Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
CCing AK pistol in truck isn't legal in OK?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow" data-source="post: 1190990" data-attributes="member: 7123"><p>Well, crap, I'm wrong on the overall length thing - thanks - and yes I belive that is a new one.... <strong>my bad, and yes, I'm an idiot for not reading the thing more often, for amendments!</strong> <img src="/images/smilies/smile.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-shortname=":)" /> How long is a 7" bbl AK handgun anyway?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Nightops and saddlebum and others, not so fast on the other issue, however.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you're analysis may be misreading the intent and language and implication of 1289.13A (which is also new, BTW - thanks). What you are saying, in essence, is that since 13A says you get a ticket (violation), if you have a loaded gun *somewhere* in your car, but do NOT have a CCW licence, AND are not in compliance with 1289.13 (regular, not A), then this *implicitly* allows that you CAN carry a loaded gun (not in compliance with 1289.13) *in your car but not on you person*. And in fact, I agree - that that is ONE of two reasonable interpretations of that statute - you are exactly right. But there is another, second reasonable interpretation of that statute, unfortunately - one that could get you ticketed.</p><p></p><p>And that's this - that that statue is talking about *somewhere in your car*, period, INCLUDING both in your car, not on your person, AND on your person... and so when it carves out the implicit exception to a 1289.13 violation for CCW holders, it is intending to carve out that exception solely for those CCW holders <em><strong>*who are otherwise in compliance with the SDA*</strong></em>, meaning that you have it on your person, concealed. They are not intending to carve out an exception for SDA holders to keep a loaded gun somewhere in the car around them, but to carve out an exception for CCW holders who have it on their person, as required by the SDA! Because the language of both 1289.13 and 1289.13A says "in the motor vehicle", and since this phrase can mean BOTH 'in your vehicle, and not on your person concealed', AND/OR can mean 'in your vehicle and on your person concealed', they were forced to throw in this language about CCW being the exception. But the legislature didn't intend to allow CCW holders to violate the terms of the SDA, solely through this new 13A section, by keeping a loaded gun lying around. In other words, they're not intending to amend the SDA and alter it's provisions, but just to clarify that you're not in hot water, as far as 1289.13 goes, if but only if you are in FULL compliancee with the SDA (which of course requires concealed on your person, correct?). Remember, when it's on your person, and your person is IN the motor vehicle, then the gun also happens to be IN the motor vehicle.</p><p></p><p>At least that is one other reasonable interpretation - and probably the more reasonable of the two, though that is debatable. You're at least taking a risk of being charged, given the ambiguity there. Do what you want - you pays your money, drives your car, and takes your chances - but I've seen rogue jackass DA actions often enough to know that if they WANT to railroad you, for some reason, they will look for any possible way to railroad you.</p><p></p><p>Now you may say "but wait, it clearly says: 'whether the loaded firearm is concealed or open in the vehicle', so that means what it says, that you can have it loaded as long as it's open with a CCW" - and it may mean that - that's one interpretation that is quite reasonable I think. BUT - it could mean that the legislature meant that that phrase - 'whether the loaded firearm is concealed or open in the vehicle' - simply means that both kinds are subject to the entire 13A provision, but which in turn then specifically implies (as mentioned) that if it's the first kind (concealed), then it's covered by the exception to the rule of the 70 dollar fine, provided it's in full compliance with the SDA, or as a completely separate matter, if it's the second kind, loaded but open, then it's not subject to the SDA, but solely subject to 1289.13 and 1289.13A. In other words, that phrase is (arguably) conveying that if you are NOT in full compliance with the SDA with your loaded gun, including concealed on your person, then you're gonna get fined the same fine if you violate 1289.13 & 13A, *regardless* of whether your loaded gun is hidden somewhere or out in the open - same fine either way (i.e. clarifying that it ain't gonna help you avoid responsibility just because it's open, if it's loaded and you're not in full compliance with SDA) - that's probably the more likely way a court would read that, I think. I think you're risking potential trouble if you do this in an anti-gun District Attorney area. The whole problem stems from it being "implicit" - it doesn't say "you CAN do this" - it says "you will get a fine if you do this, but....." And when we're relying on an implication to save our butts from a violation, it had better be clear - and it's not!</p><p></p><p>Bottom line is it's a poorly written, ambiguous piece of crap statute, like a lot of them, and ambiguous laws can make you a test case if the DA happens to not like you, and/or is just anti-gun. Low chance of a problem, but the chance is there. YMMV.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow, post: 1190990, member: 7123"] Well, crap, I'm wrong on the overall length thing - thanks - and yes I belive that is a new one.... [B]my bad, and yes, I'm an idiot for not reading the thing more often, for amendments![/B] :) How long is a 7" bbl AK handgun anyway? Nightops and saddlebum and others, not so fast on the other issue, however. I think you're analysis may be misreading the intent and language and implication of 1289.13A (which is also new, BTW - thanks). What you are saying, in essence, is that since 13A says you get a ticket (violation), if you have a loaded gun *somewhere* in your car, but do NOT have a CCW licence, AND are not in compliance with 1289.13 (regular, not A), then this *implicitly* allows that you CAN carry a loaded gun (not in compliance with 1289.13) *in your car but not on you person*. And in fact, I agree - that that is ONE of two reasonable interpretations of that statute - you are exactly right. But there is another, second reasonable interpretation of that statute, unfortunately - one that could get you ticketed. And that's this - that that statue is talking about *somewhere in your car*, period, INCLUDING both in your car, not on your person, AND on your person... and so when it carves out the implicit exception to a 1289.13 violation for CCW holders, it is intending to carve out that exception solely for those CCW holders [I][B]*who are otherwise in compliance with the SDA*[/B][/I], meaning that you have it on your person, concealed. They are not intending to carve out an exception for SDA holders to keep a loaded gun somewhere in the car around them, but to carve out an exception for CCW holders who have it on their person, as required by the SDA! Because the language of both 1289.13 and 1289.13A says "in the motor vehicle", and since this phrase can mean BOTH 'in your vehicle, and not on your person concealed', AND/OR can mean 'in your vehicle and on your person concealed', they were forced to throw in this language about CCW being the exception. But the legislature didn't intend to allow CCW holders to violate the terms of the SDA, solely through this new 13A section, by keeping a loaded gun lying around. In other words, they're not intending to amend the SDA and alter it's provisions, but just to clarify that you're not in hot water, as far as 1289.13 goes, if but only if you are in FULL compliancee with the SDA (which of course requires concealed on your person, correct?). Remember, when it's on your person, and your person is IN the motor vehicle, then the gun also happens to be IN the motor vehicle. At least that is one other reasonable interpretation - and probably the more reasonable of the two, though that is debatable. You're at least taking a risk of being charged, given the ambiguity there. Do what you want - you pays your money, drives your car, and takes your chances - but I've seen rogue jackass DA actions often enough to know that if they WANT to railroad you, for some reason, they will look for any possible way to railroad you. Now you may say "but wait, it clearly says: 'whether the loaded firearm is concealed or open in the vehicle', so that means what it says, that you can have it loaded as long as it's open with a CCW" - and it may mean that - that's one interpretation that is quite reasonable I think. BUT - it could mean that the legislature meant that that phrase - 'whether the loaded firearm is concealed or open in the vehicle' - simply means that both kinds are subject to the entire 13A provision, but which in turn then specifically implies (as mentioned) that if it's the first kind (concealed), then it's covered by the exception to the rule of the 70 dollar fine, provided it's in full compliance with the SDA, or as a completely separate matter, if it's the second kind, loaded but open, then it's not subject to the SDA, but solely subject to 1289.13 and 1289.13A. In other words, that phrase is (arguably) conveying that if you are NOT in full compliance with the SDA with your loaded gun, including concealed on your person, then you're gonna get fined the same fine if you violate 1289.13 & 13A, *regardless* of whether your loaded gun is hidden somewhere or out in the open - same fine either way (i.e. clarifying that it ain't gonna help you avoid responsibility just because it's open, if it's loaded and you're not in full compliance with SDA) - that's probably the more likely way a court would read that, I think. I think you're risking potential trouble if you do this in an anti-gun District Attorney area. The whole problem stems from it being "implicit" - it doesn't say "you CAN do this" - it says "you will get a fine if you do this, but....." And when we're relying on an implication to save our butts from a violation, it had better be clear - and it's not! Bottom line is it's a poorly written, ambiguous piece of crap statute, like a lot of them, and ambiguous laws can make you a test case if the DA happens to not like you, and/or is just anti-gun. Low chance of a problem, but the chance is there. YMMV. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
CCing AK pistol in truck isn't legal in OK?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom