contact with a Police Officer and informing them of a weapon.

[okshooter26]

The 5th amendment is about not incriminating yourself in criminal proceedings, 'not to be a witness against oneself.' It doesn't give you the right to fail to comply with things that are lawfully regulated by the state gov't. How is requiring you to notify an officer that you are exercising your right self incriminating? It's not, if you're legal. Practically, if you are doing something that is regulated by the state gov't and requires a license, the LEO needs to know about it so they can enforce the law. If you're driving a car, it's obvious. The cop knows to ask for your DL. Concealed carry, by nature, is not obvious. Many other states just require providing the CCL at first contact.

Informing LEOs that you're carrying is more for your safety than theirs. Surprising them is a bad idea. If a cop finds out you're carrying a gun unexpectedly...face, meet pavement.

As for the situation that started this whole thing...3 am, empty parking lot, ghetto. Criminals hang out there, not responsible gun owners. Maybe there had been some vandalism or robberies in the area and your vehicle or appearance was similar to a suspect. Maybe not. A hair stood up on the back of the officers neck. He wasn't right in his actions, but he wasn't completely wrong either. Cops aren't perfect.

Thank you for sharing your opinion and I do believe you make a good argument and are probably right as far as it not being a violation to the 5th ammendment. But while we are on the topic of self incrimination. I wonder how many officers have accidentally misrecalled a comment made to them in their career and it was used to incriminate someone. But, If someone doesn't speak at all its pretty hard to misrecall what was said as they didnt say anything.
As for the situation that started this, until there is a curfew in place I can and will be out in any public parking lot I please anytime I please day or night. moving to your comment to where responsible gun owners go. I wasn't aware there were times and areas of the city that "responsible gun owners" go to. maybe you could show me a map of those places and the times that responsible gun owners are in them? Maybe you could also tell me what makes you qualified to decide who is and is not a responsible gun owner. Also your comment about regarding suprising law enforcement. I have no interest in suprising officers or failing to notify them of my weapon. I prefer to notify them as I beleive it builds trust as they generally realize I probably have a pretty clean record if I have an SDA permit. My interest was a discussion as to wether the current law as it is written is constitutional or not. But i also noticed you didnt give a rebuttal about the law possibly being a violation of the first and fourth ammendments. Do you care to touch on those? As far as criminals in the area. The only illegal act I witnessed was commited by the second officer that showed up and took my weapon. If there were crimes in the area being committed and my vehicle or I matched the description of a vehicle or person they were looking for, why did the first officer I spoke to simply sit in his car with his window down drinking a soft drink and shooting the breeze with my date and I and even told me he didn't need to see my SDA permit or identification when I offered to show it to him and informed him I was carrying a concealled weapon on my person. If something changed by the time the second officer arrived and there was some form of danger that arose I cant understand why the first officer continued to sit in his car and didn't assist the second officer. My guess is because he didnt see me or my date as a possible threat.
I do want to say to everyone reading this that I don't mean to criticize police officers as a whole in any way, shape or form. I truly appreciate them and the service they do protecting our communities. My opinion is that the behavior of one of the officers I encountered gives good police officers a bad name as well as hurting public relations for many of them. Sadly there are many excellent law enforcement officers that unfairly get grouped together with the bad ones because of things like this. I believe that most officers mean well and just want to do their job as professionally as possible but like any group of people there are those that just dont care if what they are doing is legal or not.

 

[Lance Jensen]

No, I do not make it a point to disarm citizens who are excercising their rights. If I feel threatenend I will protect myself. And if I am speaking with you it is more than likely not a consentual contact. Even if I'm told about the CCW and the weapon I do not remove it. I have no right to. I get irritated with these "gun rights" people who always want to force the hand of the Police.
Open carry will only make thingst worse. People will video tape encounters and set cops up for law suits. To me that is crap! These type of people will start to drive a wedge between our everyday citizens. Those that are not gun people will more than likely side with the gun control people because of reckless actions of a few.

 

[Chambers]

As for the situation that started this, until there is a curfew in place I can and will be out in any public parking lot I please anytime I please day or night. moving to your comment to where responsible gun owners go. I wasn't aware there were times and areas of the city that "responsible gun owners" go to. maybe you could show me a map of those places and the times that responsible gun owners are in them? Maybe you could also tell me what makes you qualified to decide who is and is not a responsible gun owner.

Google reasonable person/reasonable suspicion.

Also, the law doesn't give LE the ability to search you, so how could the SDA be violating the 4th amendment? I don't get what you are saying about the 1st.

 

[DoctorJJ]

Thanks for the fuller explanation, Lance.

As for the 4th, this has been an issue since the notify clauses were first introduced. It's the issue of police becoming Gestapo and asking for "Papers!!" Of course the state has the ability to require that certain activities be licensed. I have a drivers' license, a car dealer license and a license to practice medicine. I'm not required to show any of those licenses to an officer unless I am suspected of commuting a crime. When I get pulled over, I give the officer my driver's license. I don't whip out my medical license. It doesn't have any bearing on the situation at hand. Just because I have a CCW license and a gun on me or in my car doesn't have any bearing on the situation either. Now, if I'm outside the car and the officer is going to frisk me, then it would be in my best interests, regardless of the law, to notify the officer. But the notion of mandatory notification upon first contact is ridiculous and hasn't ever done anything to reduce incidents or injuries to either police or civilians. It only serves to raise the pulse rate and BP of civilians who are worried that they didn't notify properly or at the right time.
Unfortunately though, for now it is the law we have and we have to obey it. The new open carry provision, which will allow officers to ask for "Papers!!!" without any suspicion of a crime being committed is an even more egregious violation of the 4th.

 

[okshooter26]

Lance I honestly don't mean to Be rude but I believe that filming police is completely legitimate. Now some of the people that are doing it I agree with you are absolutely out looking for trouble and that is not legitimate at all though. But not allowing police to be video taped while they are in a public place does make me question why they don't want a video record of what they are doing.

 

[okshooter26]

Chambers, reasonable suspicion is not proof of a crime. Based on that are saying someone is or isn't a responsible gun owner based upon the police having a right to search.Are you in favor of napoleanic law and the idea of being guilty until proven innocent? My point on the idea of the 4th amendment possibly being violated is if i'm forced to disclose what I'm carrying in my vehicle or on me is a search. Granted its not a search done by hand but it's a method to figure out what is concealed on someone or on their property which I think could be considered a search. As far as the first the amendment, dictating what I must say to a police officer is not allowing me to speak freely. So a law forcing to me to say "I'm carrying a concealed weapon" is dictating what I must say. Since I'm required to say it it's not really free speech in my opinion.

 

[McGuire]

McGuire I think you're an idiot... If you are lawfully contacted and I perceive you as a threat the courts have allowed me to protect myself as a Police Officer. I've been in law enforcement for 14 years and haven't met any cops looking to screw someone over. We are just doing our jobs and your cooperation makes that happen much easier. I am about as PRO second amendment as they come, but stupidity makes gun owners look like idiots everyday. Educate yourself and be reasonable... that's the best advise I can give anyone. Until the courts rule the second amendment allows a gun owner to do whatever they please we have to go by our court rulings. pretty simple.

....and my opinion on the open carry is that it is a back door to enforcing gun control. We'll see how many morons start harassing law enforcement with their "rights".... We will see laws changing in Oklahoma

Im glad you feel that way, perhaps you havent met any shitty cops, but I have. I have family in law enforcement, and I respect what most police officers are there to do. But that doesnt mean that the jock high school assholes, who dont have anyone left to pick on, dont migrate to that line of work. Not saying you are, not saying all police are, but you cant deny that its a reality. Now when you say, "percieve you as a threat", whats a man standing in a parking lot with his girlfriend? Perhaps it wasnt at the best time of night, but thats not a crime. So when the officer made contact, the man identified himself as a concealed carry permit holder, as required by law, and then some cop goes on a power trip and illegally seizes his firearm, thats somehow okay? I have no disrespect for you Lance, but if you really think thats how that should have gone down then somethings wrong, unless we arent talking about the same thing? So in that situation was the officer acting inside reason? Was he showing himself to be educated?
Im in NO WAY advocating beligerance, but I HAVE RIGHTS AS WELL! Just as you have a right to protect yourself, I have a right to walk the street unharrased, no matter what time of night or day, I have no problem cooperating with a LEO, but there is a line.
We are on different sides of this, and while I believe that law enforcement does do good things, I also know that ANY power CAN and WILL be abused by men. You tell me to educate myself, well the coin has two sides. Being a cop doesnt make someone right all the time, and humans make mistakes. You want reasonable acting, how about you dont call names and make accusations, be the standard. I am a free citizen, and I served my country as well. So please dont get high and mighty.

 

[McGuire]

And the incident in Maryland shows why some LEO's need a camera on them, assaulting a man while he was handcuffed, thats real educated. As the LEO bears the burden of responsibility in situations like that why would it be okay for an officer to punch a man in the face three times while he is in cuffs and being escorted away...
Just like Okshooter said, giving good cops a bad name.

 

[DoctorJJ]

Maybe I'm reading all of this with too much emotion, but I think everyone might benefit from taking a step back and breathing deep a couple times.

 

[McGuire]

I agree, I do get worked up sometimes...I apologize, Im irish, its in my nature...

 

[Spiff]

I'm Scottish and Dutch, it's in my nature to swing axes at Englishmen, play bagpipes, then smoke a bowl on top of a windmill.

 

[McGuire]

I thought scottish people just ate haggis and rolled around in the mud a lot

 

[50Shooter]

This is what goes into effect Nov 1st. Check out the parts in RED that are changes or additions.

They changed "must notify at first contact" to "must notify at first opportunity". If the officer is busy reading you the riot act you can politely wait for him to finish before notifying.

Also keep in mind, if you pass an officer coming to or leaving a business and you chat about the weather there is no requirement to notify. The officer must be notified during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop.

Most everything in the original statute was written back in the 90s when this first started. It was designed to address the fears of people at the time.


50Shooter



Section 1290.8.

POSSESSION OF LICENSE REQUIRED -​

NOTIFICATION TO POLICE OF GUN​

A. Except as otherwise prohibited by law, an eligible person shall have authority to carry a concealed or unconcealed handgun in this state when the person has been issued a handgun license from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, provided the person is in compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, and the license has not expired or been subsequently suspended or revoked. A person in possession of a valid handgun license and in compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall be authorized to carry such concealed or unconcealed handgun while bow hunting or fishing.

B. The person shall be required to have possession of his or her valid handgun license and a valid Oklahoma driver license or an Oklahoma State photo identification at all times when in possession of an authorized pistol. The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punishable as a criminal offense as authorized by Section 1272 of this title or pursuant to any other applicable provision of law. In addition to any criminal prosecution which may result from not carrying the handgun license and the required identification with the authorized pistol as required by the provisions of this subsection, the person may be subject to an administrative fine for violation of the provisions of this subsection. The administrative fine shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) and shall be assessed by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation after a hearing and determination that the licensee is in violation of the provisions of this subsection. Any second or subsequent violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be grounds for the Bureau to suspend the handgun license for a period of six (6) months, in addition to any other penalty imposed.

Upon the arrest of any person for a violation of the provisions of this subsection, the person may show proof to the court that a valid handgun license and the other required identification has been issued to such person and the person may state any reason why the handgun license or the other required identification was not carried by the person as required by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act. The court shall dismiss an alleged violation of Section 1272 of this title upon payment of court costs, if proof of a valid handgun license and other required identification is shown to the court within ten (10) days of the arrest of the person. The court shall report a dismissal of a charge to the Bureau for consideration of administrative proceedings against the licensee.

C. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to identify the fact that the person is in actual possession of a concealed or unconcealed handgun pursuant to the authority of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act when the person first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this state or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop. Said identification to the law enforcement officer shall be made at the first opportunity. No person shall be required to identify himself or herself as a concealed handgun licensee when no handgun is in the person’s possession of the person or in any vehicle in which the person is driving or is a passenger. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. In addition to any criminal prosecution for a violation of the provisions of this subsection, the licensee shall be subject to a six-month suspension of the license and an administrative fine of Fifty Dollars ($50.00), upon a hearing and determination by the Bureau that the person is in violation of the provisions of this subsection One Hundred Dollars ($100.00).

D. Any law enforcement officer coming in contact with a person whose handgun license is suspended, revoked, or expired, or who is in possession of a handgun license which has not been lawfully issued to that person, shall confiscate the license and return it to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation for appropriate administrative proceedings against the licensee when the license is no longer needed as evidence in any criminal proceeding.

E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed or unconcealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed.

 

[poopgiggle]

I'm not getting into the "hanging around in a ghetto parking lot" thing except to say to look up what a "Terry stop" is.

was just thinking and I admit I'm not an Attorney or Judge and I have not attended one day of law school. But I was curious on opinions of everyone, especially those who have attanded Law school and wether they believe or do not believe that being required to tell a Law Enforcement Officer that you are carrying a concealled weapon conflicts with your right to free speech(1), your right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures(4) and of course a possible violation of your right to remain silent(5). Any thoughts?

Right to free speech: no. That's not what the First Amendment is for.

Unreasonable searches and seizures: If you're in official contact, you've presumably already met the reasonable suspicion criteria for a Terry stop. It's constitutional to be required to produce identification upon request under those circumstances, so I don't see how it's unconstitutional to be required to identify yourself as having a firearm.

Right to remain silent: no. That's not what the Fifth Amendment is for. You're not being required to confess anything.

There are legitimate things to complain about with respect to how the Fourth Amendment has been gutted in this country, some of which involve traffic stops. This is not one of those things.

 

[mlr1m]

My only problem with our must inform law is that it puts the burden of knowing when to notify on the private citizen. I have asked my Reps in office to put the burden on the State. An officer asking for an ID would be a perfect way to let a person know that what he may have thought was a casual encounter has just became an official stop which now requires that he notify the officer of his weapon.

Michael

 

[Adam Striegel]

I like that idea Michael. That does clear away some of the murk since "first oppurtunity" could be interpritated in different ways depending on the person/cop.

 

[scalpelarms]

We all have to remember that police officers are human and can do things without thinking sometimes. The important part is to stay up on the law and your rights, follow them and it will save you a lot of headache.
But remember they are people just like us and you will most likely be treated as you act, arrogance and "know it all" types will most likely have a long interaction at the least. They may not be able to charge you or arrest you with anything but they can hold you up and ruin your day by talking to you for an hour or 2 until they feel content with making a point.
just my .02

 

[Wall]

My only problem with our must inform law is that it puts the burden of knowing when to notify on the private citizen. I have asked my Reps in office to put the burden on the State. An officer asking for an ID would be a perfect way to let a person know that what he may have thought was a casual encounter has just became an official stop which now requires that he notify the officer of his weapon.

Michael

I like that idea Michael. That does clear away some of the murk since "first oppurtunity" could be interpritated in different ways depending on the person/cop.

I guess I don't see the murkines. If I'm asked for ID there's nothing casual about the encounter & I inform the officer that I have a concealed weapon & hand him my CCL along with my ID. If I'm pulled over, as the officer approaches the vehicle I inform him that I have a concealed weapon & give him my licenses. If we're exchanging views on current events or the weather, my gun is my business.

 

[Adam Striegel]

I guess I don't see the murkines. If I'm asked for ID there's nothing casual about the encounter & I inform the officer that I have a concealed weapon & hand him my CCL along with my ID. If I'm pulled over, as the officer approaches the vehicle I inform him that I have a concealed weapon & give him my licenses. If we're exchanging views on current events or the weather, my gun is my business.

I would do and feel the same way. However, the way the laws are written there's a lot of "discretion" and personal opinion. One mans casual encounter could be another mans formal one.

I guess I've spent too much time in Corporate American listening to all the bureaucratic double speak. hah

 

[mlr1m]

I guess I don't see the murkines. If I'm asked for ID there's nothing casual about the encounter & I inform the officer that I have a concealed weapon & hand him my CCL along with my ID. If I'm pulled over, as the officer approaches the vehicle I inform him that I have a concealed weapon & give him my licenses. If we're exchanging views on current events or the weather, my gun is my business.

This is were the problems could arise. Many officers are quite adept at detaining a person and gathering information without the target knowing they are being detained. They do not want you to know that they are doing this because they know that as soon as you realize that you are being officially detained you will no longer cooperate. I have many close friends who are very good at doing this. I have watched them exercise this skill when I have gone on ride alongs with them.

I would just like to have all questions regarding this by making it plain for everyone. If an officer asks for an ID or otherwise asks you to identify yourself you must then notify. This would remove all question as to whether or not it was an official detainment.

Michael