Legality Of Blackjacks, Saps And Batons?

[OV1kenobi]

I just recently acquired my "Oklahoma Concealed Weapon License."

O.K. I understand that this license allows me to carry a handgun for the purpose of defense.

Just wondering.... Can I carry a sap, blackjack or baton in case I am assaulted and need to respond in order to protect myself and my loved ones, but not to the degree that I need to put a bullet into someone's brain? In other words, if I am assaulted by some oversized, drunk, loud-mouthed bully that wants to tangle physically but has not drawn a weapon; despite his/her size advantage?

I really don't want to shoot someone if I can at all avoid it, but if I can't avoid a confrontation, despite my best efforts, I would rather like to end it as quickly as possible with a sap, blackjack or baton. I would NEVER want to shoot anyone if there are other means available to defend myself and my loved ones.

I completely understand that a sap, blackjack or baton can fracture someone's scull, but I also understand that a a bullet, once fired, will very likely do that and more.

 

[Danny Tanner]

Not sure about the legalities of carrying any of those. To my knowledge, I don't believe you can, but I've never considered it so I haven't really paid attention to whether I can or can't. Somebody will no doubt be along to confirm my guess or prove otherwise. I'd advise you to stick around and wait for somebody that knows for certain.

In your hypothetical situation, if you're dealing with a drunken idiot that has the size and strength advantage, wouldn't you prefer to keep the distance between the two of you and maybe consider pepper spray?

 

[Glocktogo]

Not legal. The OK SDA doesn't cover weapons other than handguns, that are illegal to carry under OS 21-1272.

 

[OV1kenobi]

Not legal. The OK SDA doesn't cover weapons other than handguns, that are illegal to carry under OS 21-1272.

Just want to be clear about this.

Let me get this straight and without any doubt.

So, if some Alex Karras (NFL player-type) decided to assault me or one of my family, It would be perfectly fine to blow his brains out with a 10mm round from a Glock Model 20, rather than clothes-lining him by smacking his teeth into his throat with a blackjack or bust his jaw with some brass knuckles?

I assume that I would be better off shooting him?

Maybe I am somewhat warped in my logic. If so, please educate and correct me.

However, my conscience tells me that there is something wrong with the logic that it is perfectly fine to shoot someone who is a threat, but it is wrong, immoral and illegal to smack him down with a sap.

 

[JB Books]

That's a very colorful description.

 

[ExSniper]

21-1272 covers unlawful carry and all of the devices mentioned are included.

 

[hrdware]

Just so everyone can see what 1272 says without having to go look it up:

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 dagger, bowie knife, dirk knife, switchblade knife, spring-type knife, sword cane, knife having a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife, 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 hunting, fishing, educational or recreational purposes;
2. The carrying or use of weapons in a manner otherwise permitted by statute or authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act;
3. The carrying, possession and use of any weapon by a peace officer or other person authorized by law to carry a weapon in the performance of official duties and in compliance with the rules of the employing agency;
4. The carrying or use of weapons in a courthouse by a district judge, associate district judge or special district judge within this state, who is in possession of a valid concealed handgun license issued pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act and whose name appears on a list maintained by the Administrative Director of the Courts; or
5. The carrying and use of firearms and other weapons provided in this subsection when used for the purpose of living history reenactment. For purposes of this paragraph, “living history reenactment” means depiction of historical characters, scenes, historical life or events for entertainment, education, or historical documentation through the wearing or use of period, historical, antique or vintage clothing, accessories, firearms, weapons, and other implements of the historical period.

 

[saddlebum]

pepper spray is a good less lethal tool

 

[Glocktogo]

Just want to be clear about this.

Let me get this straight and without any doubt.

So, if some Alex Karras (NFL player-type) decided to assault me or one of my family, It would be perfectly fine to blow his brains out with a 10mm round from a Glock Model 20, rather than clothes-lining him by smacking his teeth into his throat with a blackjack or bust his jaw with some brass knuckles?

I assume that I would be better off shooting him?

Maybe I am somewhat warped in my logic. If so, please educate and correct me.

However, my conscience tells me that there is something wrong with the logic that it is perfectly fine to shoot someone who is a threat, but it is wrong, immoral and illegal to smack him down with a sap.

So long as you are in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, yes. Otherwise, this:

pepper spray is a good less lethal tool

You can also get a civilian Taser if you'd prefer. Remember, the law doesn't have to make sense for you to be bound by it. It made sense to someone at some point in Oklahoma history, and that's the sum of it.

 

[Lurker66]

Just want to be clear about this.

Let me get this straight and without any doubt.

So, if some Alex Karras (NFL player-type) decided to assault me or one of my family, It would be perfectly fine to blow his brains out with a 10mm round from a Glock Model 20, rather than clothes-lining him by smacking his teeth into his throat with a blackjack or bust his jaw with some brass knuckles?

I assume that I would be better off shooting him?

Maybe I am somewhat warped in my logic. If so, please educate and correct me.

However, my conscience tells me that there is something wrong with the logic that it is perfectly fine to shoot someone who is a threat, but it is wrong, immoral and illegal to smack him down with a sap.

it sounds to me like your 7ft tall and bullit proof. Think seriously about all the possibilities that could happen if you and/or family was assaulted by the "Alex Karros" type.

Now to think that you would attempt to protect them with a sap or pepper spray as opposed to a firearm, when you have an option? That my friend is not sound logic.