Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Hb1059

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744

    Hb1059

    HB1059 is scheduled for a committee hearing on 2/6 10:30 am in room 432-A of the capitol.

    Text of Measure

    Some people think this may be an anti-OC bill, but I don't read it that way. I think this tries to eliminate intentional flashing of a concealed firearm.

    Other things in this bill include removing city, state and local government buildings from the prohibited places list unless they provide their own security and metal detectors. It removes meetings of government officials from the prohibited places list. It removes schools to allow for the parking lot exemption.

    This bill would remove parks and recreational areas from the protected from being a prohibited place list. I don't see this as an issue as the state has preemption and if state law doesn't prohibit it, then it is OK in those areas.

    This bill would also require businesses who don't want firearms in their buildings to post signage...no more verbal warnings. Also clarifies that carrying past a sign is trespass not a violation of the SDA.
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be accepted as legal advice

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    While I found multiple references to "concealed or unconcealed" in the document, the way that Section 1272 Paragraph 3 reads it is illegal for one to "intentionally fail to conceal the handgun" if they have been issued a HWP (and Para 2 makes it illegal to carry a gun w/o a permit). Given the definition of a "concealed handgun" in 1290.2 it would mean that if one were to OC they are "intentionally fail(ing) to conceal the handgun" and are thus violation 1272 para 3. Also "untentional flashing" is a non-issue with OC being legal. Everything else in the bill looks good, but this one paragraph works to undo that which we gained on 1 November.

    Also in regards to signs I found this line in Section 1290.22

    ...If the person refuses to leave the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00).
    So they can't simply call the police and hit you with trespass, they still need to ask you to leave.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    While I found multiple references to "concealed or unconcealed" in the document, the way that Section 1272 Paragraph 3 reads it is illegal for one to "intentionally fail to conceal the handgun" if they have been issued a HWP (and Para 2 makes it illegal to carry a gun w/o a permit). Given the definition of a "concealed handgun" in 1290.2 it would mean that if one were to OC they are "intentionally fail(ing) to conceal the handgun" and are thus violation 1272 para 3. Also "untentional flashing" is a non-issue with OC being legal. Everything else in the bill looks good, but this one paragraph works to undo that which we gained on 1 November.

    Also in regards to signs I found this line in Section 1290.22



    So they can't simply call the police and hit you with trespass, they still need to ask you to leave.
    The part in Section 1272 Paragraph 3 reads, "intentionally fail to conceal the handgun within the meaning of the definition". If I am carrying open, the definition of concealed does not apply to me and the definition of unconcealed does.

    Intentional flashing is an issue even with OC being legal. Intentional flashing would be intentionally showing your firearm in a threatening manner. Picture the "We got a problem here? <flash> I didn't think so" situation when the permit holder is already the aggressor.
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be accepted as legal advice

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Oklahoma
    Posts
    15
    Unless I missed something, I don't see any good that can come out of this bill. I think we are fine with what we have right now until we can get Constitutional carry. To eliminate "intentional flashing" is to address a problem I don't believe exists. It could lead to some podunk officers drawing on me if my vest flaps open. I practice concealed and open carry both depending on what is most convenient. When I conceal my firearm, I don't intentionally try to keep it concealed but if this passes I could see some rogue officer carrying this to the extreme.

    Look at it this way. I walk into a restaurant with my vest on and my Kimber concealed. I take off my vest to eat and an officer across the way sees that and says I intentionally failed to conceal my concealed firearm. Not worth the risk to me to pass legislation like this.

    The city state and local piece sounds good but why do we have to have this other junk stuck in with it?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Peacemaker65 View Post
    Unless I missed something, I don't see any good that can come out of this bill. I think we are fine with what we have right now until we can get Constitutional carry. To eliminate "intentional flashing" is to address a problem I don't believe exists. It could lead to some podunk officers drawing on me if my vest flaps open. I practice concealed and open carry both depending on what is most convenient. When I conceal my firearm, I don't intentionally try to keep it concealed but if this passes I could see some rogue officer carrying this to the extreme.

    Look at it this way. I walk into a restaurant with my vest on and my Kimber concealed. I take off my vest to eat and an officer across the way sees that and says I intentionally failed to conceal my concealed firearm. Not worth the risk to me to pass legislation like this.

    The city state and local piece sounds good but why do we have to have this other junk stuck in with it?
    Come to find out, that language was left over language from last year and there will likely be amendments or a committee substitute to remove that awkwardly worded section.
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be accepted as legal advice

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Oklahoma
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    Come to find out, that language was left over language from last year and there will likely be amendments or a committee substitute to remove that awkwardly worded section.
    Good to hear. You do good work!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    The part in Section 1272 Paragraph 3 reads, "intentionally fail to conceal the handgun within the meaning of the definition". If I am carrying open, the definition of concealed does not apply to me and the definition of unconcealed does.

    Intentional flashing is an issue even with OC being legal. Intentional flashing would be intentionally showing your firearm in a threatening manner. Picture the "We got a problem here? <flash> I didn't think so" situation when the permit holder is already the aggressor.
    I see and understand what you're saying, but I still think it is too easily confused or "lawyered" (aka the meaning twisted) by a cop/DA to try and say that it outlaws OC. Just because you are OCing and they have defined what an "unconcealed handgun" is, doesn't mean that you're exempt from the "concealed handgun" requirement (at least with how the law reads to me).

    But hopefully this will all be moot once the actual amendments come down and they work to clean up the wordage.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    This bill was removed from the agenda and did not have a hearing. When I find out more, I will post.

    There is however a committee substitute for the bill.

    Text of Substitute

    This substitute does the following:
    -removes the awkward wording about intentional showing of a concealed firearm.
    -allow carry into city, state, local government buildings that did not provide both authorized security and metal detectors the public has to pass through
    -removes government meetings from the prohibited places list
    -would allow for leaving a concealed firearm in a locked vehicle on school property
    -removes government parks, recreational areas, and fairgrounds from being exempt from prohibited places
    -carrying onto school grounds after having been issued a license would result in a $250 fine (current penalty is $100 admin fee and permanent loss of license)
    -would require businesses to post gun buster signs if they don't want firearms on the property
    -clarifies that if you carry past a sign and are asked to leave and you don't, it is a $100 fine.
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be accepted as legal advice

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    I sent an email to the author asking about removing parks and things from the prohibited places list. He said that was a drafting mistake. He pulled the bill from today's agenda to work on a couple of things. I would expect a different committee sub or some amendments to the current committee sub.
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be accepted as legal advice

  10. #10
    Regular Member Archerman99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Posts
    110

    Hb1059

    Great info, thank you.

    I was just about to ask why he would want to remove parks from the exempt list and allow them to possibly be prohibited, but I was glad to see that was a mistake and being corrected

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •