mall is straight up wrong. Remember that you can't lie to the police but they sure as hell (and WILL) lie to you. There is no exception to the PIO being honest with the public. Cops get the law wrong ALL THE TIME. DO NOT TAKE LEGAL ADVICE FROM A COP.
Similar threads
