SB42 VETO - Places to carry

Burk Cornelius · May 15, 2015

I will admit I missed this one. I don't really know what the bill was about and why she vetoed it. The NRA-ILS website didn't explain much and the actual bill of the text linked in the NRA-ILA article didn't help much either. Anyone know?

https://nraila.org/articles/20150512/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-vetoes-pro-gun-self-defense-legislation

[excerpt]

C. A property owner, tenant, employer, place of worship or business entity may prohibit any person from carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm on the property, unless the property is within ENR. S. B. NO. 41 Page 5 the specific exclusions provided for in paragraph 4 of subsection B of Section 1277 of this title. If the building or property is open to the public, the property owner, tenant, employer, place of worship or business entity shall post signs on or about the property stating such prohibition.

drmitchgibson · May 15, 2015

SB 41 sought to clarify that public property (open spaces such as streets and parks) remains open to law-abiding Oklahomans with a carry permit even if that public land is currently being used for another purpose by a private entity renting the space for an event. This legislation would have provided for a necessary fix to a loophole in Oklahomaâ€™s state firearm preemption statute. This loophole has been exploited by misguided municipalities, resulting in a ban on law-abiding citizens carrying a firearm on open areas of public land where they have a legal right to be. Senate Bill 41 passed the House by an 88 to 4 vote and the Senate by a 39 to 7 vote.

Current abuses pose a significant problem for lawful carry permit holders by creating an ever-changing patchwork of laws throughout the state with regard to firearms prohibitions on public land within a particular locality. This legislation focused on reaffirming the right of a peaceful law-abiding Oklahoman to exercise his or her basic right of self-defense where they are already legally allowed to be, no matter which private entity is leasing public land at the moment. It did not seek to expand carry into public buildings or structures.

grantwoodok · May 15, 2015

The idiot govenor VETO'd it even though it had bi partisan support for the bill. The NRA suggested contacting your local rep and request they overturn her veto. Apparently her veto was based on OKC council pressure as there are a bunch of liberal art loving dumbasses on the city council. That would be the reason I live in Edmond.

wgm2011 · May 15, 2015

With the Senate Bill 41 passing the House by an 88 to 4 vote and passing the Senate by a 39 to 7 vote, I would think they will have little problem overriding the Governor on this one.

Scott Hearn · May 15, 2015

As I understand it this was to stop the stunts like the city of Norman pulled with the music festival. OK2A filed suit and got that one nixed. The city of Norman evidently "leased" some "public areas" to a private entity that doesn't like guns.

Personally I don't know for sure that this law actually would do anything that's not already in the statutes. Another litigation avenue that could be pursued if they don't override SB41 might be to challenge how public streets and ROWs can be leased by a municipality to a private entity in the first place? I don't know but it's pretty clear that this is a case of trying to use the actual SDA law to ban guns in certain areas which is in exact opposition to the spirit of the SDA (or at least the biggest part of it).

Whether this would actually make people do what the law requires, I'm not holding my breath. People just seem to have no respect for laws they don't like these days. It's like "tough, you don't like it? Sue me". It's like that all the way up to the white house, so why would anyone expect otherwise?

Jonathan Waits · Jun 4, 2015

From what I understand, she was legally obligated to veto it. There is still litigation going on involving the Norman case. Therefore she would have illegally thrown out their case and they could have mopped the floor with her over it.

wgm2011 · Jun 5, 2015

Jonathan Waits said:
From what I understand, she was legally obligated to veto it. There is still litigation going on involving the Norman case. Therefore she would have illegally thrown out their case and they could have mopped the floor with her over it.

If so, this may delay its passing for years.