Only if it makes sense to clean or repair a loaded firearm.
Here you go. Gilio v. State, 2001 OK CIV APP 122, 33 P.3d 937. Refused to address the question of equal protection, but is worth a read.
Can I Or Can I Not Open Carry A Revolver Or Shotgun On My Rural Property?
- Thread starter OV1kenobi
- Start Date
Only if it makes sense to clean or repair a loaded firearm.
Here you go. Gilio v. State, 2001 OK CIV APP 122, 33 P.3d 937. Refused to address the question of equal protection, but is worth a read.
To protect yourself you have to CCL and carry concealed. But it sounds to me like you are coyote hunting - which is clearly a legal reason carry open.
If you read the law, it says loaded, or "UNLOADED". Read it again.
This original case only discusses the requirements of notifying an officer who comes to your home that you have a concealed carry license, and have a concealed firearm anywhere in the home, which according to the court, is not required. And the end results in question were NOT criminal, but rather administrative by the OSBI. The court overturned the administrative fine, plus it referenced cases showing it is NOT illegal.
The court further finds in interpreting Pierce vs State (The very, very old case I referenced previously), a person has a right to keep a firearm, loaded, or unloaded within their home without any permit and move it at will. This is the same case that determined it was illegal to openly carry a firearm outside the home, even on your own property. I wish they had gone further and applied equal protection to carrying outside the home, but on your own property. However, as I mentioned, courts seem to have never been asked, that I can find, to reinterpret the laws in light of the SDA and "Make My Day" laws that did not exist when Pierce vs State was originally heard.
In this case, the court was NOT asked about carrying outside a person's home, but only whether a person had to notify a police officer of a concealed weapon within their home. Since that was the limit of the case, the court couldn't, or chose not to, apply equal protection.
I knew you would come along at some point and straighten us all out.
Last edited:
Over analyze the law? We are discussing the law so who defines "over analyzing"? It's written pretty clear and, as you and Veggie posted, Pierce and Gilio are case law/precedent to support the fact that open carry, even inside your home, is against the law in the state of Oklahoma. Only legal/legislative action will change it....hence the big movement for Open Carry legislation.
From 1272:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to carry upon or about his or her person, or in a purse or other container belonging to the person, any pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle whether loaded or unloaded..."
There are specific exemptions to the above listed in 1272, 1289.6 and 1290 but none of them cover "tending land" or open carry in the home. I have repeatedly asked someone, anyone, to cite the portions of any statute that exempts such activity from the very clear and broad restriction in 1272...and nobody has.
I can be convinced, but not by foot stomping. Pretend I'm from Missouri and "show me" the exemption to 1272 that allows one to open carry on their property or in their home when not engaged in any of the activity listed as exemptions.
Maybe the "any legitimate purpose" clause gives an out, but I don't think so....??
Last edited:
Might this give a property owner the legal authority to carry open on one's own property. 1290.22 Para A specifically provides a private property owner the the legal authority to control the possession of weapons on any property owned. Possession is pretty broad. 1290.22 Para A doesn't define the type of posession nor prohibit any specific type of possession so it would seem reasonable to me (not a lawyer) that the type of possession on private property is up to the property owner. Thus open carry on one's own property would seem to be OK.
Except maybe for that pesky "existing rights" phrase. Considering that modern jurisprudence seems to consider rights as only what the law says they are and not something we all have by virtue of birth.
I doubt that this particular part of the law has been tested in the courts yet.
Last edited:
Might want to actually read the court case referenced by Veggie. I will copy this excerpt directly from the case here for your convenience.
¶11 The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in Pierce v. State, 1929 OK CR 42, ¶ __, 275 P. 393, 394, interpreting the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions, held:
There is but one question raised in the brief of the defendant, and that question is whether or not, under the Constitution and laws of the state [sic] of Oklahoma, the defendant had a right to carry a gun on his person while in his own house and yard.
The Court settled the issue by stating:
As the law now is in this state, a person may lawfully own and possess any of the weapons named in sections 1991, 1992, [pistols and revolvers] and may move such weapons from room to room in their place of residence, but may not wear them on their person and transport them about the yard as shown by the evidence to have been done by the defendant in this case.
"¶14 It is clear that while there is no absolute right to carry a loaded, concealed firearm at all times in all places, our courts and legislature have chosen to allow an otherwise qualified citizen of this state to carry a loaded firearm in their home, and, if they are a permit holder, to carry a concealed, loaded firearm outside their home, pursuant to the terms of the Act. We do not interpret the Act to require a citizen to possess a permit to carry a concealed firearm within his own home, because such an interpretation would require us to find that the holding in Pierce was in conflict with, and was overruled by, the Act. Indeed the Act, by terms of the expressed legislative intent, was designed to be "cumulative to existing rights" to bear arms. 21 O.S. Supp. 1998 § 1290.25.
¶15 This interpretation is bolstered by another provision of state law. Title 21 O.S. Supp. 2000 § 1289.25, popularly known as the "Make My Day Law," permits a homeowner to use deadly force to repel an intruder. The statute concludes: "The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self_Defense Act . . . shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner." We conclude that in the case in controversy, Permit Holder clearly could have carried a loaded, concealed firearm within the confines of his home under either Pierce or the Act."
IMHO no, because 1290 is the SDA...the SDA only speaks to concealed carry and provides exceptions for 1272's restriction, as far as concealed carry goes. The paragraph you cite only states that the SDA can't restrict a private property owner's rights to control firearms on their property...it doesn't grant authority to ignore 1272.
1272 is not part of the SDA and already restricts it therefore the SDA cannnot undo the entirety of 1272's restriction.
@Owasso: I get it, but nothing you are citing contradicts the prohibition in 1272 on the open carrying of firearms.
Using a firearm in defense of your home in conjunction with the make my day law does not = walking around in your home or in your yard with an openly carried weapon. Using a firearm in self defense does not = carrying it openly prior to the attack that necessitated deadly force.
You have asserted that open carry in your home and about your property is not illegal. 1272, 1289.6 and 1290 say it is. Please show me what tells you it is not illegal.....perhaps it is the legitimate purpose clause, but what defines legitimate purpose?
You need to quit reading the law and view what the courts are saying. Their opinion is what is called case law. It's just as important, if not more important, than the law itself. The courts have already interpreted all the laws you are reading. I know what the law says, but what the courts say have far more influence on how the law is applied. This happens all the time..this is what the courts do. They read in between the lines and interpret what the legislative branch intended, and give direction to DAs and police on how to handle future possible infractions. In this case, they have absolutely, and very clearly, interpreted all the Oklahoma laws to allow for, and permit unconcealed, or concealed use of firearms within one's home without restriction or requiring any permit. Their ruling BECOMES THE LAW! The courts have dictated the exemption you are so desperately looking for.
I'm really not trying to be rude here, but you are over analyzing all of this. When investigating what a law does and does not mean, it is extremely important to find out how courts are ruling on the issue. You are reading only the verbiage in the law itself and completely ignoring the 3rd branch of government...the courts. I can pretty much guarantee you that a DA will not prosecute you for carrying a firearm within your home, no matter what the legislature wrote. If they did, the case would likely be thrown out because no lower court ever likes to be overturned by a higher court. Furthermore, LEOs don't like their cases kicked either. At the end of the day, the only opinion that really matters is the court system.
Also, if you will again read the court's interpretation, they have indeed concluded that openly carrying a firearm OUTSIDE of your home is illegal. (Even on your own property) I never said otherwise. The Pierce ruling interpreted it that way, but what we haven't seen is another challenge to this law with the addition of the SDA and how it effects the Pierce decision, if any at all. Until then, we are only left with what has already been said.
I think we're just arguing over the same thing here, and it's becoming tiresome. Have a good Thanksgiving.
We are discussing the law and legality of an action, so I'm not going to "quit reading the law". I'm not being rude either, but that makes no sense.
The likelihood or history of arrest or prosecution is not the bar-setter for what is legal or illegal. "You can get away with it" is not the same as "It is not illegal".
As I stated before, using a firearm in your home for self defense is not the same as wearing/carrying one about your person in anticipation of having to use it.
Show me the case law that defines, contradicts or clarifies 1272. Show me case law that states or indicates that an individual may open carry inside the home or on "rural property" while "tending land" or for any other purpose not already exempted by the written law.
The likelihood or history of arrest or prosecution is not the bar-setter for what is legal or illegal. "You can get away with it" is not the same as "It is not illegal".
As I stated before, using a firearm in your home for self defense is not the same as wearing/carrying one about your person in anticipation of having to use it.
Show me the case law that defines, contradicts or clarifies 1272. Show me case law that states or indicates that an individual may open carry inside the home or on "rural property" while "tending land" or for any other purpose not already exempted by the written law.
Similar threads
