State Rep. Sue Tibbs was one of the sponsors of a bill that makes it unlawful for “any person to willfully fortify an access point into any dwelling, structure, building or other place where a felony offense prohibited by the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act is being committed, or attempted, and the fortification is for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer, or to harm or injure a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties.”
The law states that to “fortify an access point” means to willfully construct, install, position, use or hold any material or device designed to injure a person upon entry or to strengthen, defend, restrict or obstruct any door, window or other opening into a dwelling, structure, building or other place to any extent beyond the security provided by a commercial alarm system, lock or deadbolt, or a combination of alarm, lock or deadbolt.
The law carries punishment of imprisonment of not more than five years or by a fine up to $10,000 or by both.
This law is too ambiguous. If the dwelling is already being used for illegal activites, then what exactly is the point? This smells fishy.
It’s a “tack on” law… kind of like “using a gun to commit a crime” can add an extra penalty.
Fortify your house all you want, just don’t do a felony inside that house.
I’m not seeing the problem here.
So what happens if you fortify your house, then the police search your home under warrant, and they look at your computer and find a bunch of illegally downloaded MP3s or a DVD crack program?
It’s just a way for the state to collect more money. Dare I ask? Does a standard “locked door” count? Reading this text I would say yes. So felons, keep those doors unlocked. (Actually, better keep the doors and windows open as well.)
I with lionsfan; just extra charges to throw on the list. This makes a lot of sense to me; especially in the context of meth labs.
Maybe there is something else in the bill, but if this is an accurate representation of it’s contents I don’t see a problem.
@Killer Duck
This applies to felonies under the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act; not all felonies.
It’s not just any felony, it’s for drug felonies. Basically, like #1 said, it’s just something else to throw on top of all the other charges when a crack house gets raided. Drug dealers put up defenses to give themselves time to flush the stash when they get raided by the po-po.
This is only for drug houses as that’s all that’s covered in the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act. Copy all the DVDs you want and barricade yourself. Lookup Jamacian block. That’s what they use mostly.
This is a great law.
How would they prove your intention was to keep the cops out? You can always say you were keeping out the other drug dealers in town. Dumb law.
Drug dealers will also now be required by law to come down to the station, turn themselves in, and sign a series of confessions.
Obviously somebody wants to sell more alarm systems, this law is going to be great for the people working in this sector in OK.
Its a insurance trick.
NOW that its against the law, the insurance company doent have to PAY..the STATE SYSTEM HAS TO PAY. it now lowers the Payments and such for ALL the cops.
So if I live in a ground-floor apartment in Oklahoma, and I put bars on my windows to stop people breaking in – will the police arrest me?
Do you get the feeling that the police have decided it’s waaay too much trouble arresting criminals – it’s just simpler to arrest and lock-up law-abiding citizens and let the criminals run free.
What is a commercial security company installs a gun turret, is that ok?
It my sound like a tact on offense for drug dealers. But I have a problem with this part
“and the fortification is for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer, or to harm or injure a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties.””
“in the performance of official duties.” opens it up to anything.
Also fortification is not defined. Is the door being closed, Locked, Reinforced lock, Etc. What happens if you kid is dealing or it’s an apartment and the owner does fortification?
This sounds like a bad law to me.
I am surprised that the NRA allowed this pass. To me, this is no different that banning guns because bad guys use them. All it does is criminalize honest civilians and gives the DA and police more power to abuse.
Seriously, you really think a major drug dealer cares about this stupid law? It won’t deter them one little bit.
Are the DA’s so incompetent in OK that they can’t convict a drug dealer for being… a drug dealer.
#2
The amount they are tacking on under this law is nothing compared to what you’d be paying for pirating mp3s. This law is for less serious crimes like producing/distributing drugs.
“This law is too ambiguous.” /// Not at all. All elements defined. In your mind, is “ambiguous” synonymous with “I don’t agree with it?
If the dwelling is already being used for illegal activites, then what exactly is the point? /// Its an add on charge. Drug dealers who fortify their operations are WORSE THAN drug dealers who do not. Is that ambiguous or do you understand it?
This smells fishy. /// If so, that is a violation of Fish and Game regulations. In that code structure, I believe big oily fish deserve a bigger penalty than do small clean fish.
Gee, and no one is complaining how unfair it would be to have a fortified home and have the cops plant drugs on you for an additional unfair charge. The crew here is slipping.
[ 1 a : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness b : inexplicable ]
2 : capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways
[There, I spelled it out for you, it’s ambiguous and the comments here prove it – ed.]
“Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act” is drugs?? Gad, I would have thought it was bombs. So if you’re putting together a
bombbrick of cocaine, leave the doors open so the neighbourhood kids can share in the bounty?Aside from that laughable concept, I’d agree with earlier posters that it’s a tack-on law. Oklahoma probably agrees with Hoyt Axton’s mom who wrote, in the classic song The Pusher: “I’d kill them with my Bible, and my razor, and my gun.” Except other laws prevent them from doing all that.
#12 chuck. No, I don’t think so. Yes, your second paragraph is true, but I don’t think this subject is a good example.
# 14 Jetfire, “This sounds like a bad law to me.”
That’s because it is bad law.
Out-law the crime and punish the crime.
Anything less then a red-carpet entrance can be construed by the ignorant masses as preventing or delaying entry or access. Passwords on your computer could be construed as preventing or delaying entry or access. Not speaking the same language could be construed as preventing or delaying entry or access.
Big Government is too busy worrying about having the undeniable right to and easy access to it’s citizens properties, monies and ideas, that government has forget it is it’s citizens who have the undeniable right to easy access to governments properties, monies and ideas.
Who runs this country, it’s citizens or the police?
Are citizens not intelligent enough to have a democracy anymore??
This will be funny when the cops get a warrant for the wrong house (yours) and you have a “fortified entrance.” Oops!
It certainly appears right now to be a tack-on law. But laws on the books never seem to go away. And laws on the books get reinterpreted as the years go by. And laws on the books also get expanded.
At this time it is for “place where a felony offense prohibited by the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act is being committed, or attempted..”.
It can easily be expanded in the future to include all sorts of crime behind closed doors. Why not gambling, prostitution, etc where a little extra time will prevent someone being caught “in the act.”
If the punishment for the actual crime being committed needs to be increased, then increase it. Adding additional things to be throw in, which by themselves are not crimes, because the police don’t like the fact that people who commit crimes don’t want to make it easy to be caught is B.S.
#16 I like the way you think 🙂
#5 coyote fair enough, similar question:
You fortify your house and the police get a tap on your internet connection after seeing your email address used in a craislist ad looking for a date that is “420 friendly”.
My point is that its really hard to draw a line. If they want to get you, they will find a way.
For everyone saying this is just a tack on law needs to reread it.
“any person to willfully fortify an access point into any dwelling, structure, building or other place where a felony offense prohibited by the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act is being committed”
Doesn’t say you have to be doing or know about the felony offense just that it is taking place there. The way I read it, if you a contractor and fortify as part of your job , you’re in trouble. It Doesn’t say someone have to be convict of the drug offense just that it took place there. Hell it doesn’t even say when the fortification have to take place.
What if I fortify my house and sell it. Then someone after I sell it does a felony offense prohibited by the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act there. Am I in trouble?
Hell this is worst then Hate Crime laws.
I’m with #22 Bad laws
Just increase the original offense.
Folks in ‘homa still worried that the Red Coats are coming?
What if your house is a converted missile silo? With bomb blast doors and the rest, does the house itself constitute a violation by just being?
WOW,
no one read my post about Insurance..COOL.. #11.
GET THE IDEA.
Its to drop insurance charges for COPS. If they are hurt during a drug bust, they NOW have to deal with the STATE paying it, INSTED of insurance.
reading the OTHER parts, makes it illegal for almost ANY REASON, if illegal activity is happening. WHICH means that if a cop busts into a HOME to arrest someone, and gets HURT, the STATE pays, not INSURANCE.
So much for having my civil war era cannon set up in front of the door, rigged to go off if a sensor detects the door is forcibly opened.
Although, I have the right to use a gun to defend my home and I have noting to do with drugs, so I should be fine.
Bigotry at its best.