Firearms; clarifying permissible carry by certain individuals. Effective date.
Summary
SB 1746 amends Oklahoma law governing firearm carry by the Attorney General and assistant attorneys general. Under current law, those officials may carry a firearm after completing a handgun qualification course for court officials developed by the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET). The bill clarifies that, once qualified, the Attorney General and any assistant attorney general may carry a firearm on their person anywhere in the state for personal protection only.
The bill also preserves the existing administrative framework for identification cards and application forms that may be provided by CLEET. If an identification card holder is no longer eligible, the card must be returned immediately to CLEET. The act would take effect November 1, 2026.
Impact
SB 1746 would make a targeted amendment to 70 O.S. 2021, Section 3311.14, refining the statutory authority for the Attorney General and assistant attorneys general to carry firearms statewide after completing the required CLEET handgun qualification course. It does not create a new class of armed persons generally, but clarifies the scope of carry authority and maintains the identification-card process administered through CLEET. The practical effect is limited to the Attorney General’s office and related state law enforcement/training procedures.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears administrative and clarifying in nature rather than controversial, with a narrow focus on firearm carry authority for specified state legal কর্মকর্তারা. The absence of recorded votes or discussion suggests no documented public sentiment in the materials provided.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the expansion or clarification of firearm-carry authority for the Attorney General and assistant attorneys general, particularly the phrase allowing carry “anywhere in this state” for personal protection. Supporters would likely view the bill as a straightforward clarification of existing authority and a safety measure for high-level legal officials, while critics could question whether the scope is too broad or whether such authority should be limited more tightly. However, no specific objections or supporters are identified in the available legislative history.
Firearms; creating the Municipal Carry Act; modifying scope of lawful carry for certain individuals; authorizing certain carry by judges, elected official and designated employees under certain circumstances; effective date.