I know, it's not OC... but it would change the rules about "shall notify" for SDA.

I know, it's not OC... but it would change the rules about "shall notify" for SDA.

HB 2309 by George Faught proposes to change the language in the SDA that requires one to notify police on first contact during the course of a detention, arrest or traffic stop. This bill appears to say that a licensee under SDA would only have to notify WHEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED by law enforcement if they are carrying a weapon during the course of a detention, arrest or traffic stop.


Linky in .doc format: http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2011-12%20INT/hB/HB2309%20INT.DOC

Me likey.

I also found a shell bill that appears to have some changes in mind for the Self Defense Act. Might want to keep an eye on this one.

SB2351 by Wes Hilliard.

Why Traffic stop? Arrest and detention, Ok, I can possibly understand that...except for possible 5th ammendment problems that a person can not be required to incriminate himself (felon in possession, that has been through the Federal courts already)). But why traffic stop. Posession of a firearm has nothing to do with a traffic stop.

We don't have that out here, never been a problem.

hermannr said:

Why Traffic stop? Arrest and detention, Ok, I can possibly understand that...except for possible 5th ammendment problems that a person can not be required to incriminate himself (felon in possession, that has been through the Federal courts already)). But why traffic stop. Posession of a firearm has nothing to do with a traffic stop.

We don't have that out here, never been a problem.

Click to expand...

Probably an "officer safety" issue. They don't want to be surprised by finding you with a gun then them not knowing....of course all the bad guys will tell them as well.

The shall notify requirement has been in law since we got SDA. It was something that the Department of Public Safety fought for. Unfortunately, it's been used badly a time or two when the officer hasn't given someone a chance to notify. This change would make them have to specifically ASK us if we are carrying a weapon before we could be charged with "failure to notify" which usually costs around $212 and a 6 month CCW suspension.

I'm surprised people haven't fought a "failure to notify" charge under the 5th amendment; especially if they didn't notify "quickly enough" as identifying after the "time limit" is self incrimination that you are breaking the law. After all it basically requires you to potentially self incriminate; especially if your permit has been suspended/expired and you didn't know.

I think shall notify is an insult to the law abiding citizen. The guy that goes through the process of obtaining a license to carry is not any threat to any officer, unless the officer is doing something totally outragous. and the person needs to save his/her life (think the California CHP guy that would stop pretty women, rape and kill them, out near Barstow....remember that one? it was a few years ago)

Or how about the no-knock invasion (a couple weeks ago) in Marysville, WA. Six "DEA" agents broke into a house, ransacked it, and terrorized the owners. They were looking for drugs, and hit the wrong house...biggest thing was...they were not REAL DEA agents, they were crooks, dressed as DEA agents.

Anyway, we need as much (maybe more) protection from rogue cops and imposters then they do from us...statistics prove it.

Oh yes, One other thing, (already been through the courts in OH, another "must inform state") The 5th ammendment protects convicted felons from having to state they have a firearm...self incrimination you know.

It's a fact of life that Oklahoma Department of Public Safety has the ear of a lot of legislators over at NE23rd and Lincoln. Compromise is something we have to live with here. Especially if you want something that DPS doesn't particularly want.

I am all for this....Trooper Green seems to think that I should notify with any contact.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?98414-Oklahoma-get-a-life

I know this is an old thread but it hits home with me as I also have tried in vain to gather support for something like this. The normal response I have received when bringing it up on other forums or at local meetings with State reps is that the Law is clear. That if it is not an official stop or detainment you need not notify. It seems that both the Government and most citizens of the State have no problem with placing the burden of knowing when to notify on the honest gun carrier. That telling officers to ask if a person is armed is to much of a burden on them.

When I point out that unless the officer makes it clear a person might not know that they are being detained. That a well trained or experienced officer can and will hide the fact that you are being detained until he has either found out what he wants to know or you attempt to leave. At that moment you will be informed that your casual conversation with officer friendly is and always was a detainment.

A few of my LEO friends will tell me that they do not want the burden of having to ask if you are carrying for that very reason. Doing so would force them to give up an important investigative tool, deception.

Michael

okiebryan said:

It's a fact of life that Oklahoma Department of Public Safety has the ear of a lot of legislators over at NE23rd and Lincoln. Compromise is something we have to live with here. Especially if you want something that DPS doesn't particularly want.

Click to expand...

I don't see why we have to "live with" compromise. Doing so is how many of our rights have been repeatedly violated and even taken away. Until folks in Oklahoma begin to stand up for their rights, they will not get them back.

okiebryan said:

It's a fact of life that Oklahoma Department of Public Safety has the ear of a lot of legislators over at NE23rd and Lincoln. Compromise is something we have to live with here. Especially if you want something that DPS doesn't particularly want.

Click to expand...

I have always had a problem with the idea of a government agency lobbying another branch of government in an attempt to put their needs above that of the people they are supposed to serve.

Michael