Constitutional carry

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Dave70968

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,619
Location
Norman
Reciprocity won't change with this bill.
Yes and no. Reciprocity provisions are still in effect; however, they are also supplemented by new language. 21 O.S. 1272 is amended to read (new language highlighted):
A. 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 or any blackjack, loaded cane, billy, hand chain, metal knuckles, or any other offensive weapon, whether such weapon be concealed or unconcealed, except this section shall not prohibit:
1. The proper use of guns and knives for self-defense, hunting, fishing, educational or recreational purposes;
...
6. The carrying of a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, loaded or unloaded, by a person who is at least twenty-one (21) years of age or older, or eighteen (18) years of age but not yet twenty-one (21) years of age and the person is a member or veteran of the United States Armed Forces, Reserves or National Guard or was discharged under honorable conditions from the United States Armed Forces, Reserves or National Guard, and who is otherwise not disqualified from the possession or purchase of a firearm under state or federal law and is not carrying the firearm in furtherance of a crime. Except as provided in subsection B of Section 1283 of this title, any person convicted of the following offenses in this state or a violation of the equivalent law of another state:
...
Several other bits referring to people "in possession of a handgun license" are amended to add terms substantially similar to "or otherwise lawfully in possession of a handgun," addressing that the license is no longer the only legal authorization to carry.

21 O.S. 1283 adds a subsection (E) that does restrict the right, but only to illegals:
E. It shall be unlawful for any person who is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States to have in the possession of the person or under the immediate control of the person, or in any vehicle the person is operating, or at the residence where the person resides, any pistol, imitation or homemade pistol, altered air or toy pistol, shotgun, rifle or any other dangerous or deadly firearm; provided, that nothing in this subsection applies to prohibit the transport or detention of the person by law enforcement officers or federal immigration authorities. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).

21 O.S. 1289.6 adds the following language:
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH FIREARMS MAY BE CARRIED
A. A person shall be permitted to carry loaded and unloaded shotguns, rifles and pistols, open and not concealed and without a handgun license as authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act pursuant to the following conditions:
...
6. As provided for in subsection A of Section 1272 of this title; or
7. For lawful self-defense and self-protection or any other legitimate purpose in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person; or
7. For any legitimate purpose
not in violation of the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971 or any legislative enactment regarding the use, carrying, ownership and control of firearms.​

21 O.S. 1289.7 adds this little gem:
D. It shall be unlawful for any person transporting a firearm in a motor vehicle to fail or refuse to identify that the person is in actual possession of a firearm when asked to do so by a law enforcement officer of this state during a traffic stop, arrest or detention. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00).
Note the boldface section: it looks like, when carrying pursuant to constitutional carry, you don't have to disclose until asked.

21 O.S. 1290.7 explicitly clarifies that the fact that licenses are available doesn't mean you have to have one:
B. The availability of a license to carry pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall not be construed to prohibit the lawful transport or carrying of a handgun or pistol in a vehicle or on or about the person whether concealed or unconcealed, loaded or unloaded and without a valid handgun license as permitted by law.

So...aside from the bit about illegals, it appears this changes things for everybody, not just Oklahoma residents. If California Joe or New Jersey Fred come down here to civilized America, the only thing they need to lawfully carry a gun is...a gun.

I like it!
 

Dave70968

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,619
Location
Norman
Then you really have no clue how law enforcement has to work in most of the state outside of the metro areas. I'm sure traffic cops investigating homicides would go great.
Okay, so we take them off the revenuer beat, train them to do real police work, and put them to work doing something productive. Again, multiple problems solved.
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
84,819
Reaction score
62,548
Location
Ponca City Ok
Actually, I agree with you on this, as a matter of practicality, but a right is a right, and none among us can arbitrarily decide if the other person's (non-felons) rights should be forfeited. So, in a truly free society, we have to take the bad with he good. I'll take it any day, over a situation like the above, where some DIC decides if I can avail myself of my lawful rights or not.

There are a crap ton of people in this state/country the did a stupid thing in their youth, got a felony losing their right to vote and own protection for their family later in life for non violent offenses.
I know there is a process to adjudicate that, but it needs to be streamlined.
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
84,819
Reaction score
62,548
Location
Ponca City Ok
Then @CHenry is correct. And KS residents could ALREADY carry here in OK without a license even before this bill passed.

He is correct. Oklahoma has for a long time recognized Constitutional Carry from other states by just presenting your drivers license.
The local officer may not know that, but a call to HQ should clear it up.
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
84,819
Reaction score
62,548
Location
Ponca City Ok
“21 O.S. 1289.6 adds the following language:
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH FIREARMS MAY BE CARRIED
A. A person shall be permitted to carry loaded and unloaded shotguns, rifles and pistols, open and not concealed and without a handgun license as authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act pursuant to the following conditions:
...
6. As provided for in subsection A of Section 1272 of this title; or
7. For lawful self-defense and self-protection or any other legitimate purpose in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person; or
7. For any legitimate purpose not in violation of the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971 or any legislative enactment regarding the use, carrying, ownership and control of firearms.”

This is significant vs the old law.
You could transport a long gun in a motor vehicle only if loaded in the magazine but not chamber loaded.
You can thank OK2A for this one. We had a presentation at one of our monthly club meetings where the rep described how one could carry a long gun across the street to show your neighbor and be guilty of a misdemeanor, yet do the same with a loaded pistol and be in compliance with current laws.
Big news for our side.
 

Billybob

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
4,686
Reaction score
404
Location
Tulsa
but a right is a right, and none among us can arbitrarily decide if the other person's (non-felons) rights should be forfeited. So, in a truly free society, we have to take the bad with he good. I'll take it any day, over a situation like the above, where some DIC decides if I can avail myself of my lawful rights or not.

How is a right a right when they're not treated equally but one is treated as superior to others even when criminal acts, and the irresponsible exercising of that right damages the fabric of society and it's finances as a whole and even results in harm and deaths?
If none can arbitrarily decide a persons rights should be forfeited how is it that some can arbitrarily decide that other's rights will not be forfeited or even restricted even with felonies involved and when such negatives are the result?
Is it a truly free society when not only is the good restricted and battled against but the bad is excused and subsidized by force at society's expense?
Where's that equality the left is always ranting about? Where's the "rule of law" that is supposedly one of the bedrocks of our system?
Is it possible that the reality is we're being played resulting in the detriment of the positives in our society while the negatives are pandered to resulting in the degradation and possible destruction of both society and the nation?
Is this situation similar in ways to what convinced the Germans to choose dictatorship as a survival mechanism? Could it be an engineered trap?
It would be interesting to hear some opinions on this as a theoretical exercise before specific details are named. I'd especially like to hear from @Dave70968 if he has interest or an opinion since rights and law are his specialty of knowledge.
 

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
3,509
Location
Enid, OK

Poke78

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
2,803
Reaction score
1,065
Location
Sand Springs
Pack it in, fellas - it's all over except the cryin'. The Legislature adjourned for the year last night and Mary now has the pocket veto available where the Legislature has no way to override. This whole battle starts over again next year with entirely different players.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom