A fix to Oklahoma CCW law, instead of an open carry law?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

TallPrairie

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
556
Reaction score
9
Location
Central OK
Everyone pretty much knows the background here. OK statutes do not allow the open carry of a handgun for defense. One can lawfully carry concealed if one has an OK SDA permit. (The OK state constitution has been interpreted as not protecting any form of carry, so statute law is all we have, unless and until the federal 2A/14A is held to protect carry rights.)

The problem is that the SDA, as currently written, is a grudging CCW statute. It imposes unreasonably demanding concealment requirements on lawful carriers. The SDA provides (at least in some sections), that guns must be carried "fully concealed from detection and view." See, e.g., O.S. 1290.26 (reciprocity section). There is no provision excusing even brief and unintentional exposures of one's handgun. It seems to be something close to strict criminal liability, even if the carrier made reasonable efforts to conceal the handgun, but didn't perfectly succeed. In a state that frequently combines 90+ degree temperatures with 30+ mile an hour winds, that requirement is just unreasonable.

This leaves law-abiding OK CCWers in a dilemma not faced in other states. They must either (1) limit their carry weapon choices and/or mode of carry to ensure perfect concealment, or (2) carry an effective, full sized defensive handgun in a way that is accessible, but run a risk of violating the law through inadvertent failure to conceal. In other words, you can carry a little pocket pistol and be safe under the law, or you can carry a 1911/XD in an IWB holster and rely on the discretion of law enforcement to let you slip by, in case your shirt hikes up when you bend over to take some soup cans off the shelves at the Homeland.

Many members of this forum find the above choice obviously unacceptable, and believe that the best fix is to legalize open carry for SDA holders. I agree that reform is needed. The question is what sort of legislative fix is appropriate.

The legislature passed an open carry bill for SDA permit holders last year, but the bill did not survive a gubernatorial veto. The issue is likely to return in this legislative session.

I supported the bill (and wrote and called Gov. Henry's office to express my support) but I am not actually interested in open carrying in public, as such. I can see the point of those who argue that widespread open carry may be disruptive and even lead to a backlash to our rights, with more businesses choosing to "post" and become non-CCW areas.

The debate over the OC bill convinced me that there are a lot of people like me. I just want to be able to carry an effective sidearm in a way that it can be deployed rapidly to stop a lethal criminal threat when there is no other option. And I want to be able to do that without worrying about whether I am going to face a confrontation with a LEO, and possible criminal liability, if the 30 mph wind has hiked up my shirt for a few seconds.

Instead of open carry, perhaps we should pursue a "fix" of OK's concealed carry laws, giving better protection to concealed carriers who inadvertently print or expose the firearm.

We could adopt some provisions of other states' law. Texas law defines "concealed" more realistically than OK law, and is less hostile to permit holders. Under Texas law, a handgun is concealed as long as:

the presence of [the handgun] is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

I like that a lot better than "fully concealed from detection and view." Maybe even change "reasonable person" to "ordinary person," to emphasize that as long as it's not obvious to Joe or Jane Passerby, it's lawfully "concealed." Takes care of the concern over liability for printing.

What about inadvertent exposure (wind blows your shirt up)? Simple fix. Remove SDA permit holders entirely from the basic OK prohibition on unlawful carrying altogether. (Insert a section "This section shall not apply to holders of a valid SDA.") Then add to the SDA a new offense of "intentional failure to conceal" and make that the only way holders of a valid SDA can be liable for exposing their gun. Provide that it's illegal to intentionally expose the gun, but not to do so inadvertently. And add an exception to allow brief intentional exposures that may be reasonably necessary for the storage or safe handling of the firearm -- so no one can hassle you for exposing your gun for a second (as you must) when unholstering to store it in the trunk or your motorcycle bags when going into a non-CCW area.

Personally, I would be content with this reform. I'm not interested in wide-open OC. I'm not interested in broadcasting to the world that I carry. I just want a good CCW statute (something OK does not now have) that gives me enough breathing room to exercise my right to carry a defensive handgun in a confident and user-friendly manner, that does not make the (practical) legality of CCW dependent upon law enforcement discretion in any way.

I bet many of you think the same way.

Would Oklahoma LEO organizations support this type of reform -- a "CCW fix" instead of full open carry for permit holders? I bet legislators would find it palatable, and I bet Mary Fallin would sign it. But I am no expert in state politics.

What do you all think?
 

n8thegr8

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
3,654
Reaction score
3
Location
Oklahoma City
+1

I would never open carry personally, I think doing so would be drawing unnecessary attention to oneself, and could only end badly, however I also think the restrictions should be relaxed.
 

DirtyDawg

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
640
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Oklahoma
34 other states allow open carry. It does not cause problems or create havoc.

Why are you so quick to compromise? Compromise is what got us in this mess to begin with...

How 'bout restoring the 2nd Amendment which confers our R2KBArms? Stop compromising, and stop deciding for me how I should carry my tool to protect me and my family.
 

Dale00

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
7,462
Reaction score
3,868
Location
Oklahoma
Tallprairie - thanks for the thought you put into this. I'm all in favor of getting as much (or all) of our second amendment rights restored as possible. As you point out we have to convince legislators of the reasonableness of the proposal.

My uneducated hunch is that legislators will support a change in Oklahoma carry laws if you can point to the carry laws of surrounding states to prove that Oklahoma laws are too strict compared to them. Are Oklahoma laws stricter than all of our neighbors?
 

TallPrairie

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
556
Reaction score
9
Location
Central OK
Finally!!!!

I get to use one of these:

[popcorn]

Michael Brown

Heh. A change of pace, maybe. But your thoughts on the topic would also be welcome.

Stop compromising, and stop deciding for me how I should carry my tool to protect me and my family.

Was the initial passage of the SDA itself an unacceptable compromise? What's proposed is an expansion of your rights and mine. You would remain free to advocate for full OC as the next step, if you choose. I wouldn't bad-mouth you for it, either; it's a respectable position. It just wouldn't be as much of a priority for me.

ETA: If you really want to smoke out the legislators who were only posturing when they voted for the OC bill (knowing that it would be vetoed), and who don't really support gun rights, try a CCW fix bill like I propose. Very difficult for a legislator to explain why he/she would oppose this fix unless they just flat distrust carry by private citizens. They can't say "I support carry rights, I just don't want people running around with exposed chest holsters at the Wal-Mart"; which they can say about a full open carry bill. Instead, they have to take a stance more like "I think otherwise law-abiding people with gun permits, who are making a good faith effort to conceal, should be subject to jail if their shirt hikes up." Not an attractive position.
 

TallPrairie

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
556
Reaction score
9
Location
Central OK
One more thought. Many of the LEOs on this forum have expressed a constructive and sensible attitude toward the administration of the current CCW law; they've said that if you're showing, then, assuming you have a valid permit, they'll simply ask you to cover up, which of course the CCWer will do.

This constructive approach could continue under a CCW fix bill. If your shirt is hiked up, a LEO can ascertain that you've got a valid permit, and then point out your inadvertent failure to conceal. Then you acknowledge him/her and cover up. You've done nothing illegal (under the proposed change) and should not be subject to any further detention or arrest. But if you simply refuse to cover up in response to the LEO's request, then your continuing failure to conceal would now become intentional, which would make it unlawful under the proposed statute.

In short, the LEOs who take a sound approach to administering the current law could continue, after the proposed change, with exactly the same practices they use now. It's just the ones who want to arrest or cite an otherwise lawful carrier for an unintentional lapse in concealment who would no longer be authorized to do so after the change.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,424
Reaction score
15,659
Location
Collinsville
I do not advocate open carry under most conditions, but I see it's usefullness under certain conditions. I'd prefer that we get open carry, even if it had restrictions such as when hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, on your own property, etc., where concealment is sometimes uncomfortable and may interfere with carrying other gear or performing certain tasks.

As for the whole "brandishing" clause, I think there needs to be a legal distinction between menacing another person with intent, by revealing you're carrying, and inadvertent exposure that scares the sheeple. The unreasonable brandishing of a CCW should continue to carry a penalty, while inadvertent exposure should carry nothing more than a "cover it up" verbal instruction.

As usual, Oklahoma law is unnecessarily vague and subject to reasonable AND unreasonable interpretation. JMO, YMMV
 

TallPrairie

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
556
Reaction score
9
Location
Central OK
I agree that allowing OC on one's own property (including outdoors, not just inside the house) makes a lot of sense. The typical arguments made in opposition to OC don't apply well in that context, although you'll get the "don't freak out the neighbors" argument in the suburbs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom