Places that are off limits for CCW?

[vvvvvvv]

That came from Wikipedia; however, if you think about it, it is accurate. Carrying of weapons on private property is ALWAYS at the discretion of the property owner, correct? The SDA specifically states a private property owner has full control over the right to carry on their property. (Concealed, or otherwise). If that weren't the case, then if you had a weapon in your home that was hidden in a drawer, you would have to have a CCL to keep it hidden, right? We know that's not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Oklahoma



TITLE 21 § 1290.2

"Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma
Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any
manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the
possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity."

That statute does not modify 21 O.S 1272, which was what Pierce interpreted. Furthermore, the Pierce ruling was most recently affirmed in Gilio v. State in 2001, post-SDA.

From Gilio:

"¶11 The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in Pierce v. State, 1929 OK CR 42, ¶ __, 275 P. 393, 394, interpreting the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions, held:

There is but one question raised in the brief of the defendant, and that question is whether or not, under the Constitution and laws of the state [sic] of Oklahoma, the defendant had a right to carry a gun on his person while in his own house and yard.

The Court settled the issue by stating:

As the law now is in this state, a person may lawfully own and possess any of the weapons named in sections 1991, 1992, [pistols and revolvers] and may move such weapons from room to room in their place of residence, but may not wear them on their person and transport them about the yard as shown by the evidence to have been done by the defendant in this case.

Id. at ¶ __, 275 P.2d at 395."

Furthermore, it was held in Shepherd v. State that self-defense against a known threatened attack is not a sufficient defense against unlawful carry.

 

[owassopilot]

That statute does not modify 21 O.S 1272, which was what Pierce interpreted. Furthermore, the Pierce ruling was most recently affirmed in Gilio v. State in 2001, post-SDA.

From Gilio:

"¶11 The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in Pierce v. State, 1929 OK CR 42, ¶ __, 275 P. 393, 394, interpreting the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions, held:

There is but one question raised in the brief of the defendant, and that question is whether or not, under the Constitution and laws of the state [sic] of Oklahoma, the defendant had a right to carry a gun on his person while in his own house and yard.

The Court settled the issue by stating:

As the law now is in this state, a person may lawfully own and possess any of the weapons named in sections 1991, 1992, [pistols and revolvers] and may move such weapons from room to room in their place of residence, but may not wear them on their person and transport them about the yard as shown by the evidence to have been done by the defendant in this case.

Id. at ¶ __, 275 P.2d at 395."

Furthermore, it was held in Shepherd v. State that self-defense against a known threatened attack is not a sufficient defense against unlawful carry.

Clearly the Pierce ruling was PRE-SDA (1929). After reading the full appeal, I'm not convinced Gilio vs State affirms Pierce in any way. Gilio vs State only addressed whether the permit holder had violated the SDA by keeping a loaded/concealed firearm in his home, and did not notify law enforcement when they arrived and came inside his home pursuant to SDA requirements. There was no interpretation of 21 O.S 1272 whatsoever, nor did it really affirm the Pierce decision at all. There was no question of unlawful carry brought before the court in Gilio vs State. Pierce ruling was only used as a reference to affirm the fact the homeowner could posses a loaded firearm within his home without a permit. The case was ONLY addressing whether notification to law enforcement of a concealed weapon was not followed per the SDA. The only reference to 21 O.S 1272 and the Pierce ruling was to affirm the fact that the homeowner had the right to keep a loaded firearm within his home without a permit. The court reversed the OSBI decision and found he had not violated the SDA by not notifying the officer a loaded/concealed firearm was present in his home.

With that said, the Pierce ruling appears to not have been affirmed by the courts POST-SDA, unless you can come up with a case where someone was on their own property (outside their home), and was charged with a criminal complaint of unlawful carry as listed in 21 O.S 1272.

IN FACT: 21 O.S 1272 affirms and defers to any additional rights granted in the SDA.

"2. The carrying or use of weapons in a manner otherwise permitted by statute or authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act;"

So, going back to the SDA, if a private property owner has full control over possession of weapons on his/her property, would 21 O.S 1272 be interpreted differently? I would say the SDA added rights not previously awarded, so if a court is asked to interpret 21 O.S 1272 in a case where someone is charged with unlawful carry outside of their home, but on their own property, then it would be considered affirmed.

 

[Young Guns]

Questions:
1. If I carry into a posted no carry retail store, what are the implications? Some stores post on one door but not the other.

In Oklahoma, they can ask you to leave...that's it. If you don't, you can receive a trespassing charge.



[/I]

What about the legal repercussion later if you are forced to use it? Even if you are acting in a lawful manner, can you still get in legal trouble for carrying in a place that doesn't allow you to carry?

 

[owassopilot]

What about the legal repercussion later if you are forced to use it? Even if you are acting in a lawful manner, can you still get in legal trouble for carrying in a place that doesn't allow you to carry?

If you have to pull and use a concealed weapon ANYWHERE, whether there is a posted "No firearm" sign or not will be the least of your legal concerns. Again, there is no teeth to a "no firearm" sign on a business here in Oklahoma. Other states, including Texas, can be very different with this. They can ask you to leave...that's it in Oklahoma. If you have to use it to defend yourself, and you are the one standing at the end, then that's your reward.

Not trying to scare you into not carrying, but just be aware that although you might not face criminal charges, be prepared for your life to change. You will likely have to defend yourself in civil court by the perps family, and even if you win that one (There is a provision in the law that protects you from a perp winning a case like this. It doesn't protect you from them filing a case.), you will have to pay an attorney up front to defend you, and you might not get that back. But you have your reward...your life.

 

[Young Guns]

If you have to pull and use a concealed weapon ANYWHERE, whether there is a posted "No firearm" sign or not will be the least of your legal concerns. Again, there is no teeth to a "no firearm" sign on a business here in Oklahoma. Other states, including Texas, can be very different with this. They can ask you to leave...that's it in Oklahoma. If you have to use it to defend yourself, and you are the one standing at the end, then that's your reward.

Not trying to scare you into not carrying, but just be aware that although you might not face criminal charges, be prepared for your life to change. You will likely have to defend yourself in civil court by the perps family, and even if you win that one (There is a provision in the law that protects you from a perp winning a case like this. It doesn't protect you from them filing a case.), you will have to pay an attorney up front to defend you, and you might not get that back. But you have your reward...your life.

Thanks for that info. I don't carry yet, still waiting on OSBI for approval. Like you said though, the reward is mine and my family's lives...

 

[jhawknokc]

Not to try to derail the subjective legal matter of concealed carry, I read somewhere that buy for less doesn't allow guns, I don't shop there enough to know, but is this true?

 

[fatguywithdiabetes]

I have read almost all of the pages on this post, and I have concluded that the gun-buster sign in this state is irrelevant. If the proprietor wants you out of his / her facility, they have the right to ask you to leave, with or without a firearm. Its not illegal until you refuse. It is also not an arrest-able offense to step foot into a facility with a concealed weapon and gun-buster sign. It only becomes a matter for the police if you don't leave. Right, wrong? Opinions? Legal background?

 

[Skiluvr03]

I'm almost positive that the Statement by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company pertains to the Factory where the Tires are made, like at the Goodyear-Lawton Plant. Goodyear normally adds Tire and Rubber Company when they are talking about Manufactoring Plants and Corporate and they Goodyear Stores or Retailers when they are talking about the Tire Stores you see in your neighborhoods.

 

[Mr.357Sig]

Holy crap. Gun laws are nearly as bewildering and asinine as tax laws. Attorneys make my head hurt...

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Too Many.