CCing AK pistol in truck isn't legal in OK?

[ImaBBaller]

Yes, what redmax says. Guys, look - the reason it may not be legal is not bbl length, but the fact that you're not concealing it and carrying it on your person. If you conceal and carry it on your person, then it's (probably) legal as your CCW (if you have a CCW). If it's in your vehicle, then (arguably) it's not on your person, as is required by the self defense act, in which case the other statutes apply, in which case it needs to be "open and unloaded." They *might* even could argue, as an additional reason that the self-defense act (CCW) doesn't apply is that it's not a "handgun" within the meaning of the self-defense act; i.e. that the definition of handgun is more restrictive in the self-defense act than in federal law, meaning designed to fired with one hand. Frankly, the "handgun" AK is NOT fired with one hand - I'd like to see someone do this and how well they can shoot. It's a very well-settled idea that same word or phrase can have different meanings in different areas of the law.

I would have to disagree with you here. It appears to me per the SDA that the ONLY reason it is not legal is the overall length of the weapon. If it was below 16" I could legally keep it in my vehicle loaded. (Including chamber loaded.) There are plenty of people that use their CWL for the sole purpose of keeping a loaded pistol in the car. (I'm not one however, as I carry a pistol on my person everyday, but would like to be able to have the AK pistol in the truck.)

 

[h8ns8n]

Yes, what redmax says. Guys, look - the reason it may not be legal is not bbl length, but the fact that you're not concealing it and carrying it on your person. If you conceal and carry it on your person, then it's (probably) legal as your CCW (if you have a CCW). If it's in your vehicle, then (arguably) it's not on your person, as is required by the self defense act, in which case the other statutes apply, in which case it needs to be "open and unloaded." They *might* even could argue, as an additional reason that the self-defense act (CCW) doesn't apply is that it's not a "handgun" within the meaning of the self-defense act; i.e. that the definition of handgun is more restrictive in the self-defense act than in federal law, meaning designed to fired with one hand. Frankly, the "handgun" AK is NOT fired with one hand - I'd like to see someone do this and how well they can shoot. It's a very well-settled idea that same word or phrase can have different meanings in different areas of the law.

my handgun is not always on me, if I am in the car then many times it is in the center console and it is my understanding that it is still covered under my CCL. Both times I have been stopped this was the case.

 

[saddlebum]

SDA does not say it has to be on your person.and yes, the length would be the main reason it's not legal for ccw in Oklahoma

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

No, no, no, sorry guys. I think you're incorrect (but I'll look at it again).

my handgun is not always on me, if I am in the car then many times it is in the center console and it is my understanding that it is still covered under my CCL.

Your understanding is based on a generally-accepted idea in law enforcement (thankfully - this is a good thing) - it is not based on what the LAW says.

Both times I have been stopped this was the case.

With all due respect, no it wasn't the "case" that this is what the law IS - it was the case that the particular LEOs that you dealt with believed it to be OK, based on their instructions from their superiors, the academy, and general word of mouth, and exercised their discretion in your favor - as I said, this is based on what is generally-accepted by LEOs and LEO agencies at this time - this is not necessarily one and the same as what a COURT would rule if some jackass cop decided to charge you for an SDA violation based on not having it on your person. I do it too - leave guns loaded under the seat, in the console, etc., and rely on this well-publicized "general acceptance" of this practice by the vast majority of Oklahoma LEOs and LEO agencies - it does not make it the law, and does not keep you 100% safe from prosecution. I'm a risk-taker - you may not be. I believe that the Constitution is my carry permit, and the CCW license is just a formality, for good measure.

SDA does not say it has to be on your person.and yes, the length would be the main reason it's not legal for ccw in Oklahoma

Where in the SDA does it say anything about handgun length?

SDA does not say it has to be on your person.

It most certainly does. In fact, it must be "concealed" on your person. Haven't you ever heard of a violation for 'not concealing'? This law about concealing on your person doesn't magically change the moment you step into your vehicle. If it does, I'd like for someone to point out that section to me, please. I'd be glad to be corrected.

I read the SDA. Carefully. A couple of times. I can read and understand English pretty well. But granted, that was over a decade ago. Unless it's changed, it says nothing about length, but DOES say that the handgun must be concealed and carried on your person. And that it must be '.45 caliber or less'. But if it's been amended, then I'll be glad to admit I'm wrong. I'll even call myself an idiot for not reading the amendments to it more than every 10 years.

Be careful out there - you'll probably get away with it - but you just might run into some anti-gun jackass city boy LEO in say, OKC or Tulsa, and if he's got a chief and DA that agrees with him, they could potentially charge you with a crime if it's not on your person.

I'm pretty sure you could carry a BFR or a 30" handgun if you want to, and be legal, as long as it's concealed, and .45 caliber or less, and your license covers the action type.

P.S. I just remembered - didn't they amend to allow for unintentional "un-concealings / revealings" to be acceptable / non-violation in the last year or so? Maybe that section is somethign we can hang our hat on if charged with a loaded handgun on the floorboard on in a console - but I think it'd be hard to argue that leaving it there was "unintentional" - I need to just go re-read the thing carefully again before spouting any more. I could be wrong here.... There's also possibly case law on it.

 

[LightningCrash]

There are no legislative means for you to transport that weapon loaded, mag loaded, chamber loaded or clip loaded in your vehicle for the purposes of self defense. It does meet the definition of pistol for §1289, so the pistol is limited to all the privileges a non-SDA-applicable pistol would have.

 

[inactive]

There are no legislative means for you to transport that weapon loaded, mag loaded, chamber loaded or clip loaded in your vehicle for the purposes of self defense. It does meet the definition of pistol for §1289, so the pistol is limited to all the privileges a non-SDA-applicable pistol would have.

I agree with this with some reservations. Since the act provides its own specific definition of pistol, and this weapon does not meet them, it is not applicable under any of the "pistol" provisions of the law, despite the the BAFTE's consideration:

As used in Sections 1 through 26 of this act:

2. Pistol means any derringer, revolver or semiautomatic firearm which:
a. has an overall length of less that sixteen (16) inches...

So regardless of what you or other statute may designate a pistol, per this act only it is not a pistol.


I would further argue that if you treated this as a "rifle or shotgun" with regard to your transport and storage being in compliance with this law, you would likely be in the clear as you consciously recognized it was not a pistol as defined by this act, and with rifle and shotgun not being clearly defined, it "must" be a rifle or shotgun. That said, there is not legal precedent for that logic but it being what a reasonable person could infer you would likely be in the clear, particularly since the rifle/shotgun carry is more conservative (magazine/clip loaded, not chamber loaded like "pistols").


Edit: The interesting thing about how much of law works, that there is this "reasonable person" test and laws and contracts reviewed by the courts are applied based on how a reasonable person could interpret them (federal government not withstanding). Of course, the paradox lies in the fact that no reasonable person would ever write something so contradictory or confusing as most statutes are worded!

 

[reddog1]

I would carry it anywhere in the car with a valid CWL, no round in the chamber.

Thats just me.

Im nutz, and kinda stupid too. LOL

 

[Nightops]

It most certainly does. In fact, it must be "concealed" on your person. Haven't you ever heard of a violation for 'not concealing'? This law about concealing on your person doesn't magically change the moment you step into your vehicle. If it does, I'd like for someone to point out that section to me, please. I'd be glad to be corrected.

TITLE 21 § 1289.13A. Improper transportation of firearm
IMPROPER TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARM
A. Notwithstanding the provisions of 1272 or 1289.13 of this title, any person stopped pursuant to a moving traffic violation who is transporting a loaded pistol in the motor vehicle without a valid concealed handgun permit authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act or valid license from another state, whether the loaded firearm is concealed or open in the vehicle, shall be issued a traffic citation in the amount of Seventy Dollars ($70.00), plus court costs for transporting a firearm improperly. In addition to the traffic citation provided in this section, the person may also be arrested for any other violation of law.

By this section, it would allow for loaded transportation, not carry, in your vehicle with a valid SDA license, and the transportation may be concealed or open in your vehicle (not on your person).

 

[ImaBBaller]

No, no, no, sorry guys. I think you're incorrect (but I'll look at it again).



Your understanding is based on a generally-accepted idea in law enforcement (thankfully - this is a good thing) - it is not based on what the LAW says.



With all due respect, no it wasn't the "case" that this is what the law IS - it was the case that the particular LEOs that you dealt with believed it to be OK, based on their instructions from their superiors, the academy, and general word of mouth, and exercised their discretion in your favor - as I said, this is based on what is generally-accepted by LEOs and LEO agencies at this time - this is not necessarily one and the same as what a COURT would rule if some jackass cop decided to charge you for an SDA violation based on not having it on your person. I do it too - leave guns loaded under the seat, in the console, etc., and rely on this well-publicized "general acceptance" of this practice by the vast majority of Oklahoma LEOs and LEO agencies - it does not make it the law, and does not keep you 100% safe from prosecution. I'm a risk-taker - you may not be. I believe that the Constitution is my carry permit, and the CCW license is just a formality, for good measure.



Where in the SDA does it say anything about handgun length?



It most certainly does. In fact, it must be "concealed" on your person. Haven't you ever heard of a violation for 'not concealing'? This law about concealing on your person doesn't magically change the moment you step into your vehicle. If it does, I'd like for someone to point out that section to me, please. I'd be glad to be corrected.

I read the SDA. Carefully. A couple of times. I can read and understand English pretty well. But granted, that was over a decade ago. Unless it's changed, it says nothing about length, but DOES say that the handgun must be concealed and carried on your person. And that it must be '.45 caliber or less'. But if it's been amended, then I'll be glad to admit I'm wrong. I'll even call myself an idiot for not reading the amendments to it more than every 10 years.

Be careful out there - you'll probably get away with it - but you just might run into some anti-gun jackass city boy LEO in say, OKC or Tulsa, and if he's got a chief and DA that agrees with him, they could potentially charge you with a crime if it's not on your person.

I'm pretty sure you could carry a BFR or a 30" handgun if you want to, and be legal, as long as it's concealed, and .45 caliber or less, and your license covers the action type.

P.S. I just remembered - didn't they amend to allow for unintentional "un-concealings / revealings" to be acceptable / non-violation in the last year or so? Maybe that section is somethign we can hang our hat on if charged with a loaded handgun on the floorboard on in a console - but I think it'd be hard to argue that leaving it there was "unintentional" - I need to just go re-read the thing carefully again before spouting any more. I could be wrong here.... There's also possibly case law on it.

I appreciate your efforts to help here, but the laws must have been much different 10 years ago. Here is the link to the newest SDA lawbook:

www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2009.pdf


Look in section "1290.2 DEFINITIONS." (page 4 of that link) 2a defines a handgun for the purposes of the SDA as having an overall length of less than 16". This is what keeps me from being able to carry it on my person concealed, or from being able to keep it chamber loaded in my vehicle.


Also read 1289.7 and 1289.7a. (pages 27 & 28 of that link) These address keeping the gun concealed in your vehicle. The way I understand the law here, it says it's perfectly fine to keep your gun in your car, and even says you can bring civil action against any place of business that attempts to keep you from keeping your concealed weapon in your vehicle.


Again, I appreciate the attempt to help here, but I believe your arguments are not based on what the law says.

 

[saddlebum]

Where in the SDA does it say anything about handgun length?



.

see card81fan's post and stand corrected on this. while i prove you wrong about the on your person thing

edit: i see imabballer beat me to it