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
Places that are off limits for CCW?
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="owassopilot" data-source="post: 1449632" data-attributes="member: 16273"><p>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, <strong><em><span style="color: Red">and did not notify law enforcement when they arrived and came inside his home pursuant to SDA requirements.</span></em></strong> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>IN FACT: 21 O.S 1272 affirms and defers to any additional rights granted in the SDA.</p><p></p><p>"2. The carrying or use of weapons in a manner otherwise permitted by statute or authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act;"</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="owassopilot, post: 1449632, member: 16273"] 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, [B][I][COLOR="Red"]and did not notify law enforcement when they arrived and came inside his home pursuant to SDA requirements.[/COLOR][/I][/B] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Places that are off limits for CCW?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom