Oklahoma Self Defense Act (pdf)

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

fredkrueger

Guest
Businesses are private property and they have the right to decide what they allow on that private property. Your 2A right does not trump the rights of the private property owner. You also have the right to spend your $$ at some other location that does support your 2A right.

Saying you should be able to do something against the property owners wishes is the same as anti's wanting to take rights away from us. It can't go both ways.
Good point. Thanks for the answer.
 

Werewolf

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
3,471
Reaction score
7
Location
OKC
I wish that our law was like Mizzou's. I think that some of our laws are a little bit ridiculous. I just don't agree with someone being able to tell me whether or not I can carry my gun in their business. That should be part of my second amendment right.

I'm with ya on that - 2nd amendment rights should trump property rights. Many here (if not most) disagree though and make good arguments supporting their opinions.

I personally feel that since the 2nd is an enumerated right and since property rights are not and are left to the 9th that the 2nd trumps the other. Unfortunately the courts (to the best of my knowledge) don't agree.
 

hrdware

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
764
Reaction score
2
Location
Moore
I have read over the SDA handbook a few times since getting my CCL. I have two questions that I would like to ask and if anyone has the answer I would really appreciate it. 1. Can I legally carry my weapon in church? 2. I am fixing to move into a duplex that is owned by the Citizen Potawatomi Nation Indian tribe. On the lease it states that I cannot have any firearms in the unit. I would think that this infringes on my second amendment rights. Even thought they own the building, how can they tell me what I can and cannot have in it. I know that they can control what you do to the property but I just don't see how they can tell me that. That is no different than telling me that I cannot put a king size bed in it. Just ridiculous in my book. What do you guys think about this??

You can carry in church unless your church is posted or contains an accredited school.

As far as your rental unit, generally speaking the landlord can not control what you keep inside the property, however since it is owned by a tribal entity the rules change as it may fall under tribal law. Your best bet would be to either contact a lawyer, or find a different place to live if possible.
 

hrdware

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
764
Reaction score
2
Location
Moore
I'm with ya on that - 2nd amendment rights should trump property rights. Many here (if not most) disagree though and make good arguments supporting their opinions.

I personally feel that since the 2nd is an enumerated right and since property rights are not and are left to the 9th that the 2nd trumps the other. Unfortunately the courts (to the best of my knowledge) don't agree.

Constitutional rights are enumerated, but it has been ruled that they are not order dependent. Just because the 2nd comes before the 9th does not mean it overrides the 9th.
 
F

fredkrueger

Guest
You can carry in church unless your church is posted or contains an accredited school.

As far as your rental unit, generally speaking the landlord can not control what you keep inside the property, however since it is owned by a tribal entity the rules change as it may fall under tribal law. Your best bet would be to either contact a lawyer, or find a different place to live if possible.
Thanks for the answer. I will have to check into it to see if I can have my guns in the duplex. What is the point in owning them and being able to have a ccl if I can't even store the guns in my home? But hopefully I can end up doing it. I could live somewhere else only it is so much cheaper there and they are pretty new and very good size so I don't want to live somewhere else. Kinda sucks. The maximum that I will have to pay is $450 a month. My wife and I are saving money to buy or build a house in about a year so it won't be very long there.
 

Werewolf

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
3,471
Reaction score
7
Location
OKC
Constitutional rights are enumerated, but it has been ruled that they are not order dependent. Just because the 2nd comes before the 9th does not mean it overrides the 9th.

You misunderstand: The 1st 8 amendments are the enumerated rights and as you say the order shouldn't matter (though I imagine they were put in that order by the authors of the contitution for a reason).

The 9th is the place where the founders made if clear that just because a right wasn't listed in the first 8 amendments that the people still retained them. Property rights are not mentioned specifically anywhere in the constitution thus they are protected in the 9th but are not enumerated. IMO enumerated rights carry more weight than those not specifically mentioned. But like I said the courts apparently don't agree with that - especially in regards to the 2nd A.
 

hrdware

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
764
Reaction score
2
Location
Moore
You misunderstand: The 1st 8 amendments are the enumerated rights and as you say the order shouldn't matter (though I imagine they were put in that order by the authors of the contitution for a reason).

The 9th is the place where the founders made if clear that just because a right wasn't listed in the first 8 amendments that the people still retained them. Property rights are not mentioned specifically anywhere in the constitution thus they are protected in the 9th but are not enumerated. IMO enumerated rights carry more weight than those not specifically mentioned. But like I said the courts apparently don't agree with that - especially in regards to the 2nd A.

It's not just 2A. A business owner can ask you to leave because they don't like something you are saying on their property. Does that also mean your 1A rights should trump the wishes of the property owner? What if I am on your private property saying things you don't like? Don't you have the right to ask me to leave, and doesn't that trump my right as to what I am saying on your property?
 

Werewolf

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
3,471
Reaction score
7
Location
OKC
It's not just 2A. A business owner can ask you to leave because they don't like something you are saying on their property. Does that also mean your 1A rights should trump the wishes of the property owner? What if I am on your private property saying things you don't like? Don't you have the right to ask me to leave, and doesn't that trump my right as to what I am saying on your property?

I think the right to life trumps all others and the 2A is intimately tied to the right to life.

I differentiate between private property that is a commercial enterprise where the public is invited in and personal property where they are not. When you invite the public in the 2nd should trump property rights. The law says it doesn't and until it is changed that's just the way it is.

For property not open to the public the owner is king - do what he says (within the law) or don't enter the property.

Regarding the 1st - speech is very vocal and highly visible. If it disrupts a business then, yes, the owner should be able to make the speaker leave and restrict access. If carrying a weapon into a business disrupts the business then the owner should have the right to ask the person to leave. (carrying concealed does not disrupt business, carrying openly might).

This topic has been discussed at length at least once a year for a long time. My opinion is a minority opinion here, definitely a minority opinion amongst the general public and not supported by the courts. So be it. I don't see the law changing. Don't have to like it just have to obey it or be willing to suffer the consequences.

I suggest that if one wants this discussion to continue that a new thread devoted to the topic be opened.
 
Last edited:

hrdware

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
764
Reaction score
2
Location
Moore
I think the right to life trumps all others and the 2A is intimately tied to the right to life.

I differentiate between private property that is a commercial enterprise where the public is invited in and personal property where they are not. When you invite the public in the 2nd should trump property rights. The law says it doesn't and until it is changed that's just the way it is.

For property not open to the public the owner is king - do what he says (within the law) or don't enter the property.

Regarding the 1st - speech is very vocal and highly visible. If it disrupts a business then, yes, the owner should be able to make the speaker leave and restrict access. If carrying a weapon into a business disrupts the business then the owner should have the right to ask the person to leave. (carrying concealed does not disrupt business, carrying openly might).

This topic has been discussed at length at least once a year for a long time. My opinion is a minority opinion here, definitely a minority opinion amongst the general public and not supported by the courts. So be it. I don't see the law changing. Don't have to like it just have to obey it or be willing to suffer the consequences.

I suggest that if one wants this discussion to continue that a new thread devoted to the topic be opened.

Agreed
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom