NO on HB1111: Armed Security Exemption – YES.
MANDATORY signage – NO
MANDATORY signage – NO
Guest Article by Adrian Otap
I am writing as a deeply concerned U.S. Citizen, an Oklahoman, a SDA instructor, patriot and military veteran.
HB1111 is a piece of legislation that is of great concern for me, not just as currently written, but even more so when taken in consideration with the proposed amendment to it relating to MANDATORY signage that is neither consistent with nor compatible with current Oklahoma Alcohol Law since the Modernization of 2018.
First and foremost, because of the Modernization of 2018, the number of types of licenses to dispense alcohol as well as the number of establishments with such licenses has diversified and increased significantly. Also, because of these increasingly dangerous times we are living in, more establishments are seeking to employ armed security guards either on a daily basis or just during special events.
With that being said, while the current Oklahoma Self-Defense Act has exemptions in place for police officers while working and private investigators while working to allow them access to the premises of an establishment licensed to dispense alcohol while armed if they do not have a handgun license, we do not have a similar exemption for licensed, CLEET certified armed security while they are working.
We should look to amend current law to correct that oversight as soon as possible.
With that being said, when it comes to question of the possible amendment to HB1111 that would LEGALLY MANDATE AND REQUIRE so-called “51%” signs at certain establishments in Oklahoma – this is something that we neither need nor want in Oklahoma.
This would be a step backwards!
We want fewer signs and not more.
It is an unneeded anachronism that is neither reflective of nor compatible with our modernized, post-2018 alcohol laws.
It either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that if an establishment has a full kitchen and serves food from a full menu, they already are required to maintain 35% gross food sales to maintain their status of having alcohol as a non-primary purpose. Just ask yourself what that could potentially mean for many establishments if that threshold is raised to 49%...?
It either ignores or is ignorant of the number of the different types of alcohol licenses than an establishment in Oklahoma may have in a post-2018 world or that a given establishment might even have multiple, overlapping licenses.
It either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that only certain establishments qualify for certain licenses. Or that depending on the type of license and/or certain activities that take place on the premises, it is legally impossible for alcohol to be the primary purpose of certain establishments.
It either ignores or is ignorant of the fact, that the OK ABLE Commission has the ultimate authority to determine, at any time, what the primary purpose of an establishment with an alcohol license is.
If someone is not sure what the “primary purpose” of an establishment in Oklahoma is, we already have a sign for that: the one that says you have to be at least 21 to walk through the front door.
What is the easiest way for a layman to ascertain if alcohol sales is the primary purpose of an establishment? Just ask yourself: If this place could no longer sell alcohol, could they stay in business? If the answer is “NO”, then alcohol is its primary purpose and it is virtually assured that you will need to be at least 21 to get in the door and taking a gun in there is probably a bad idea. Of course, Wilshire Gun in Oklahoma City has shown us for YEARS now that having all manner of weaponry in close proximity to beer and vodka is not the end of the world and that the only thing that should matter is if you drink and carry. Even then, we should set a BAC limit on it like with driving.
What the average laymen won't be able to figure out easily on their own is whether or not something is owned or operated by a public trust or a non-profit entity.
Now THAT is a sign that would be useful to some people! And since those things/places aren't "private" property, I have no issue with FORCING them, by law, to have such a sign.
We do not want to set the precedent of mandatory signs or more signs backed by force of law in Oklahoma. Forced speech is not FREE speech. Required signs serve to weaken instead of strengthen private property rights. Such signage would be an ill-conceived solution to a problem that does not exist in the first place.
As such, I would urge any legislator to vote NO on this legislation as written until it can be amended to include the aforementioned exception for armed security guards. I would urge any legislator to vote NO on this bill if it amended to included any mention of “51%” or other mandatory signage. In either case, I would still urge any legislator to not even vote on this bill at all if amended until you’ve had a chance to see the updated, amended bill, in its entirety, and you’ve had a chance to seek legal counsel and solicit the input of your constituents.
Very respectfully,
ADRIAN OTAP
SDA Instructor #2020872
P.S. Here’s a partial listing of places in Oklahoma that have licenses to dispense alcohol that many might be unaware of:
- Two Qdoba locations
- Ten Pei Wei locations.
- Twelve Chipotle location.
- 6 Buffet restaurants.
- A boba tea café.
- An ice cream parlor.
- A Denny’s restaurant.
- Over ten movie theaters.
- 2 Schlotzsky’s locations.
- 18+ Coffee shops.
- 6 Chuck E Cheese locations.
- 40+ Nail salons.
- 11+ Barber shops.
- Another 15+ locations to include furniture stores, rock climbing gyms, cross-fit studios and water parks.
Even with the proposed amendment to HB1111, it will still be a misdemeanor to possess “any offensive weapon” other than a firearm (brass knuckles, hand chain, ninja star, etc.) on the premises of any of those establishments. Even with the proposed amendment to HB1111, it will still be a misdemeanor to possess “any offensive weapon” other than a firearm (brass knuckles, hand chain, ninja star, etc.) on the premises of any of those establishments. Let us also consider the First Amendment ramifications is someone were to consider the kirpans carried by observant male Sikhs to be an "offensive weapon"? Shall we make criminals out of people for simply practicing their religion while checking into a hotel or going to see a movie?
