Friday, April 28, 2017

Oklahoma likely to pass Defensive Display (SB 40)

The vast majority of defensive firearm uses involve the defensive display of the firearm. In some states, it is illegal to display a gun for defensive purposes without risking a felony. Mere display is considered the use of deadly force.

Estimates of defensive gun uses vary form about 100,000 to 3 million each year(CDC pdf).

Yet only 1,500 to 3,000 people are justifiably killed each year. About five to ten times that many are shot and end up hospitalized. About five to ten  times as many as are shot, are shot at, but missed.  The number of times when no shots are fired are about 90 - 95 percent of all defensive cases.

In numerous states, anti-self defense prosecutors have charged people who were defending themselves. The defenders used restraint and did not have to shoot. They were then charged with illegal use of deadly force. Because of those abuses, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, and other states have enacted defensive display laws similar to the Oklahoma bill. 

The law should not penalize people who realize that they do not need to shoot in a defensive situation. The current law is an incentive to turn a dangerous situation into a deadly one. SB 40 changes that in Oklahoma. From the bill text:
A person pointing a weapon at a perpetrator in self-defense or in order to thwart, stop or deter a forcible felony or attempted forcible felony shall not be deemed guilty of committing a criminal act.
In an article about the bill, Oklahoma Representative Bobby Cleveland makes the case.  From
A newly proposed Oklahoma state law, formally known as Senate Bill 40, could make it legal for people to brandish guns in an act of self-defense.

As they currently stand, state laws forbid the deliberate exposure of firearms except in instances of deadly force, according to Tulsa World.

"When you go and get your (concealed carry) license, that instructor tells you that you don't bring your gun out, you don't show your gun, you don't intimidate somebody with your gun," said Slaughterville Representative Bobby Cleveland.

"If you bring it out, you have to shoot."
Representative Cleveland is showing the absurdity of that advise.

What about the numerous cases where people draw guns, and the perpetrator flees? Should the defender shoot at the fleeing felon? We did away with those laws long ago.

What about a defender who is menaced with a knife, or a club, or a mob threatening to kill them? Must they shoot? No, it would be irresponsible to shoot once the menace has stopped being a threat.

The bill is all about defensive display of weapons. It should be the law in every state.

It is simple common sense.

Requiring someone to shoot when they draw a gun is a deadly legislative mistake.

SB 40 passed the Oklahoma Senate, 36-5. It passed the Oklahoma House 82-8. It still needs a procedural vote in the Senate, then it will go to Governor Mary Fallin. It seems likely to be signed into law.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.


unavailable man said...

In Kansas the local police tried to charge me with this after a guy punched me in the side of the head. I showed him my handgun after that and the guy fled; but he then called the police. The cops said since I wasn't being faced with grievous bodily harm that it was going to be up to the prosecutor whether it was assault or unlawful brandishing of a firearm. Fortunately the felon who punched me didn't want to go to court. I have no criminal record, but the man who randomly hit me when I asked him for a cigarette has an extensive record. At the time he was on parole as well.

If he had wanted to though. He could have charged me, and I would be guilty. And since I didn't call the report being punched, and wasn't called for 4 months by the police, didn't have any mark on me anymore to prove he punched me.

This is bizarro. If I had chosen to be an evil fucker, I could have shot and possibly killed the man. And with bruise I likely would been probably justified if I said I feared for my life. Truly absurd laws. You are indeed better off shooting the person legally, but morally its not right if it will stop the fight. But you never know what coward is going to call the police. And if you report it yourself and don;t have any wounds, you likely screwed yourself.

Anonymous said...

Like I said If I know I am guilty I'll surrender if not someone is going to loose. the ninth amendment give us freedom of choice as a right, cops have a choice, listen to reason or act.

Anonymous said...

I was threatened once. the guy said it was about time to kick my ass. My ex wife was dating this guy because of his reputation as a bad ass bar room brawler. I could not take that wife any where that she was not trying to pick a fight for me. I guess she wanted me to be like her ignorant father. Just because I was very strongly built she wanted to see me fight. So apparently she had convince this guy I was a coward, Just because I do not like to fight does not mean I can't. I backed up a good 20 -25 feet with my hands in the air telling him I did not want to fight. we quickly drew a crowd of at least 50 people. then I planted my feet and stuck my chin out. He hit me twice and six weeks later he was starting to get out of bed without help and was starting to eat solid food. turns out she never wanted to see me fight again and her father started calling me sir. He said he had never seen any one beaten that bad with bare hands. the police refused to arrest him for assault, they did not want to pay his medical bills they said they were positive he would not come back for more. all of the witnesses said he hit me first. I was trained to fight by a professional.