New Oklahoma law changes how guns can be used to protect property: What ‘defensive display’ means

Oklahomans can now legally point a firearm or other weapon at someone if they are defending their home, private property or business under a new law signed by Gov. Kevin Stitt.

Existing state law allows people to point weapons in self defense, but House Bill 2818 expands the justified “defensive display of a firearm or other deadly weapon” to include defense of property.

The new law took effect immediately after Stitt signed it on Thursday, May 16.

During debate on the House floor, Democratic lawmakers questioned the law’s author, state Rep. Jay Steagall, on responsibilities of a gun owner and whether Oklahoma youths would interpret the law to allow flashing a weapon as an acceptable response to fear of confrontation.

“We don’t have any control over the way someone else perceives something. There’s not a way for me to legislate that,” Steagall said during a presentation in March. “But what we can do is provide a clear definition of what’s lawful and what’s not lawful when it comes to the display or the pointing of a firearm.”

What is considered ‘defensive display of a firearm’ under House Bill 2818

According to the new law, defensive display of a firearm includes the following:

    • Verbally informing another person that you possess a firearm or have one available – “I’ve got a gun”
    • Exposing or displaying the weapon in a manner where a reasonable person would understand that it’s meant to protect against unlawful force
    • Placing your hand on a firearm while it’s “in a pocket, purse, holster, sling scabbard, case or other means of containment or transport

This is the latest law to expand gun rights in Oklahoma, a state known for its permissive rules on the ownership, carrying and use of firearms. Another proposed law recently sent to the governor’s desk for his approval would allow elected municipal officials and judges with a valid firearm license to carry concealed guns in buildings leased or owned by their city, if a policy is approved by the city council.

In the United States, most states follow some version of the Castle Doctrine, which allows the use of deadly force in self defense. According to an analysis by FindLaw, however, state laws vary when it comes to which locations or specific situations allow someone to claim their use of force was justified.

The National Conference of State Legislatures notes that Oklahoma is one of 28 states where the person claiming self defense has no duty to attempt retreat before firing their weapon. It’s also one of just 10 states that allow that person to “stand their ground.”

In 2019, Stitt signed legislation on the “constitutional carry” of handguns. The measure loosened the state’s gun laws, allowing most adults to carry a loaded, concealed firearm without a permit.

SCOTUS to CASA to A.A.R.P.: In Case Of (Perceived) Emergency, Ignore The Rules, And Make Stuff Up
None of the usual rules will apply when the ACLU says there is an emergency.

The past 24 hours have been something of a Rorschach Test for the Supreme Court. In the birthright citizenship case, the Court made clear that in emergencies, the judiciary must retain the power to enter universal injunctions, even if Article III does not otherwise permit such injunctions. And in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Court made clear that in emergencies, the court should certify a class without going through Rule 23, and grant an ex parte tro without considering any of the usual TRO factors.

What lesson should lower court judges take away? In cases of perceived emergencies, forget all the rules and make stuff up. When the executive branch takes such actions we call it an autocracy. When the courts do it, they call it the “rule of law.”

I will have much more to say about this order in due course.

Gun owners secure historic settlement with DOJ, ATF over Forced Reset Triggers
The Trump administration will also return all FRT devices that were seized by the Biden administration, if individual owners request the returns by September 30, 2025. Instructions for filing the requests will be posted on the ATF’s website.

Two gun rights groups on Friday signed a historic settlement with the Justice Department (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), over a series of lawsuits regarding Forced Reset Trigger (FRT) devices.

The settlement comes under a new presidential administration, which agreed to drop three pending lawsuits filed under the Biden administration and not prosecute owners of FRTs if the devices meet a legal definition upheld in a summary judgment last year.

The Trump administration will also return all FRT devices that were seized by the Biden administration, if individual owners request the returns by September 30, 2025. Instructions for filing the requests will be posted on the ATF’s website.

The agreement was made by the ATF, DOJ, National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights (TXGR).

“This is one of the most stunning victories in the history of the gun rights movement. We didn’t just beat the ATF — we put them in a submission hold, and they tapped out,” NAGR President Dudley Brown said in a news release. “This decision marks a new era of holding the DOJ and ATF accountable when they trample the rights of law-abiding gun owners. We made them give back what they took, and that’s a precedent they’ll never forget.”

Mrgunsngear

According to my contacts “on the hill” – Rep Andrew Clyde has been holding the line behind closed doors to ensure the Hearing Protection Act and SHORT Act are put back into the “big beautiful bill” which President Trump says he will sign.

This is a generational opportunity to get some of our 2nd Amendment rights restored. HOLD THE LINE 🇺🇸

“The House now has a historic opportunity to repeal the burdensome taxation, registration, & regulation of short-barreled firearms & suppressors under the National Firearms Act.

“The American People are watching. It is time to deliver.”

 

Well, that would be ‘tried to confiscate’ and it wouldn’t be pretty as I’m sure LOTS of people would go ‘Solzhenitsyn Style’. But then Justice Sotomayor never has been a ‘wise Latina’

Does Justice Sotomayor Really Want To Know What The Remedy Would Be If The Government Confiscated Everyone’s Guns?

Justice Sotomayor is pretty predictable. She walks into oral argument with a set of questions she wants to ask, and she will keep asking them, whether or not she gets the answer she wants. I imagine advocates get frustrated, but that is part of the game.

During the birthright citizenship cases, Justice Sotomayor asked the same line of questions several times–apparently she thought it was clever. To illustrate the limits of the government’s position concerning nationwide injunction, she would change the hypo: what would happen if the government sought to confiscate every gun in America; would every gunowner have to bring an individual law suit to seek relief?

Page 13: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: –so, when a new president orders that because there’s so much gun violence going on in the country and he comes in and he says, I have the right to take away the guns from everyone, then people –and he sends out the military to seize everyone’s guns –we and the courts have to sit back and wait until every named plaintiff gets –or every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court?

Page 41: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: If we’re afraid that this is or even have a thought that this is unlawful executive action, that it is Congress who decides citizenship, not the executive, if we believe, some of us were to believe that, why should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action, as unlawful as an executive taking the guns away from every citizen?

Page 44: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: –it got rejected repeatedly. We can go into the history of citizenship, but I still go back to my question. You claim that there is absolutely no constitutional way to stop, put this aside, to stop a president from an unconstitutional act, a clearly, indisputably unconstitutional act, taking every gun from every citizen, we couldn’t stop that.

Does Justice Sotomayor really want to know what the remedy would be if the government confiscated everyone’s gun? This remedy would not involve Rule 23. [fyi. ‘Rule 23’ is a rule in federal courts about class action suits, MF]

Nearly 250 years ago, King George III and General Gage tried to confiscate the firearms from the Americans. What happened next? Lexington and Concord, the Shot Heard Round the World. As best as I can recall, the patriots did not go to a Court of Chancery to seek an equitable remedy.

We have a similar story in Texas history. During the Texas Revolution, the Mexican Army demanded that the Texians in the City of Gonzales surrender their cannon. What did the Texians say? Come and Take It! The remedy here was not equitable; it was belligerent. The Texians did not reply with a canon of construction; they replied with a cannon of destruction. This was the Lexington of Texas. And the Battle of Gonzales led to the Battle of the Alamo, which led to Texas Independence. Sensing a pattern of what happens when the government tries to disarm the people?

I took this photo during my visit to the museum in Gonzales.

I’m reminded of Judge Kozinski’s opinion in Silviera v. Lockyer:

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.

There is an important lesson to be learned here. Courts cannot solve all problems. Courts should not solve all problems. Courts will not solve all problems.

Teen fatally shot in self-defense at Berkeley County apartments.

HANAHAN [South Carolina] — The person who shot and killed a teenager outside an area apartment complex will not be charged after police determined it was a case of self defense, authorities said.

Hanahan police responded to the parking lot area near the Bowen Village shopping plaza just before 9 p.m. May 12 to find 18-year-old Tra’sean White of Wadmalaw Island suffering from a gunshot wound, according to Police Chief Richard Gebhardt. White was pronounced dead on the scene.

The shooting occurred near a Domino’s Pizza restaurant at 9105 Bowen Pier Drive and several other stores and restaurants attached to the Channel Family Apartment Homes complex.

A day after the shooting, police arrested Deonte Calen Trevon Lancit, 18, of Charleston. He is charged with armed robbery.

An investigation revealed that Lancit and White had been in the area attempting to rob someone. During the robbery, the intended target shot and killed White, Gebhardt told The Post and Courier.

Authorities presented evidence to prosecutors at the Ninth Circuit Solicitor’s Office who determined the shooting was an act of self-defense.

Lancit is in the Hill-Finklea Detention Center after being denied bail by a magistrate judge, according to a clerk at the Berkeley County jail.

I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men’s rights.
— Abraham Lincoln

Sen. Schiff Picks Up ‘Ban-Them-All’ Torch for Gun Control

U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) replaced the late U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and has picked up the mantle of her gun control legacy with one bill in particular. He reintroduced the legislation she often sponsored to reinstate the expired federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” as he hopes to once again prohibit law-abiding Americans from owning the most popular selling semiautomatic rifle in America – the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR).

Sen. Schiff introduced S. 1531, the Assault Weapon Ban of 2025, and made the announcement through a video he posted to social media. Usurpingly, his claims about the previous federal ban are false. His video message immediately received a brutal Community Note, tagging the first-term senator’s message as “incorrect.” Companion legislation was also introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Lucy McBath (D-Ga.) as H.R. 3115, with the same title.

“The claim that the Bill 31 years ago held crimes and mass shootings at bay for 10 years is incorrect. It sunset after 10 years when Congress’s own research proved it had no effect on violent crime committed with the rifles it banned,” the note corrected. ABC News reporting was the source provided. In addition, Breitbart News tagged the video message in an article and reminded readers – or more appropriately, Sen. Schiff, that the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported that the ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime.

Continue reading “”

Bipartisan Bill Expanding Gun Carry for Cops Passes House

Current and former police officers may soon be able to carry firearms into more areas across the country.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed reform of the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA) by a vote of 229 to 193. 14 Democrats crossed over to join 215 Republicans in passing HR 2243. It expands where officers who’ve kept up with training requirements can carry firearms to include private property open to the public, school zones, federal parks, and certain federal facilities open to the general public–such as the post office or Veterans Affairs facilities.

“I’m pleased today the House passed my bipartisan LEOSA Reform Act, which offers real solutions to address threats such as terrorism and mass shootings by ensuring that our retired and off-duty law enforcement officers can exercise their right to concealed carry – no matter where they live or visit,” Rep. Don Bacon (R., Texas), a co-sponser of the bill, said in a statement. “These measured changes will make existing law stronger and more workable for those who seek its benefits while maintaining the rigorous standards that currently apply.”

“Many of our retired law enforcement officers are ready to continue serving our community but are unable to due to current law,” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D., Texas), another co-sponsor, said. “This bipartisan legislation will fix the issues that our nation’s off-duty officers and retired cops face while concealed carrying.”

HR 2243 represents one of the few gun-related bills that has a chance of making it through the Senate and into law. It shows how potent law-enforcement interests remain on Capitol Hill, with Congress willing to carve out numerous special exceptions to federal, state, and local gun laws for current and former cops.

Still, the Senate version introduced by Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana has only gained a handful of co-sponsors to date. All of them are Republicans. An identical bill from the last Congress never gained Democratic co-sponsors and didn’t make it out of the Judiciary Committee.

But the sizeable support House Democrats gave to the bill, even if the majority of the party still voted against it, suggests it could garner a similar level of support in the Senate if it makes it up for a vote this time around.

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Second Amendment Update 

There are six more conferences where the justices of the United States Supreme Court will vote on petitions for a writ of certiorari before they go on their summer break at the end of June. Prior to reconvening on the first Monday in October, there will be a “long conference” toward the end of September where the justices dispose of the cert petitions that were not disposed of by the end of June, and those where a response (or waiver to respond) were filed during their summer break.

In years past, that long conference typically disposed of far more than 1,000 petitions, but the number of petitions filed each term has significantly declined in recent years. Still, if the past is prologue, the long conference is the conference in which the most petitions will be denied. Last term, 619 petitions that were briefed too late for the 2023-2024 term were disposed of, plus 406 docketed after July 1, 2024, for a total of 1025 petitions. That includes writs of mandamus/prohibition, motions for rehearing, etc.

There are a dozen Second Amendment cert petitions scheduled for this Thursday’s SCOTUS conference. Three are of note: The interlocutory appeal of the Rhode Island ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds (Ocean State Tactical), the appeal of the final judgment challenging Maryland’s semiautomatic rifle ban (Snope), and the return of Edell Jackson, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6517, in which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that individuals cannot challenge the Federal law that prohibits persons from possessing firearms who were convicted of felonies punishable by more than one year of confinement or persons convicted of state law misdemeanors punishable my more than two years of confinement (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).

Continue reading “”

Politicians……..

Missouri Lawmakers Adjourn Without Final Vote to Get Rid of This ‘Gun-Free Zone’

Concealed carry will remain off-limits on public transportation in Missouri for at least another year after Republican senators ended their legislation two days earlier than mandated on Wednesday. The early adjournment was the result of a rarely-used parliamentary move meant to cut off debate on two bills dealing with voter-approved referendums on abortion and paid sick leave.

It was the 5th year in a row the Senate was unable to make it to the 6 p.m. Friday constitutional deadline for the session to adjourn. Even the House decided to adjourn early, announcing that it would work on bills Thursday then head home for the year.

It marks the first time the House has not worked on the legislative session’s final day since a fixed adjournment date was set in 1952.

House Speaker Jon Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican, said despite the Wednesday meltdown, the Senate actually functioned much better than any year since he joined the legislature.

“With the Senate, you just have to keep your expectations in check,” he said. “But I’m actually very happy with the way things went. You can’t always end the way you want.”

After years of the Senate’s discord being caused by internal GOP squabbles, Republican leaders celebrated soon after the early adjournment Wednesday by touting party unity and a host of big-ticket accomplishments.

They pointed to legislation sent to the governor enacting state control of the St. Louis police, exempting capital gains from the income tax and pumping $50 million into a private school voucher program, among others.

“This session proved what’s possible when Republicans lead together,” said Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, a Shelbina Republican.
… Republicans cut off debate using a procedural maneuver known as “calling the previous question,” or PQ.

Used regularly in the Missouri House, it is used rarely in the Senate because the chamber has a tradition of unlimited debate and negotiations over difficult issues. Wednesday was the first time since 2020 when a PQ was invoked and the first time since 2017 when it was used during a regular session.

In addition to HB 328 failing to receive a vote in the Senate before the chamber adjourned, the legislation known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act also ended up on the cutting room floor. That’s a little less surprising to me, given the opposition by law enforcement groups across the state and the fact that a previous version of SAPA had been ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, but it’s incredibly frustrating that the bill that would have allowed lawful gun owners to legally carry a firearm on public transportation appears to be dead in the water for the rest of the year.

Gov. Mike Kehoe has said he’ll call lawmakers back into session to vote on a stadium funding plan for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals, and some senators have also suggested a special session to address a $500 bill funding various construction and infrastructure projects across the state, but at this point there’s no indication that HB 328 would be brought up for a vote if and when lawmakers return to Jefferson City.

The bill repealing the prohibition on lawful carry in public transit passed the House on a 106-45 vote on April 10, but had yet to receive a vote in the Senate  Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee despite a public hearing on the measure that was held on April 22. It’s possible that even if the Senate had stayed in session until Friday the measure wouldn’t have made it to the Senate floor for a final vote, but the parliamentary move deployed on Wednesday guaranteed that it wouldn’t get to Kehoe’s desk anytime soon.

It’s ridiculous that a Second Amendment-friendly state like Missouri still deprives lawful gun owners from being able to carry on buses and light rail in places like Kansas Cit and St. Louis, and there were high hopes that this year lawmakers would finally get rid of those “gun-free zones”. The Senate president can pat herself on the back if she wants for “proving what’s possible when Republicans lead together”, but from a Second Amendment perspective she and other Senate leaders don’t have anything to be proud of, especially when those Missourians who rely on public transportation to get around continue to be denied their ability to protect themselves throughout their daily routine.

2A Groups Urge Congress to Pass Full Hearing Protection Act

While a move to zero out the $200 tax on suppressors has initial approval on Capitol Hill, Second Amendment advocates stress there is still a lot of work to be done.

Following a marathon overnight markup battle from Tuesday night into Wednesday morning, the nearly 400-page reconciliation package approved in a party-line vote by the House Ways and Means Committee included a section that dropped the long-standing $200 tax on suppressors to $0.

The bill now goes to the House Budget Committee for further consideration before heading to the House floor. That, argue NFA reformers, allows another chance to drop the regulation that would remain even if the tax remained zeroed out.

“Now, we call on the full House to do the right thing by inserting Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act to permanently remove suppressors from the unconstitutional NFA tax scheme,”  stressed Knox Williams, president and executive director of the American Suppressor Association. “We have every confidence House leadership will deliver on decades-long promises to stand up for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”

Even the NRA, which for years resisted suppressor deregulation in the past, is calling on its members to reach out to the Congressional switchboard. 

“Before final passage of this important legislation, the U.S. House has the opportunity to improve this provision to fully remove suppressors from the NFA,” said the group in a statement. “This provision, along with any other provision in the bill, could be altered or removed at any time before final passage of the bill.”

Advocates point out that the registration mechanism and red tape – not the tax – that come with NFA regulation are the most onerous parts of the current strict controls on the sound moderating devices. Leaving the process intact retains an artificial barrier to acquiring a suppressor, has a negligible impact on crime as ersatz, illegally made suppressors are easy to produce, and a bait-and-switch of simply dropping the tax can easily be undone by future reconciliation bills.

Colion Noir had a good take on the issue in the below piece of video advocacy.

“They’re not doing this because it’s better for us. They’re doing it because it keeps control in their hands. This isn’t about safety, it never was. This is about setting precedent because if they remove suppressors from the NFA today, tomorrow, we’ll ask, ‘why are SBRs still there,’ then after that, ‘why is the NFA even a thing at all.’

That’s what terrifies them. Not the hardware. The idea that we might reclaim authority over our own rights. And I don’t care who’s in office. Republicans, Democrats, bureaucrats with pin collections and zero range time, if you’re in government, the last thing you want to give up is power– and I know it.

That’s why they’ll toss you a $0 fee like a bone and act like they did you a favor because they think you’ll settle for scraps instead of demanding the whole meal.”

As for where Guns.com stands: