Can I Or Can I Not Open Carry A Revolver Or Shotgun On My Rural Property?
- Thread starter OV1kenobi
- Start Date
I hadn't seen that Gilio v. State case before. Thanks for posting it Veggie. When I made my previous comments about it being illegal to carry a gun, even in your own home, for purposes other than sporting, education, hunting, or reenacting, I was thinking of that 1920s Pierce case. Contrary to what one fellow said in here, that case actually did find Pierce liable for carrying the gun IN HIS OWN HOME for the purpose of personal protection. However, Gilio states that there is legal authority to carry a gun in one's home other than SDA, and as the source of this authority partially relies on language in the Make my Day law, which states that it is not a violation, nor is a permit needed, to carry a gun for the purposes described (shooting people who break into your house).
Overall a good case that expanded the state's recognition of our rights a bit over Pierce.
But none of that changes how the law applies to the OP, who is worried about carrying on his land outside of his home. I suppose if you were a compulsive law abider you could make up your mind that you will shoot any hogs or coyotes you see when you are on your walks, and so that way you are (at least partially) carrying a gun for one of the "legitimate" purposes that the law sets out (hunting).
OK, lawyer hat off... I like the civil disobediance that a lot of you guys are advocating. That is the type of attitude I'd like to see more of when it comes to laws that are violative of our liberties. That is how I handle it too. If I want to carry a gun just for the heck of it when I'm walking on my parents' acreage or on any other private property, I damn well will. I really don't give two hoots for a law that violates one of my natural rights, and will disobey such laws as much as I think I can get away with if they prohibit something I want to do. In the case of such laws, I like to weigh the benefit I get from breaking the law against the possible penalty times the likelihood of being prosecuted for it. In the case of carrying a gun on rural private property, the chance of being prosecuted is very low, its only a misdemeanor if you do get prosecuted for it, and I get immense pleasure from walking around in the country with a gun, shooting anything I feel like.
So I will go on doing it. And if you don't like it, you are welcome to come try to stop me! 
Overall a good case that expanded the state's recognition of our rights a bit over Pierce.
But none of that changes how the law applies to the OP, who is worried about carrying on his land outside of his home. I suppose if you were a compulsive law abider you could make up your mind that you will shoot any hogs or coyotes you see when you are on your walks, and so that way you are (at least partially) carrying a gun for one of the "legitimate" purposes that the law sets out (hunting).
OK, lawyer hat off... I like the civil disobediance that a lot of you guys are advocating. That is the type of attitude I'd like to see more of when it comes to laws that are violative of our liberties. That is how I handle it too. If I want to carry a gun just for the heck of it when I'm walking on my parents' acreage or on any other private property, I damn well will. I really don't give two hoots for a law that violates one of my natural rights, and will disobey such laws as much as I think I can get away with if they prohibit something I want to do. In the case of such laws, I like to weigh the benefit I get from breaking the law against the possible penalty times the likelihood of being prosecuted for it. In the case of carrying a gun on rural private property, the chance of being prosecuted is very low, its only a misdemeanor if you do get prosecuted for it, and I get immense pleasure from walking around in the country with a gun, shooting anything I feel like.
So I will go on doing it. And if you don't like it, you are welcome to come try to stop me! 
Gilio is always a good bit of slippery slope reading as is Pierce. I always love how folks want others to cite language supporting their claims. Sorry, but I only do that when getting paid or before a Judge.
Actually, I was asking you to cite language supporting your claim that it is lawful for one to open carry on their rural property.
You cited 1289.6 and 1290 (even though 1290 is the SDA and has nothing to do with open carry). Neither of those has exemptions for rural property while engaged in activity such as tending land, like the OP asked.
Still waiting counselor...
P.S. I agree in most part with Heschman's thoughtful response. But I'm sticking to the topic of whether or not the activity is legal under Oklahoma law....not getting into whether it is right/wrong or worthy of civil disobedience or whether or not one is likely to be arrested/charged for the activity.
You cited 1289.6 and 1290 (even though 1290 is the SDA and has nothing to do with open carry). Neither of those has exemptions for rural property while engaged in activity such as tending land, like the OP asked.
Still waiting counselor...
P.S. I agree in most part with Heschman's thoughtful response. But I'm sticking to the topic of whether or not the activity is legal under Oklahoma law....not getting into whether it is right/wrong or worthy of civil disobedience or whether or not one is likely to be arrested/charged for the activity.
Didn't the bold portion of this address your request?
http://www.okshooters.com/showthrea...ral-Property&p=1660621&viewfull=1#post1660621
Not really, because the individual in question was not charged with a violation of 1272. He was charged with a violation of 1290 and the court found that 1290 or "the act" was not enough to convict him.
"The narrow question we review today is whether the OSBI met its burden of proof to establish that Permit Holder was in fact subject to the Act while carrying a loaded, concealed firearm in the confines of his own home. We answer that question in the negative".
It is encouraging, but not enough to want to volunteer for another test case. And this case has nothing to do with open carry outdoors on private property.
"The narrow question we review today is whether the OSBI met its burden of proof to establish that Permit Holder was in fact subject to the Act while carrying a loaded, concealed firearm in the confines of his own home. We answer that question in the negative".
It is encouraging, but not enough to want to volunteer for another test case. And this case has nothing to do with open carry outdoors on private property.
Actually, I was asking you to cite language supporting your claim that it is lawful for one to open carry on their rural property.
You cited 1289.6 and 1290 (even though 1290 is the SDA and has nothing to do with open carry). Neither of those has exemptions for rural property while engaged in activity such as tending land, like the OP asked.
Still waiting counselor...
P.S. I agree in most part with Heschman's thoughtful response. But I'm sticking to the topic of whether or not the activity is legal under Oklahoma law....not getting into whether it is right/wrong or worthy of civil disobedience or whether or not one is likely to be arrested/charged for the activity.
Like I said. Send the check first!
MUHAHAHAH!
Like I said. Send the check first!
You take paypal? LOL.
Nope...
MyMonkey made the assertion way back on page one, post #14, that his research indicated one was free to open carry on rural property and I asked for proof of that, then we started rolling and getting deeper into it. I cede the point that Gilio might give some ground to support carrying within the home, but it does nothing in terms of carrying on your property, rural or otherwise.
Similar threads
