OFCC Member Detained and Harassed for Open Carry in OHIO "with audio!"

[Ring]

http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4010/83/


read, audio at the bottom...

someone repost this on ar15.com and any ware else..

[ashnlv]

This guy is 24 and damn sure acts like 1/2 that. Why carry OC Sig and CC a Glock? This guy recorded the incident, why? I'll tell you why, because he was looking for something to happen.

I have never heard someone spout off about 2A so much. If you have a CC permit, then why would you carry OC and CC? Now this guy is on the radar of that PD. I call attention whore on this one. Flame away, but you have a CC permit for a reason.

[Solid]

^So you think that because you have a permit you should have the right to OC?

[certifiedfunds]

What outrageous bull****!

Like everyone else, I've read about these happenings but the audio really drives it home!

It sounds to me like these guys knew he did nothing wrong, had egg on their faces, and weren't about to be upstaged by a 24 year old punk.

[Ring]

This guy is 24 and damn sure acts like 1/2 that. Why carry OC Sig and CC a Glock? This guy recorded the incident, why? I'll tell you why, because he was looking for something to happen.

I have never heard someone spout off about 2A so much. If you have a CC permit, then why would you carry OC and CC? Now this guy is on the radar of that PD. I call attention whore on this one. Flame away, but you have a CC permit for a reason.
so even though, the cop is breaking the law and the OC guy is the law abiding one, you support the criminal?...

nice......

[Solid]

so even though, the cop is breaking the law and the OC guy is the law abiding one, you support the criminal?...

nice......

Well, how dare the citizen obey the law in front of the officer like that. :rofl:

[geofri]

Wow....

this stuff juts scares me away from OC...

[10-32]

This kid was absolutely looking for something like this to happen. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't usually walk around with a tape recorder. But who knows, maybe he recorded it on his cell phone or something.

Still, if he did nothing wrong then that is that. I know in WI open carry is legal but CC is not. But if I were to OC in WI the same thing would happen, ending up most likely with me in jail. And that is wrong.

I don't think the police should mess with someone not breaking any laws, but I also understand that every soccer mom in town will call that in and they have to atleast respond. It's what they do after that I find disturbing, basically making up things they could charge him with.

And what kind of "professional" talks to people with the kind of language these officers were using? Pretty sure that wouldn't fly in my job.

[kelsitone]

Unbelievable...:wow:

This makes me want to carry a tape recorder when I OC. Because, if I told a story like what happened to Bryan, no one would believe it.

Everyone should go ahead and thank the Sergeant for the class they have to take on open carry next month. And the one on professional courtesy.

[GLOCK_27]

This guy is 24 and damn sure acts like 1/2 that. Why carry OC Sig and CC a Glock? This guy recorded the incident, why? I'll tell you why, because he was looking for something to happen.

I have never heard someone spout off about 2A so much. If you have a CC permit, then why would you carry OC and CC? Now this guy is on the radar of that PD. I call attention whore on this one. Flame away, but you have a CC permit for a reason.

i dont have a cc, thats why i have OC'ed befor.... Also someone needs to teach these rude cops the law

[BattletweeteR]

if he commited a crime, then why didnt the cop arrest him.

[Solid]

This kid was absolutely looking for something like this to happen. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't usually walk around with a tape recorder. But who knows, maybe he recorded it on his cell phone or something.

Still, if he did nothing wrong then that is that. I know in WI open carry is legal but CC is not. But if I were to OC in WI the same thing would happen, ending up most likely with me in jail. And that is wrong.

I don't think the police should mess with someone not breaking any laws, but I also understand that every soccer mom in town will call that in and they have to atleast respond. It's what they do after that I find disturbing, basically making up things they could charge him with.

And what kind of "professional" talks to people with the kind of language these officers were using? Pretty sure that wouldn't fly in my job.
Maybe he wanted to make sure and "CYA". If I were to open carry here I would keep a print-out of state law in case I got hassled.

Sometimes I consider open carry for going out to the range, so I may need to stop somewhere on the way.

[GLOCK_27]

This tape makes me want to walk down main st and OC tomorrow....

[mnglocker]

The LEO with the foul language is out of line HARD CORE, this would be a good oppourtunity for an INSTRUCTOR to accompany the victim to a meeting with this cops' boss and educate him on the Ohio state law, perhaps a lawyer should accompany them also. :steamed:

[doubletap1]

This guy is 24 and damn sure acts like 1/2 that. Why carry OC Sig and CC a Glock? This guy recorded the incident, why? I'll tell you why, because he was looking for something to happen.

I have never heard someone spout off about 2A so much. If you have a CC permit, then why would you carry OC and CC? Now this guy is on the radar of that PD. I call attention whore on this one. Flame away, but you have a CC permit for a reason.

+1

Flame on.... :rofl:

[Solid]

I'd love to read a thread about one of the anti-OC people here being detained for concealed carry where it is legal.

[Dean]

The officer explained the community standard.
Personally, I see where he's coming from.
Me? I'd have known the community standard before I ever open carried.
The law is good. Staying out of trouble is also good.
I'm not telling nobody outside of OR or WA what to do, but out here, OC in the City can easily go wrong. The O.C. laws are complex. You can get arrested for violating local laws.

You're much better off carrying concealed on a proper CHL.

[doubletap1]

so even though, the cop is breaking the law and the OC guy is the law abiding one, you support the criminal?...

nice......

:upeyes:

What do you say guys? Want to try this topic out over in Cop Talk? That may get interesting...:whistling:

[doubletap1]

I'd love to read a thread about one of the anti-OC people here being detained for concealed carry where it is legal.

Gee...what do you know...that just doesn't seem to happen now, does it? Wonder why that is? :dunno:

[Solid]

Gee...what do you know...that just doesn't seem to happen now, does it? Wonder why that is? :dunno:

Actually it sometimes happens, but it hasn't happened to an anti-2nd from here

-Many states you have to inform officers you are carrying
-A pat down would "make" you
-Most people have inadvertently printed at some point
-Cops know to notice standard clips, c-clips, over garment carry, etc.

[doubletap1]

Actually it sometimes happens, but it hasn't happened to an anti-2nd from here

Anti-OC is not anti-2nd. :upeyes:


-Many states you have to inform officers you are carrying
-A pat down would "make" you
-Most people have inadvertently printed at some point
-Cops know to notice standard clips, c-clips, over garment carry, etc.

....and your point is...what? :dunno:

[Solid]

Anti-OC is not anti-2nd. :upeyes:
Sorry I mean pro-hide your rights


....and your point is...what? :dunno:
Look down

that just doesn't seem to happen now, does it? Wonder why that is?

[10-32]

Maybe he wanted to make sure and "CYA". If I were to open carry here I would keep a print-out of state law in case I got hassled.

Sometimes I consider open carry for going out to the range, so I may need to stop somewhere on the way.

Yeah, which is why I added the part about the cell phone. Maybe it was just a good CYA reaction on his part.

And I agree, I would have the law in print and in hand also, though we shouldn't have to.

[OgenRwot]

This guy is 24 and damn sure acts like 1/2 that. Why carry OC Sig and CC a Glock? This guy recorded the incident, why? I'll tell you why, because he was looking for something to happen.

I have never heard someone spout off about 2A so much. If you have a CC permit, then why would you carry OC and CC? Now this guy is on the radar of that PD. I call attention whore on this one. Flame away, but you have a CC permit for a reason.

You have a tape recorder incase you get in this sort of situation. IMO he talked too much without a lawer. Not sure if you guys saw that thread/video. He was within his rights, bottom line. I would be talking all about 2A and the state laws and all that too if I was being accused of breaking a law when I'm insured the right to be doing what I'm doing. He OC'd and CC'd cause he wanted a BUG. Who cares?

[doubletap1]

Sorry I mean pro-hide your rights

:rofl:

Kinda funny, an anti CCW statement from a guy with a pro-CCW avatar. What's that about? :dunno:

Look down

uhhhh...that's my statement. Do you have a source or something you can start your thread about a ccw'er getting unlawfully detained and/or arrested? If you do, then go for it! That would be interesting. :thumbsup:

[Aran]

This guy is 24 and damn sure acts like 1/2 that. Why carry OC Sig and CC a Glock? This guy recorded the incident, why? I'll tell you why, because he was looking for something to happen.

I have never heard someone spout off about 2A so much. If you have a CC permit, then why would you carry OC and CC? Now this guy is on the radar of that PD. I call attention whore on this one. Flame away, but you have a CC permit for a reason.

:upeyes::upeyes::upeyes:

[cjlandry]

This guy is 24 and damn sure acts like 1/2 that. Why carry OC Sig and CC a Glock? This guy recorded the incident, why? I'll tell you why, because he was looking for something to happen.

I have never heard someone spout off about 2A so much. If you have a CC permit, then why would you carry OC and CC? Now this guy is on the radar of that PD. I call attention whore on this one. Flame away, but you have a CC permit for a reason.

No "flame", just points of fact. (I don't think most of you even know what a "flame" is, since it rarely happens on GT, yet you continue to put on your "flame suits".)

"Why OC Sig and CC a Glock?"

Because he wanted to, he needs no justification for doing something that isn't prohibited.

"This guy recorded the incident, Why?"

Because he wanted a record of the incident.

"If you have a CC permit, then why would you OC and CC?"

Again, because you want to. There's no need to justify any action which isn't prohibited, to the police, to you, or anyone else.

If the police want OC to be prohibited, they should petition their legislators to prohibit it. If you want OC to be prohibited, you should petition your legislator to prohibit it.

It's already prohibited in my state, so I have no choice but to pay for a license and carry concealed. I think it's ridiculous, but my state legislature has yet to lift the prohibition on open carry of handguns. Open carry isn't important to me, personally, but I certainly have nothing against those who choose to do so where it's not prohibited.

[DKSuddeth]

I'll bet that the anti-gunners read these boards and laugh their damned heads off at how we 'supposed' pro-2nd Amendment supporters turn on a dime and cannibalize each other over something as STUPID as not agreeing about open carry or when not to. It's no damn wonder why it's taking so fricking long to regain our RKBA, what with all the inability to support every aspect of carrying a firearm, whether one likes it or not.

[LoadToadBoss]

States need specific prohibitions to threats and intimidation by LEOs when someone is lawfully exercising their OC rights. Laws on Disorderly Conduct or Inducing a Panic need to have specific exemptions for those peacefully exercising other constitutional rights. For the life of me, I can't understand how an LEO can believe that exercising a lawful right in a peaceful manner could be a crime of another type. Any community standard that prevents a person from exercising a constitutional right is another form of coercive tyranny. What if the community standard was that African-Americans could not enter certain parts of town? Would anyone allow that community standard to prevail? Certainly not! There would be an all out effort to shame that community. Let's not use community standards as an excuse for limiting the free and unfettered exercising of a constitutional right. JMHO.

[RussP]

I'll bet that the anti-gunners read these boards and laugh their damned heads off at how we 'supposed' pro-2nd Amendment supporters turn on a dime and cannibalize each other over something as STUPID as not agreeing about open carry or when not to. It's no damn wonder why it's taking so fricking long to regain our RKBA, what with all the inability to support every aspect of carrying a firearm, whether one likes it or not.Good points. sir.


:cool:

[LittleRedToyota]

The officer explained the community standard.

"community standards" are completely irrelevant. we live in a nation of rule of law, not rule of community standard.

You can get arrested for violating local laws.

doesn't ohio have state preemption?

You're much better off carrying concealed on a proper CHL.

actually, we are all better off when people are willing to stand up for their (and, thus, our) rights.

[LittleRedToyota]

Anti-OC is not anti-2nd. :upeyes:

maybe.

but not caring about the police harassing people for doing something that is legal is most certainly anti-rule of law.

i can't believe how many people don't realize that these cases aren't really about OC v. CC...they are about rule of law--you know, the basic foundation of our country.

[doubletap1]

States need specific prohibitions to threats and intimidation by LEOs when someone is lawfully exercising their OC rights. Laws on Disorderly Conduct or Inducing a Panic need to have specific exemptions for those peacefully exercising other constitutional rights.

Don't the police have better things to do? Seriously, with all the methheads, illegal aliens stealing everything in sight, and sex offenders running around, they have their hands full. The world does not revolve around those who decide to OC. :upeyes:


For the life of me, I can't understand how an LEO can believe that exercising a lawful right in a peaceful manner could be a crime of another type.

Cops get a call about "A Man With a Gun", and they go check it out. If you are that guy with that gun, they are gonna check you out. It's not about your rights at this point, it's about public safety, and I applaud them for doing their job.

Any community standard that prevents a person from exercising a constitutional right is another form of coercive tyranny. What if the community standard was that African-Americans could not enter certain parts of town? Would anyone allow that community standard to prevail? Certainly not! There would be an all out effort to shame that community. Let's not use community standards as an excuse for limiting the free and unfettered exercising of a constitutional right. JMHO.

"Coercive Tyranny"?!?!?! OMG!!!! :rofl:

Let's try to tune down the drama here. No one is trying to lynch you. Are your rights not exercised by concealed carry? Would that not prevent all the trouble and prevent the OC crowd from this terrible, awful, persecution, they've all been suffering? I think it would.

Again, your weapon is not a political statement. It is for personal protection, and the sooner the OC crowd can get their collective heads wrapped around this, the better for all us who decide to carry.

[doubletap1]

maybe.

:upeyes:

Would you care to elaborate on that? I would really like to understand how that works.

but not caring about the police harassing people for doing something that is legal is most certainly anti-rule of law.

I think the police are more concerned with public safety. Isn't that the real issue they have? Why don't you go over to Cop Talk and ask. I'm sure you'll get some great responses and maybe someone will explain their point of view to you.

Or maybe you're afraid of what you'll hear there....:whistling:

i can't believe how many people don't realize that these cases aren't really about OC v. CC...they are about rule of law--you know, the basic foundation of our country.

Oh now the whole foundation of our country rests on your right to OC? Wow! We've got some serious drama going on here today! :rofl:

I can't believe how many don't realize their weapon is for personal protection and is not a political statement. Why is that so hard to understand? :dunno:

[Duncan223]

interesting video

[mnglocker]

doesn't ohio have state preemption?




This is something that I was thinking, if they don't, Ohioan GT'ers need to get off their duff and put together a bill for state preemtion and get it pushed thourgh the legislator ASAP.

[LittleRedToyota]

:upeyes:

Would you care to elaborate on that? I would really like to understand how that works.

well, the 2nd says "shall not be infringed".

when the government hassles people for open carrying, they are infringing (encroaching upon) the right to bear arms...especially when you need a license to carry concealed.

if there is no way to bear arms without being hassled by the government (via either the requirement of a license or being stopped by the police), then i would say that is clearly a 2nd amendment issue.

unless you want to get into the whole incorporation argument, but i'm pretty sure OH has a similar clause in their state constitution, so you just move the argument from the 2nd amendment to the OH state constitution.

I think the police are more concerned with public safety. Isn't that the real issue they have? Why don't you go over to Cop Talk and ask. I'm sure you'll get some great responses and maybe someone will explain their point of view to you.

it has been asked a million times over there. i've gone round in circles with a couple people over there. i'm not going to go over there and start another peeing contest.

besides, since we live in land of rule of law...and not a police state...the opinions of police don't actually matter when they are in conflict with the laws. that is what you do not seem to understand.

Or maybe you're afraid of what you'll hear there....:whistling:

not at all...just don't want to break the GT terms of service and don't feel like banging my head against a wall.

Oh now the whole foundation of our country rests on your right to OC? Wow! We've got some serious drama going on here today! :rofl:

rule of law *is* the foundation of our country. i hope you never have to learn firsthand what happens when rule of law breaks down. i would suggest you study history...and world current affairs...to get an idea without having to experience it firsthand. then you might come to understand how important it is.

and, yes, it most certainly can happen here.

I can't believe how many don't realize their weapon is for personal protection and is not a political statement.

in your opinion...which is completely irrelevant. the law is the law.

[Yellowfin]

I can't believe how many don't realize their weapon is for personal protection and is not a political statement. Why is that so hard to understand? :dunno: Because some jackasses who oppose our right to carry a sidearm make it a political issue and force the necessity of being political about it. I hate it beyond words but being silent and in the closet is what got us in the position to need to defend our rights and OC is a direct means of going about it. You can like it or dislike it as you wish and choose to opt out of it, but that doesn't make it go away. If we don't do the politics then we won't have our personal protection.

Exactly as we point out that sheeple are in denial about safety and the way the world works and make themselves helpless, there are far too many on our side who want to plug their ears and wish everyone on all sides would just shut up. The opposition WILL NOT GO AWAY. I hate that. I wish I could just go about my life unbothered by all this. It costs me time and money, takes away my attention from profitable activities and family and friends, and quite frankly makes me a very grouchy person in the morning. However, I realized a couple years ago upon getting much more heavily involved with my soon-to-be wife and thinking of our future family and my in-laws that there is an entire country with over a hundred million people who march on with their lives at best oblivious and at worst antagonistic to mine who can ruin much of what I want out of life recreationally and who can endanger our lives 24/7 merely by how they vote. The people who either don't know and don't care or are misinformed can almost literally vote your sidearm right out of your holster.

[doubletap1]

well, the 2nd says "shall not be infringed".

when the government hassles people for open carrying, they are infringing (encroaching upon) the right to bear arms...especially when you need a license to carry concealed.

if there is no way to bear arms without being hassled by the government (via either the requirement of a license or being stopped by the police), then i would say that is clearly a 2nd amendment issue.

unless you want to get into the whole incorporation argument, but i'm pretty sure OH has a similar clause in their state constitution, so you just move the argument from the 2nd amendment to the OH state constitution.

Lots of gray there. Isn't public safety the issue as far as the police are concerned? Besides, "hassled" is a long way from arrested. Again, I applaud the police for doing their job. The world does not revolve around you and your right to openly carry a weapon. Sorry.

it has been asked a million times over there. i've gone round in circles with a couple people over there. i'm not going to go over there and start another peeing contest.

I don't go to Cop Talk very often, so have never seen it. Do you have a link to a thread I could read?

besides, since we live in land of rule of law...and not a police state...the opinions of police don't actually matter when they are in conflict with the laws. that is what you do not seem to understand.

What you don't seem to understand is that they are protecting the public by checking you out when they get a "man with a gun" call. I also don't see how stopping you and questioning what you're doing is so terrible. After all, attention getting is a big part of OC, right?

not at all...just don't want to break the GT terms of service and don't feel like banging my head against a wall.

Hiding behind the TOS. Nice. I'd still like to read that thread.

rule of law *is* the foundation of our country. i hope you never have to learn firsthand what happens when rule of law breaks down. i would suggest you study history...and world current affairs...to get an idea without having to experience it firsthand. then you might come to understand how important it is.

and, yes, it most certainly can happen here.

Oh, I've seen the rule of law break down- here in the states twice and in once Mexico. I've also been the victim of a violent crime, which is why I carry, so don't try to tell me that I need to study anything to understand. I have scars as physical reminders.

Being "hassled" for your OC is a lot different than the rule of law truly breaking down- like you have with huge riots and murder in the streets. To equate the two is a fine demonstration of ignorance.

in your opinion...which is completely irrelevant. the law is the law.

.....and the police enforce it. They are gonna "hassle" you when you OC. Just understand that and try to not get so emotional when they stop and ask you what you're up to.

Next time you should thank them for doing their jobs. :thumbsup:

[DKSuddeth]

Are your rights not exercised by concealed carry?

Not when the state wants to charge me $140 for the right, it then becomes a privilege.

[fgutie35]

In my opinion, both parties on that incident acted wrongfully. on one side, you have a 24 year old who wants to make a statement about OC(or else he wouldn't carry a recorder with him) who he himself is not well documented on state law and the different provision of the law when it comes to OC and CC (hence the fact he could not answer back to the cop when the cop said that if you have a CCW license then you cannot OC). Also he does not have very good communication skills or diplomacy skills for that matter; that can make a difference on having a nice rationalized conversation with a cop and get your point across, or get yourself trown in jail. Personally before pulling a stunt like that kid did, I would have informed myself very well about the laws so I could defend my case in a very diplomatic way or invite an attorney friend to jog with me while I OC so he can explain it to the cops better.:supergrin:

On the other hand, we have two cops that are trying to keep the peace in the community and by doing that, they don't mind steping on peoples rights and disregard state law. Of course when they sense resistance from the person questioned then they become very cocky and offended by the person not obeying a "representative of the law". Professionalism goes down the tubes and it becomes a personal matter which makes them act more like the way they would act with relatives or friends.

In summary, this would have been a very productive incident in favor of Open Carry if it would have been handled differently by Bryan!:faint:

[GLOCK_27]

Lots of gray there. Isn't public safety the issue as far as the police are concerned? Besides, "hassled" is a long way from arrested. Again, I applaud the police for doing their job. The world does not revolve around you and your right to openly carry a weapon. Sorry.



I agree, OC should be outlawed for "public safety" then we wont have to worry about this happening again. But what happens when you are out and about CCWing and someone sees you printing and calls the cops. Should we ban then ban CC for "public safety"? I mean, the world does not revolve around you and your right to CC. Sorry

[doubletap1]

I agree, OC should be outlawed for "public safety" then we wont have to worry about this happening again.

Who said anything about banning OC? I'm just saying don't do it where it may cause a problem with those who don't understand, like the mall, WalMart, or other places where you will probably get the cops called on you. CC in those places, then write and speak to agitate for the RKBA. That's what I do, and it works.

Does that sound so hard? :dunno:


But what happens when you are out and about CCWing and someone sees you printing and calls the cops. Should we ban then ban CC for "public safety"? Link? Source? Fantasy? :rofl:

I mean, the world does not revolve around you and your right to CC. Sorry

Well, you don't hear me crying about my rights, do you? I don't have a problem because I don't go looking to cause any. You should try it sometime.

[LittleRedToyota]

Lots of gray there. Isn't public safety the issue as far as the police are concerned?

public safety should never be placed above rule of law though. never.

in fact, ultimately, public safety is guaranteed by rule of law, not by the police.

governments that do not respect rule of law are waaaaayyyyyy more dangerous to public safety than guns...or criminals.

Besides, "hassled" is a long way from arrested.

being detained without RAS of a crime (not RAS of having a gun, but RAS of an actual crime) is not a long way from arrested at all.

Again, I applaud the police for doing their job.

but the job of the police is to uphold the laws. detaining someone for doing something that is legal does not fit into that job description...in fact, it goes completely against it.

The world does not revolve around you and your right to openly carry a weapon.

the US is, in fact, supposed to revolve around individual rights...and rule of law.

I don't go to Cop Talk very often, so have never seen it. Do you have a link to a thread I could read?

i don't off hand. the threads were not about open carry, though...they were about constitutional issues.

What you don't seem to understand is that they are protecting the public by checking you out when they get a "man with a gun" call.

and here is how that should be done...assuming OC is legal at the location in question:

1. dispatcher should ask caller: "what is the man doing with the gun?" if the answer is "well, nothing...he just has it on his hip", the dispatcher should say "well, there is nothing illegal about that. if he does something else besides just have it on his hip, please call back."

2. if the police are dispatched...and when they get to the scene all the find is a man walking down the street with an OCed gun on his hip, they should watch and see if does anything threatening. if so, then act accordingly, but if not, they should not treat it any differently from someone walking down the street with a baseball hat on.

I also don't see how stopping you and questioning what you're doing is so terrible.

the police are certainly welcome to ask anyone any questions at any time. the person is also free to ignore the questions and/or walk away.

once the police actually detain the person (i.e., do not allow him to ignore them or walk away) without RAS of a crime, they have crossed the line into a 4th amendment violation.

After all, attention getting is a big part of OC, right?

for some people it is, i imagine. for others, it is not. i don't pretend to know why other people OC. i also don't project my motivations (or lack thereof) onto them. i respect that they are unique individuals with their own unique reasons for doing what they do.

i personally don't OC except when hiking in the woods, so for me, when i do OC it is because CCing with a backpack on is a PIA.

I'd still like to read that thread.

well, the last one...which, again, was not about OC, but about FOID cards in Illinois was a lot of back and forthe between me and ISP-something or other...you can do a search to find it if you want.

Being "hassled" for your OC is a lot different than the rule of law truly breaking down- like you have with huge riots and murder in the streets. To equate the two is a fine demonstration of ignorance.

you don't seem to understand what i am saying.

rule of law breaking down is not riots in the streets. rule of law breaking down is the government not being bound by the law. see east germany. russia. china. myanmar. iraq under saddam. etc. etc. etc.

no riots in the streets...just people disappearing in the middle of the night without any due process.

and i am not equating illegal RAS-less detentions for OCing with people disappearing in the middle of the night. but, i fully understand the social phenomenon of gradualization. complete breakdown of rule of law does not happen overnight. it happens little by little. and the time to stop it is right now...to nip it in the bud.

Just understand that and try to not get so emotional when they stop and ask you what you're up to.

if i were to be stopped there would be no emotion about it. simply "am i being detained?" if the answer is no, then "thanks. i'll be on my way now." if the answer is "yes", then there will be a lawsuit after the fact.

Next time you should thank them for doing their jobs. :thumbsup:

again, detaining people without RAS of a crime is not doing their job. in fact, it is quite the opposite of doing their job.

[Gary1911A1]

Only an idiot would OC on purpose. Just wanting to start something is the only reason this was recorded. Way to alienate LE. At this rate OC will be banned and then anybody who accidently lets his handgun be seen can expect legal charges. Way to go AO.

[LittleRedToyota]

At this rate OC will be banned

don't have much faith in your state supreme court to uphold your state constitution, eh?

can't say that i necessarily blame ya, though. supreme courts have been known to completely ignore the constitutions they are supposed to be enforcing.

better watch what you say, though...speaking your mind will prolly get banned, too.

now, should we role over and accept all that...or fight it?

[DKSuddeth]

Only an idiot would OC on purpose.
You've pretty much invalidated your opinion by resorting the 'idiot' remark.

Just wanting to start something is the only reason this was recorded. Way to alienate LE.
The only ones who alienated le WERE le, specifically the sgt who felt he was above the law.

[PAGunner]

This guy is 24 and damn sure acts like 1/2 that. Why carry OC Sig and CC a Glock? This guy recorded the incident, why? I'll tell you why, because he was looking for something to happen.

I have never heard someone spout off about 2A so much. If you have a CC permit, then why would you carry OC and CC? Now this guy is on the radar of that PD. I call attention whore on this one. Flame away, but you have a CC permit for a reason.

I never OC, kinda frown on OC in general, but these cops harassed this guy because a ****tarded soccer mom that has **** for brains called the cops. The guy OCing was clearly not in the wrong, these cops are tools, I hope they get in trouble for their self righteous harassment.

[PAGunner]

I applaud the police for doing their job. The world does not revolve around you and your right to openly carry a weapon. Sorry.

WOW, I thought when I looked over at your name, I was going to ready NancyPelosi1 instead of doubletap1.

1. You applaud the cops, for what? Breaking the law themselves?

525.13 INTERFERING WITH CIVIL RIGHTS.

(a) No public servant, under color of his or her office, employment, or authority, shall knowingly deprive, conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.

(b) Whoever violates this section is guilty of interfering with civil rights, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

The BS charges the cops threatened to charge this guy with would have been thrown out of court because he did not "induce a panic" or any of the other garbage they said by definition of the law.

2. That crack about "the world does not revolved around you and your right to openly carry", huh, seems the founding fathers thought RKBA was pretty dam important considering it was the 2nd amendment (pretty high up on the list wouldn't you say?)

[PAGunner]

I'll bet that the anti-gunners read these boards and laugh their damned heads off at how we 'supposed' pro-2nd Amendment supporters turn on a dime and cannibalize each other over something as STUPID as not agreeing about open carry or when not to. It's no damn wonder why it's taking so fricking long to regain our RKBA, what with all the inability to support every aspect of carrying a firearm, whether one likes it or not.

+1, united we stand and divided we fall. This is how socialism in the US has been gaining ground. Divide and conquer approaching is piece mealing socialism into existense in the US. Just deprive a small group of their rights, no one will mind, then move on to the next group. Taxation works the same way, lets just tax the smokers, then people who use X product, etc. etc.

[Kennedy]

In my opinion, both parties on that incident acted wrongfully. on one side, you have a 24 year old who wants to make a statement about OC(or else he wouldn't carry a recorder with him) who he himself is not well documented on state law and the different provision of the law when it comes to OC and CC (hence the fact he could not answer back to the cop when the cop said that if you have a CCW license then you cannot OC). Also he does not have very good communication skills or diplomacy skills for that matter; that can make a difference on having a nice rationalized conversation with a cop and get your point across, or get yourself trown in jail. Personally before pulling a stunt like that kid did, I would have informed myself very well about the laws so I could defend my case in a very diplomatic way or invite an attorney friend to jog with me while I OC so he can explain it to the cops better.:supergrin:

On the other hand, we have two cops that are trying to keep the peace in the community and by doing that, they don't mind steping on peoples rights and disregard state law. Of course when they sense resistance from the person questioned then they become very cocky and offended by the person not obeying a "representative of the law". Professionalism goes down the tubes and it becomes a personal matter which makes them act more like the way they would act with relatives or friends.

In summary, this would have been a very productive incident in favor of Open Carry if it would have been handled differently by Bryan!:faint:

+1

First off let me start by saying that I live in Maine and Arizona, both states where open carry is legal. I have CCW’s for both and have on occasion open carried when I am only going out for a few minutes or something to that effect, but normally I overcome my slothly character flaw in its regards and do conceal because I for one don’t like the attention be it by police, gangsta wanna be or the occasional child who feels the need to shout in the middle of the store “Daddy that man has a gun!” and its almost always LEO and children that notice in my experience.

But I am off topic, I agree with almost every thing said above, the 24 year old seems to have no other reason to be OCing then to try and make a statement, to get attention or to try and show up a cop. Trying to legally make a statement that’s cool I can get behind that…. But really I think in this incident you did more harm then good. I am not saying it was intentional, or that the cop was in the right, but he certainly had just as much right to stop you as you did to be carrying in the first place. I freely admit it went downhill from there… on both your parts. I just think that too many people fail to fully realize that just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you should.

Yes the law gives us the right to carry be it openly or concealed with the proper permits, but in doing so do we not also have at least some additional responsibility? Some people have completely irrational fear of guns out of ignorance, and I applaud your attempts to try and educate them, but I think it could be done better, because some people have completely valid reasons to be afraid of firearms. My fiancée for example had a great fear of them when we met, it’s since lightened up significantly but since her father was shot and killed in Los Angeles I would never flaunt a weapon around here because there was no law saying I couldn’t. Just like if I spot someone carrying I don’t just assume they are as law abiding as you or I, I don’t assume they are going on a shooting rampage either. I just think hey he is packing.

I know those are examples that have nothing to do with the original post but what I am trying to illustrate that in being law abiding gun owners we have a responsibility to not be an asshat, not everyone is suited to being a pro gun ambasidor to try and educate people, and even less are suited to be arguing with police officers on the street, because lets face it if it goes badly and IMO this incident did then it only brings negative attention to the community as a whole.

Anyway that’s just my 2 cents, I apologize if it sounded like I was insulting anyone that wasn’t my intent.

[doubletap1]

+1

First off let me start by saying that I live in Maine and Arizona, both states where open carry is legal. I have CCW’s for both and have on occasion open carried when I am only going out for a few minutes or something to that effect, but normally I overcome my slothly character flaw in its regards and do conceal because I for one don’t like the attention be it by police, gangsta wanna be or the occasional child who feels the need to shout in the middle of the store “Daddy that man has a gun!” and its almost always LEO and children that notice in my experience.

But I am off topic, I agree with almost every thing said above, the 24 year old seems to have no other reason to be OCing then to try and make a statement, to get attention or to try and show up a cop. Trying to legally make a statement that’s cool I can get behind that…. But really I think in this incident you did more harm then good. I am not saying it was intentional, or that the cop was in the right, but he certainly had just as much right to stop you as you did to be carrying in the first place. I freely admit it went downhill from there… on both your parts. I just think that too many people fail to fully realize that just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you should.

Yes the law gives us the right to carry be it openly or concealed with the proper permits, but in doing so do we not also have at least some additional responsibility? Some people have completely irrational fear of guns out of ignorance, and I applaud your attempts to try and educate them, but I think it could be done better, because some people have completely valid reasons to be afraid of firearms. My fiancée for example had a great fear of them when we met, it’s since lightened up significantly but since her father was shot and killed in Los Angeles I would never flaunt a weapon around here because there was no law saying I couldn’t. Just like if I spot someone carrying I don’t just assume they are as law abiding as you or I, I don’t assume they are going on a shooting rampage either. I just think hey he is packing.

I know those are examples that have nothing to do with the original post but what I am trying to illustrate that in being law abiding gun owners we have a responsibility to not be an asshat, not everyone is suited to being a pro gun ambasidor to try and educate people, and even less are suited to be arguing with police officers on the street, because lets face it if it goes badly and IMO this incident did then it only brings negative attention to the community as a whole.

Anyway that’s just my 2 cents, I apologize if it sounded like I was insulting anyone that wasn’t my intent.

Excellent. Five Stars. Two Thumbs Up.

Thank you for your input, Kennedy.

:cool:

[degoodman]

"I really have to say that I am more than a little intimidated to OC around here anymore. I do have my CCW, but I like to open carry for the comfort (no IWB) and I enjoy educating the lay person of their rights. I don't want to be a test case."

IF you don't want to be a test case, don't OC in many parts of Ohio. I grew up down the street from Willowick, and given the mass-departure of lots and lots of businesses from that area, well, lets phrase it as things don't seem to me to be on the up and up.

Lets look at the relevant statutes:

2917.31 Inducing panic.
(A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:

(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;

(2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence;

(3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.

When they pull out the Inducing Panic charge, 9/10 times it's because of section 3, serious public inconvenience or alarm. Basically, if it gets the cops called, they consider it serious. But there's another half of that section...the any offense part. Well what offense do they usually pull out...

2917.11 Disorderly conduct.
(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

Here the kicker is #5. possession of a gun in public is physically offensive to many. And the "offender's" actions must be BOTH lawful AND reasonable to completely escape the net. For example, a Klansmen if free to spout his tripe wherever it suits him using the right to free speech according to the State and Federal constitutions. However if he chooses to exercise that right at the funeral of a prominent member of the NAACP for exapmle, that exercise will be deemed not "reasonable", and as sure as you can bet that the Pope is Catholic an arrest for disprderly conduct will be forthcoming.

And how does that play against Open Carry. The problem is that there have been no test cases or statutes that define what is reasonable with regard to openly carrying a gun. You can go on all day long about the second ammendment says "shall not be infringed", bla bla bla, but the courts have held that every single right in the constitution is subject to reasonable restriction. If you don't like that, think that its tyrannical, or whatever, you're entitled to that opinion, but its one that has basically no weight. And that word reasonable is where community standards come into play. You think that strip clubs are the only place where that comes up? And the problem is that what is "reasonable" to us, like carrying a gun whenever we want, however we want, wherever we want, is quite unreasonable to Sarah Brady and her clan. We're BOTH parts of the community at large, so who's right? That will be arbitrated by a court.

And to get the case law we want that says OC is not only legal, but reasonable under all circumstances, that will take someone taking an arrest, losing in municipal court and at the appeals court, and the State Supreme court interveneing and saying that no, the exercise was in fact legal and reasonable. You like rule of law, there it is, end to end.

If you don't want to be a test case, you don't carry a tape recorder. Because the only use that a tape recording has is as evidence in open court. Sounds like wanting to play test case to me, but what do I know?

Cops do not hold court on the street. They also do not respond well to being told what you are and are not allowed to do on the street, having voices raised with them, etc. Cops are people too, and yep, they sometimes get it wrong. But being verbally agressive with them on the street is a losing proposition. sure, you may know your rights, and you may be right. Just like the perpetrators on at least half of the scenes COPS do every Saturday night on Fox. 1/3 of the people arrested in this country are ultimately released without charges, or are found not guilty. You can join them. But if you get mouthy with the cops whether you're right or wrong, in the words of many cops, you might beat the rap, but you're not beating the ride...

[kunlao21]

He had the right idea and good intention. But he needs to be much more informed about what his rights are when it comes to this. I'm sure he expects to run into ignorant people/LEO's alike who just don't know. If he wants to be the 1-man march leading the way for OC...then great. But really, get informed first.

Studdering and stammering a few key words on state/constitutional laws to a confident, experienced but uninformed LEO only hurts his stance and any point he tries to make in his defense of the matter. Repeating tirelessly, "2nd amendment... my right... have permit" doesn't do much good if all he knew were headlines, and not the real meaty details.

When challenged with the ccw permit remark of CC and OC at the same time. He had no response.... "My permit is for my CC backup, and I have my OC as my right."

Both sides need to be well informed for this to be of any benefit to those who listened.

Be Safe!

[Ring]

it was recorded on his I phone

[valian]

Originally posted by Doubletap1
[Again, your weapon is not a political statement. It is for personal protection, and the sooner the OC crowd can get their collective heads wrapped around this, the better for all us who decide to carry.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely wrong!

Our weapons and the 2nd amendment are political statements to the officials of government that the government is the people and the people retain the right to overthrow an oppressive govt. by the use of arms and force if necessary!
The 2nd amendment protects rights that include but go far beyond personal protection. You cannot expect anyone here to take you seriously if you cannot 'get your head wrapped around' that!

valian

[stimpy17]

This guy is 24 and damn sure acts like 1/2 that. Why carry OC Sig and CC a Glock? This guy recorded the incident, why? I'll tell you why, because he was looking for something to happen.

I have never heard someone spout off about 2A so much. If you have a CC permit, then why would you carry OC and CC? Now this guy is on the radar of that PD. I call attention whore on this one. Flame away, but you have a CC permit for a reason.

Yep, a reoccurring theme with SOME OC'ers. I would suggest a hobby or helping out at the local range instead of forcing confrontations with the LEO's.

Or here's an idea! Walk in to a State or Federal building OC'ing, I mean if one really believes in their right to OC where ever and when ever what's the problem?

Yeah, thought so. These are planned confrontations to what? Prove a point? Their point, and in doing so hurts all of us.
Smooth, real smooth and self-centered. Thanks.

[Solid]

:rofl:

Kinda funny, an anti CCW statement from a guy with a pro-CCW avatar. What's that about? :dunno:



uhhhh...that's my statement. Do you have a source or something you can start your thread about a ccw'er getting unlawfully detained and/or arrested? If you do, then go for it! That would be interesting. :thumbsup:

It's about the fact you can't use your rights at all on campus :faint:

CCW is our first step, then hopefully we can get rid of gun free zones all together.

[Ring]

The officer explained the community standard.
Personally, I see where he's coming from.
Me? I'd have known the community standard before I ever open carried.
The law is good. Staying out of trouble is also good.
I'm not telling nobody outside of OR or WA what to do, but out here, OC in the City can easily go wrong. The O.C. laws are complex. You can get arrested for violating local laws.

You're much better off carrying concealed on a proper CHL.

Ohio has preemption, OC is 100% legal and cant be "made" illegal, whether you like OC or not has noting to do with the law and what he did..



:up eyes:

What do you say guys? Want to try this topic out over in Cop Talk? That may get interesting...:whistling:

maybe they will be more intelligent on the law then this Sargent and many of the people in this thread..... maybe not

States need specific prohibitions to threats and intimidation by Leos when someone is lawfully exercising their OC rights. Laws on Disorderly Conduct or Inducing a Panic need to have specific exemptions for those peacefully exercising other constitutional rights. For the life of me, I can't understand how an LEO can believe that exercising a lawful right in a peaceful manner could be a crime of another type. Any community standard that prevents a person from exercising a constitutional right is another form of coercive tyranny. What if the community standard was that African-Americans could not enter certain parts of town? Would anyone allow that community standard to prevail? Certainly not! There would be an all out effort to shame that community. Let's not use community standards as an excuse for limiting the free and unfettered exercising of a constitutional right. JMHO.

they do, Google "color of law"

This is something that I was thinking, if they don't, Ohioan Gutters need to get off their duff and put together a bill for state preemption and get it pushed through the legislator ASAP.

we have it.

Only an idiot would OC on purpose. Just wanting to start something is the only reason this was recorded. Way to alienate LE. At this rate OC will be banned and then anybody who accidentally lets his handgun be seen can expect legal charges. Way to go AO.

only a idiot would exercise his 1st amendment rights and post something like that on purpose...





some highlights

Quote:The sergeant that showed up stated that I was doing something illegal
Lie.

Quote:and that I was in fact inducing a panic.

Lie.

Quote:He told me that I have the permit and that I have to carry concealed.

Lie.

Quote:One of the officers said, "what do you think people are going to think when they see you carrying that gun on your hip down the street?

Hopefully they will think, "Now there's a guy who values his rights."

Quote:To which he responded that he has a badge and a uniform. The conversation ended with basically I am not allowed to OC in Willowick.

Lie.

Quote:The sergeant stated that he was not a gun grabber, but that this was just not acceptable to be OC'ing around here.

That may be his opinion. But it is not the law.

Quote:The officer basically made me aware that I was not to OC anymore because I would be charged with inducing a panic.

Well, it's true you might be charged. But it would be a false charge, and probably a case of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

[Sam Spade]

Quote:The sergeant that showed up stated that I was doing something illegal
Lie.

Quote:and that I was in fact inducing a panic.

Lie.

Quote:He told me that I have the permit and that I have to carry concealed.

Lie.

Quote:One of the officers said, "what do you think people are going to think when they see you carrying that gun on your hip down the street?

Hopefully they will think, "Now there's a guy who values his rights."

Quote:To which he responded that he has a badge and a uniform. The conversation ended with basically I am not allowed to OC in Willowick.

Lie.

Quote:The sergeant stated that he was not a gun grabber, but that this was just not acceptable to be OC'ing around here.

That may be his opinion. But it is not the law.

Quote:The officer basically made me aware that I was not to OC anymore because I would be charged with inducing a panic.

Well, it's true you might be charged. But it would be a false charge, and probably a case of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
Just in the interest of reducing "us vs. them"isms....

When you call folks liars, you are speaking to thier mindset and intent. Unless you have evidence that a statement is willfully and maliciously false, you ought not be throwing that word around so easily. If the other party is ignorant or mis-informed, then you're losing any real chance of bringing him to the light.

[Ring]

Just in the interest of reducing "us vs. them"isms....

When you call folks liars, you are speaking to thier mindset and intent. Unless you have evidence that a statement is willfully and maliciously false, you ought not be throwing that word around so easily. If the other party is ignorant or mis-informed, then you're losing any real chance of bringing him to the light.
the Sargent says he is a CCW instructor...

if so, he should know what he is teaching.. the fact that he says you HAVE to conceal with a CCW permit makes him a liar or a moron

[PhoneCop]

I'd love to read a thread about one of the anti-OC people here being detained for concealed carry where it is legal.DAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!

Preach it, SOLID!

[Solid]

^:lol: why are you yelling?

[PhoneCop]

Yep, a reoccurring theme with SOME OC'ers. I would suggest a hobby or helping out at the local range instead of forcing confrontations with the LEO's.

Or here's an idea! Walk in to a State or Federal building OC'ing, I mean if one really believes in their right to OC where ever and when ever what's the problem?

Yeah, thought so. These are planned confrontations to what? Prove a point? Their point, and in doing so hurts all of us.
Smooth, real smooth and self-centered. Thanks.

Guy not breaking the law forces confrontations with law enforcement... :wow::faint:

Here's a lesson on apple's and oranges:

Apple- man OCing and completely legal is harassed by LEO for NOT breaking the law.

Orange- man OCing enters building where possession of firearm is specifically prohibitted and illegal is arrested.

Thus ends today's lesson.

Maybe tomorrow will work on recognizing apples and oranges, as a preview... "Oranges are orange in color and generally uniformly spherical. Apples are red in color and not uniformly spherical. They can be differentiated by both color and shape..."

[PhoneCop]

^:lol: why are you yelling?

sorry, what you said was funny

[Sam Spade]

the Sargent says he is a CCW instructor...

if so, he should know what he is teaching.. the fact that he says you HAVE to conceal with a CCW permit makes him a liar or a moron

Right, and you ASSumed that he was a malicious liar from the get-go.

You're probably not getting my point, so I think I'll just move on.

[Solid]

sorry, what you said was funny
ahh, ok

yeah they can't read our minds when we type like this

[bigj480]

I think this could have been a great learning experience for the LEOs if the person carrying had been more informed and articulate. He could have informed the LEOs that having a CCW only added another option, it did not prevent him from OCing. So it's partly his fault that the LEOs were not very understanding. The people who called are simply ignorant or a little anti-gun, to the point that anybody with a gun is a suspect to them. I can understand that viewpoint even if they are wrong. The LEOs deserve most of the blame IMO. I'm not an anti-LEO type of guy but I call 'em like I see 'em. They, especially the instructor, should know the laws pertaining to the carrying of firearms. They should know that you can't charge someone with a crime because others were scared and called the cops.

By that standard you could arrest peaceful protesters or those who exercise their 1A rights, or anyone, just because someone calls the cops. In other words, calling the cops does not make the "suspect" guilty of anything. The LEOs should be way more professional and less arrogant than they were on that tape. The guy that was carrying did not cause the misunderstanding, that was the fault of the ignorant caller and responding LEOs. Did he know that a misunderstanding would be likely? Probably, he was carrying a recording device with him, but it should be noted that it could have just been his cellphone or some other common device. Even if a misunderstanding is likely, that doesn't mean that he should forfeit his rights to avoid them.

[certifiedfunds]

.the opinions of police don't actually matter when they are in conflict with the laws. that is what you do not seem to understand.



Bingo:whistling:

[certifiedfunds]

try to not get so emotional when they stop and ask you what you're up to.



What we I hear on that tape is not hassle, its INTIMIDATION

Hassle is when they show up, borrow a few minutes of your time to make sure no law is being broken, and then leave politely.

[certifiedfunds]

Just wanting to start something is the only reason this was recorded. .

Aren't vid cams standard equipment in police cruisers in most jurisdictions? If the police can and do routinely videotape citizen encounters how is objectionable for a private citizen to do the same?

What's the big deal about keeping EVERYONE honest?:cool:

An awful lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on in this thread too......critiquing Bryan's knowledge of the laws and his ability to articulate them. He was surrounded by clearly irritated police officers who had the ability to make his life fairly miserable in the short term........I kinda bet he was a little nervous and off his game............

[doubletap1]

Originally posted by Doubletap1
[Again, your weapon is not a political statement. It is for personal protection, and the sooner the OC crowd can get their collective heads wrapped around this, the better for all us who decide to carry.

Absolutely wrong!

Our weapons and the 2nd amendment are political statements to the officials of government that the government is the people and the people retain the right to overthrow an oppressive govt. by the use of arms and force if necessary!

Ahhh yes. It's been awhile since we've had a real Armchair Commando here wanting to take over the Gov't with force of arms. Tell ya what buddy- you go first. Strike a Blow For Freedom!! We've got your back. :rofl:

The 2nd amendment protects rights that include but go far beyond personal protection. You cannot expect anyone here to take you seriously if you cannot 'get your head wrapped around' that!

Hopefully you can get someone to take you seriously without your using a gun. Can you do that?

Using a gun so you can be taken seriously makes you an enemy of our cause because you look like an immature moron, kinda like the genius on the tape. He's obviously not bright enough to understand what he's really doing by confronting the police. Please don't follow his example.

[doubletap1]

What we I hear on that tape is not hassle, its INTIMIDATION

Oh the drama!!:rofl:

Cops can do a much better job of intimidation than that. That was maybe a second-degree hassle. At best.

Hassle is when they show up, borrow a few minutes of your time to make sure no law is being broken, and then leave politely.

Politeness and respect are two way streets. The little punk did give any, so he didn't get any.

I again applaud the police for doing their jobs.

[certifiedfunds]

Politeness and respect are two way streets. The little punk did give any, so he didn't get any.



Did you actually listen to the recording? I heard the young man use words like "Sir" repeatedly. I didn't hear any smartmouthing. I heard a polite young man who was somewhat nervous, cooperating.

I don't recall hearing the officers address this law-abiding citizen as sir or apologizing for causing him grief for no reason. I did hear them berating him for doing something that is totally legal.

[doubletap1]

WOW, I thought when I looked over at your name, I was going to ready NancyPelosi1 instead of doubletap1.

Oh OK, if someone disagrees with you they're a Communist? Nice. That's the kind of argument I get in with my five year old nephew. :yawn:


1. You applaud the cops, for what? Breaking the law themselves?

525.13 INTERFERING WITH CIVIL RIGHTS.

(a) No public servant, under color of his or her office, employment, or authority, shall knowingly deprive, conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.

(b) Whoever violates this section is guilty of interfering with civil rights, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

The BS charges the cops threatened to charge this guy with would have been thrown out of court because he did not "induce a panic" or any of the other garbage they said by definition of the law.

Says you. We'll see what happens when your buddy Banks gets laughed out of court. Come back and talk to me then.


2. That crack about "the world does not revolved around you and your right to openly carry", huh, seems the founding fathers thought RKBA was pretty dam important considering it was the 2nd amendment (pretty high up on the list wouldn't you say?)

Open Carry is not the RKBA. Sorry. :upeyes:

[certifiedfunds]

Open Carry is not the RKBA. Sorry. :upeyes:

It is if a special permit is required to conceal, leaving no other means of exercising that right without government intrusion.

[Kennedy]

As an after thought to my original post (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10706060&postcount=51) I just want to point out that after spending some time looking over the forums for OC that this was originally posted on it seems like a lot of OCers not just in Ohio but across the country seem to think incidents like this are a badge of honor or something. Can one of you guys explain to me how you think this will benefit your cause without the drama of overthrowing the government if need be and because the 2nd amendment says you can? I am authentically curious.

I mean I look at things like this (Confrontations with LEO and bragging about them, followed by statements like “They need to be reminded that we can overthrow them if we want”) and wonder if this is not only doing the exact opposite of what its intended by alienating police and law makers but also contributing to the anti-gun crowds.

To make use of another example, there is no law here saying I can’t throw my AR in a sling across my back and walk through the tourist traps but if I did and the police decided to harass me would you all use the same defense then? If not why…. The 2nd amendment says I can…. How about if I do the same thing in a non posted shopping mall? No law against that…. I for one would expect to be encountered by police with their guns drawn… hell I would probably have a serious issue if that wasn’t how one doing that was encountered.

At what point does common sense and self preservation trump the “I am doing this because I can” card? Again, my opinion and I think the opinion of most who are commenting negatively about this is that by doing this you not only hurting your cause, but the community in general. I agree that I would love to see this on the cop talk forum, I predict the general consensus would be that most would do exactly the same thing (minus the liberal use of profanity) and an observation that you are not going to win an argument like this on the street. Sure you are probably not going to make it to court but I think in most cases you will end up going for a ride.

Again, no offense intended I am honestly curious how this is being justified beyond the argumentitive rhetoric I have seen in this thread.

[doubletap1]

Did you actually listen to the recording? I heard the young man use words like "Sir" repeatedly. I didn't hear any smartmouthing. I heard a polite young man who was somewhat nervous, cooperating.

I don't recall hearing the officers address this law-abiding citizen as sir or apologizing for causing him grief for no reason. I did hear them berating him for doing something that is totally legal.

Oh, ok. Just insert "Sir" a few times while you're telling the cops they're idiots and aren't doing their jobs correctly and it's alright. :upeyes:

[doubletap1]

It is if a special permit is required to conceal, leaving no other means of exercising that right without government intrusion.

Oh please. :upeyes:

Do you really believe the permit process is designed by Gov't tyrants speciffically to intrude upon your rights?

I have CCWs from three states, and it seems to me that the process is designed to keep concealed weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them- like violent felons and such. Isn't that it's purpose? Maybe it doesn't work as well as it should, but it's better than the alternative.

[doubletap1]

As an after thought to my original post (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10706060&postcount=51) I just want to point out that after spending some time looking over the forums for OC that this was originally posted on it seems like a lot of OCers not just in Ohio but across the country seem to think incidents like this are a badge of honor or something. Can one of you guys explain to me how you think this will benefit your cause without the drama of overthrowing the government if need be and because the 2nd amendment says you can? I am authentically curious.

I mean I look at things like this (Confrontations with LEO and bragging about them, followed by statements like “They need to be reminded that we can overthrow them if we want”) and wonder if this is not only doing the exact opposite of what its intended by alienating police and law makers but also contributing to the anti-gun crowds.

To make use of another example, there is no law here saying I can’t throw my AR in a sling across my back and walk through the tourist traps but if I did and the police decided to harass me would you all use the same defense then? If not why…. The 2nd amendment says I can…. How about if I do the same thing in a non posted shopping mall? No law against that…. I for one would expect to be encountered by police with their guns drawn… hell I would probably have a serious issue if that wasn’t how one doing that was encountered.

At what point does common sense and self preservation trump the “I am doing this because I can” card? Again, my opinion and I think the opinion of most who are commenting negatively about this is that by doing this you not only hurting your cause, but the community in general. I agree that I would love to see this on the cop talk forum, I predict the general consensus would be that most would do exactly the same thing (minus the liberal use of profanity) and an observation that you are not going to win an argument like this on the street. Sure you are probably not going to make it to court but I think in most cases you will end up going for a ride.

Again, no offense intended I am honestly curious how this is being justified beyond the argumentitive rhetoric I have seen in this thread.

Kennedy, WHOA! Take it easy there! You are injecting reasonable logic and sound judgement into a GT Open Carry thread! Havoc, terror, and flames will ensue, but keep it up! :supergrin:

Great post. :thumbsup:

[Kennedy]

Well I try

[fgutie35]

Kennedy, to answer your question, I'm just going to add to my previous post because it would be redundant to re-type everything again. If I'm not mistaken, what you are saying is that "We The People" should abide by the "community standard" like those cops were telling Bryan instead of abiding by the law right? So my question to you Sir is; should I let my son yell at me and tell me that he is not going to wear Wal-Mart brand jeans because all the kids in school are wearing Tommy Hilfiger? or should I let my daugther have sex with her boyfriend and let her talk on her cell phone all night? Or should I buy my wife a Hummer or Tahoe because everyone on the neighborhood has one and we need to abide by the "Community Standard"? Because just in case you have not realize it, that is community standard now days!
Our society has degraded on the last decades because people chooses to abide by a community standard that keeps getting more and more liberal and degenerated. Pretty soon is going to be community standard to teach kids in school that being gay is a normal thing. Then what???
Just in case any of you forgot, this nation was founded under christianity and the Trust in God and God, according to the Bible, condems homosexuality!

Anyways, I went off topic I know but, it was just to prove my point that is not always wise to let society dictate how we are suppose to conduct ourselves. What we can wear and what not, and how we should protect ourselves and how we should not

[Kennedy]

Now THAT fgutie is a fair and reasonable reply, that did not containt argumentitive or insulting rhetoric. Doesnt that seem more productive guys?

I agree that the community standard leaves something to be desired and I fear in my earlier posts that I left the impression I am against all OC. I am fine with OC and as I said before on rare occasions I practice it myself. Its not my first choice but sometimes convenience beats out even my own preferences. If its OC or nothing then it’s a simple choice to make and I will back you to the hilt as long as its done responsibly.

I am however against irresponsible behavior by anyone who carries be it OC or CC, and in my mind a lot of what I saw on the OC forum earlier was irresponsible. Maybe I am biased because I am also a criminal justice student awaiting sponsorship to the police academy, but I maintain that if you are in the street arguing with a LEO who is doing his job (I admit in this case the LEO in question was rude and ill informed, but many other stories I saw while lurking on the OC forum earlier were not so) I think you are doing yourself a grave injustice. There is a time and place for everything and like it or not public opinion is going to play a huge role in what firearms laws pass and which do not. In my mind if your on the street arguing with a cop, someone who any one watching is going to assume is right then that’s just bad press.

Maybe I am too eager to please, and I am certainly less conservative then probably most on pro gun forums, but the fact remains I hold similar views on issues one would expect to see debated on such a forum no matter what else we might differ on. You are right, a lot has changed since the constitution was drafted, some of it for the worse. It’s only natural that issues regarding the 2nd amendment would as well. I am sure in the 1700’s open carry was a normal thing, the fact remains however that now it is not and as many people who have no justified reason to fear such things there are some who I know from personal experience certainly do and I at least (Maybe for no other reason then being engaged to one) will take the extra step of paying an application fee and putting a different holster and shirt on to put those with justified reasons at ease. Practical for making a national movement of course not, but said fiancée the other day declared to one of her friends that I had changed her views on gun control. I am not going to make a huge difrence in the anti gun crowd but I am also not going to get a ride in the RMP and my objective is to protect myself and my loved ones. Nothing more nothing less.

I suppose that’s just my personality, I am no activist and I turned down someone when they suggested I apply to be campus rep for the SCCC movement. Not because I disagree with them but because I believe there is probably someone more suited to the diplomatic role that such a position contains then I.

I have no issue with the goals of OC group only the methods they use to obtain them. Its perfectly feasible that I am wrong, but to me it seems more productive to go about trying to change the community standard while ruffling as few feathers as possible. The same people who see someone arguing with a police officer because he has a gun on his thigh today are the same people who will vote in elections that may have an effect on what legislation gets passes tomorrow.

So in closing yes, community standard is in a sad state in most regards. I don’t object to the goals of educating people about guns and helping those that own them be better understood by the community but the methods in which are used I do have reservations about.

[PAGunner]

Open Carry is not the RKBA. Sorry. :upeyes:

bear: bare; borne or born; bear·ing.

12. to carry; bring: to bear gifts

How about one of those other important words in the 2nd amendment.

in·fringe:
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

v. tr.

To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

So your argument is that dictating how someone can carry is not an infringement? Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves right now seeing how much the constitution and amendments have been trampled on. It is mentalities like yours that allow for infringements on our civil rights and not just in regard to RKBA.

[LittleRedToyota]

We'll see what happens when your buddy Banks gets laughed out of court.

we'll see.

it seems kinda strange that someone on a gun forum is rooting against a man who clearly, at a minimum, has his firearm illegally confiscated.

Open Carry is not the RKBA. Sorry. :upeyes:

im curious, what exactly is your definition of the RKBA?

[DKSuddeth]

Oh please. :upeyes:

Do you really believe the permit process is designed by Gov't tyrants speciffically to intrude upon your rights?
If I can't afford the 250 dollars to exercise my right, am I infringed or denied my right?

I have CCWs from three states, and it seems to me that the process is designed to keep concealed weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them- like violent felons and such. Isn't that it's purpose? Maybe it doesn't work as well as it should, but it's better than the alternative.
really? better than WHAT alternative?

[PhoneCop]

As an after thought to my original post (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10706060&postcount=51) I just want to point out that after spending some time looking over the forums for OC that this was originally posted on it seems like a lot of OCers not just in Ohio but across the country seem to think incidents like this are a badge of honor or something. Can one of you guys explain to me how you think this will benefit your cause without the drama of overthrowing the government if need be and because the 2nd amendment says you can? I am authentically curious.

Can do. Like the protest in the civil-rights era of the 1960s, sometimes a few brave souls need to stand up against wrong. OCing is legal where it is legal. The police need not take any action where the act reported isn't illegal. When they do, it should be minimal. When they take more than a passing interest to determine that no laws are being broken and harass, intimidate, restrain or otherwise act illegally, then they should be identified an corrected. Sometimes that correction is merely education, sometimes it is discipline, sometimes it is legal and criminal action against the officer and their department.

A good read is, "Negroes with Guns," written by Robert Franklin Williams.

I mean I look at things like this (Confrontations with LEO and bragging about them, followed by statements like “They need to be reminded that we can overthrow them if we want”) and wonder if this is not only doing the exact opposite of what its intended by alienating police and law makers but also contributing to the anti-gun crowds.

I understand that concern, we just may not agree on it's legitimacy. The government should live in fear of it's armed populace. It keeps them in check. When the government no longer fears the "serfs," then the tyrannical behavior starts. Will some OCers be over the top? Sure, as with every group you have extremes.

They may also be correct, the populace just may be able to overthrow them. The validity of that statement is subject to a HUGE amount of debate I do not care to engage in just now. So we move on...

I've been on both sides of this fence; an LEO and now mostly a plain jane civilian. When LEO I knew LEO who exhibitted a very, very poor attitude towards citizens who didn't just want to carry, but even own firearms- they truly thought that they should be the only ones who should possess firearms, certainly no one else should carry on their persons outside their homes. To them, hunting rifles were sniper rifles. They readily admitted they would harrass and OCer in KS (where at the time there was no State law prohibitting OC).

These guys existed, they continue to exist. I for one do not care if I alienate that officer. I would rather OC in his face then smack his snout in court when he acts/reacts from his personal beliefs instead of the the law.

To make use of another example, there is no law here saying I can’t throw my AR in a sling across my back and walk through the tourist traps but if I did and the police decided to harass me would you all use the same defense then?

yes

If not why…. The 2nd amendment says I can…. How about if I do the same thing in a non posted shopping mall? No law against that…. I for one would expect to be encountered by police with their guns drawn… hell I would probably have a serious issue if that wasn’t how one doing that was encountered.

Why? Why should the police point their guns at anyone when they are not:

- threatening anyone with deadly force
- not behaving irrationally, dangerously, or distruptively
- not breaking the law
- not being uncooperative

At what point does common sense and self preservation trump the “I am doing this because I can” card? Again, my opinion and I think the opinion of most who are commenting negatively about this is that by doing this you not only hurting your cause, but the community in general. I agree that I would love to see this on the cop talk forum, I predict the general consensus would be that most would do exactly the same thing (minus the liberal use of profanity) and an observation that you are not going to win an argument like this on the street. Sure you are probably not going to make it to court but I think in most cases you will end up going for a ride.

Several issues here- your view of common sense does not dictate common sense. I think your view of common sense is infringement of rights. Just as it was argued that it was common sense not to resist poll taxes, segregated water fountains, step to the back of the bus, and don't write letters to the editor, your view of don't exercice rights, let the fearful dictate what is acceptable, and don't challenge the man, isn't proper.

This isn't a debate about what's common sense though. It's about what is legal. If it's legal, it shouldn't be subject to police harassment because the policeman or the chief of police disagrees with it.

Like some people had to go to jail to prove they were right when sitting at a white's only counter in a diner or not sitting at the back of the bus or giving up their seats for a white person, they may not beat the ride, but we all benefitted from them beating the charge and then forcing a change in behavior.

Again, no offense intended I am honestly curious how this is being justified beyond the argumentitive rhetoric I have seen in this thread.

That was my best attempt. I probably haven't read the posts, yet, that you are referring to, but I will soon. If my position changes having read the rhetoric, I'll let ya know.

[weybug]

As DKSuddeth pointed out we need to stop tearing into each other. The gun grabbers would love to divide and conquer.

Ok, so some of you would not OC (it is illegal here so the point is moot for me), but stop attacking those that choose to do so. Part of the problem with gun control is that ignorant people see guns as evil objects. They have let the media and other groups convince them that these inanimate objects cause trouble by existing. OC scares such people.

I can see the practical side of not wanting to antagonize such people. But should we have to hide the practice of our rights? Does this not imply some sort of shame. I would hope to see the day when everyone could exercise their choice (OC, CC, or non-carry) with an equal lack of fuss and bother.

What I do believe is that if you are anti-OC you need to stop and think. Yes, maybe some of the guys "looking for trouble" can add grief for us all. But, on the other hand some people are doing it in a positive way and are helping making people more aware. Even the LA Times has had a more or less positive article recently.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-opencarry7-2008jun07,0,849912.story

As gun owners we need to stick together. I do not hunt elephants and would never buy a 50BMG. But, I would fight for your right to own one.

Doubletap1, your contempt for OC is obvious. IMO you are making a mistake. Someday you may need that OC guy to speak up for your rights.

[LittleRedToyota]

I am however against irresponsible behavior

the issue is that, in a nation founded on rule of law, it is the laws that define the objective societal standard of "irresponsible" vs. "responsible".

sure, individuals can have their own opinions of what is responsible v. irresponsible...i certainly do--and they are often in conflict with the laws...however, when it comes to the government--or agents of the government (i.e., the police in this case)--interfering with people's daily lives, the standard which must be applied is the objective societal definition of "responsible" vs. "irresponsible" as outlined by laws.

given the following situation:

a person is doing something that you believe is irresponsible, but is legal. the government illegally interferes with that person as a result. (for example, the person might be legally OCing, and the police might detain that person without RAS of a crime.)

if you truely believe in and support rule of law, while you might think that what the person was doing was irresponsible, you have to defend his legal actions against the illegal actions of a government agent. further, you have to condemn the illegal actions of the government agent.

if you do not, you do not really believe in rule of law. you might pay lip service to rule of law, but when it really comes down to it, you believe in "rule of what you consider responsible".

further, you should consider that, in the future, your definition of responsible vs. irresponsible might differ from that of some government agent...and then you might be the one being detained for doing something legal (and something you believe is responsible).

[RickD]

Open carry is legal in Ohio. OFCC used open carry to force the CCW law passage. These LEOs know that open carry is legal.

We do not need police as social workers. They did this of their own initiative and then engaged him in debate while he was on his knees. Lovely.

Some random quotes.

"If I say you need one then damn straight you need one. I taught the Goddammm class. You made a pisssspooor decision. You are not abiding by the guidelines of this permit. Do you want me call the Sheriff and have your permit revoked? I can charge you with inducing panic. Yes you did [break a law] you were inducing panic. We're not here to bust your balls."

They should be fired.

[PhoneCop]

Oh, ok. Just insert "Sir" a few times while you're telling the cops they're idiots and aren't doing their jobs correctly and it's alright. :upeyes:


yeah, actually it is- when they are being idiots and aren't doing their job correctly.:upeyes:

in fact the, "Sirs" aren't necessary. I wouldn't have said, "Sir" once. I'd have told them to either arrest me or let me be. That I have a copy of the two statutes in my pocket for them to review and refresh their collective memories as to what the law is instead of what they want to happen.

I'm not sure I would have remained kneeling. Cuff me and place me in the back of a car, but I ain't kneeling before his almighty lordship Sgt. Im-in-charge-what-I-say-trumps-the-law.

They enforce the law, not their values, opinions or beliefs.

Do really have an issue with that?

Shoud we be a nation of laws?

[dougader]

When I go to SE Oregon to hunt mule deer I carry a Glock as well as my 30-06. When I drive into Burns to eat breakfast or to fuel up the rig with the guys no one says anything about my firearm except to ask me what caliber it is.

Just because a bunch of uptight, panty-waist liberals get all freaked out with the mere sight of a gun, its not my problem. I figure people can get used to it or change the law.

In Portland I carry concealed, just because I feel its a more tactically sound option. But if someone else wants to OC, then I'm all for it. If a group of guys want to go out on an OC walk or whatever I'd go with them. And I would not back down to a loud mouth cop no matter how much he swore at me.

[PhoneCop]

...Lets look at the relevant statutes:

2917.31 Inducing panic...

(3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.

When they pull out the Inducing Panic charge, 9/10 times it's because of section 3, serious public inconvenience or alarm. Basically, if it gets the cops called, they consider it serious. But there's another half of that section...the any offense part. Well what offense do they usually pull out...

2917.11 Disorderly conduct...
(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

Here the kicker is #5. possession of a gun in public is physically offensive to many. And the "offender's" actions must be BOTH lawful AND reasonable to completely escape the net.

Your argument doesn't pass muster: Laws proscribe what is illegal, they can't follow this twisted logic that it's illegal until the charged person proves it IS legal as if it is presumed that whatever they are doing is illegal without the action being clearly defined as illegal.

If there is NO law saying I can't OC then my OCing is legal and reasonable.

Vague statutes such as "creating a condition that is physically offensive" are to subjective and get blown up when challenged. "Reasonable" is also a subjetive term and too open to interpreationto be constitutional.

Regardless, #5 of 2917.11 can't be used- OCing is both legal and reasonable (since it is reasonable to desire to be able to protect one's self from unlawful attack.)

Ya can't use 2917.11 as the offense to justify arrest under 2917.31.

When officer's go to these lengths to justify and arrest it should be a clue that they are trying to hard to but the cuffs on someone.

Officer's who used statements such as, "you may beat the charged, but you won't beat the ride,' IN THIS CONTEXT, are those that usually don't last to long. It exhibits a mindset that it's their personal authority that matters instead of the law's authority.

[certifiedfunds]

Oh please. :upeyes:

Do you really believe the permit process is designed by Gov't tyrants speciffically to intrude upon your rights?



Does it have to be designed to intrude upon rights in order to do so?

Of course not.

I have CCWs from three states, and it seems to me that the process is designed to keep concealed weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them- like violent felons and such. Isn't that it's purpose? Maybe it doesn't work as well as it should, but it's better than the alternative.

Its designed to keep concealed weapons out of the hands of people state lawmakers believe shouldn't have them.

But wait......weren't those people already checked when they purchased the firearm?

My statement about OC indeed being RKBA if a permit is required to conceal them isn't MY opinion. Its the opinion of numerous AGs and courts throughout this country. To think otherwise is tantamount to saying, "Yes. You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but its left up to our discretion. And, if we decide you are worthy to bear it, you must do so in a manner in which we believe is appropriate."

That's ludicrous. What many AGs and courts have found is that if the government prescribes a regulated process to conceal a weapon, then by default OC is constitutionally protected. How much better can you describe RKBA?

And, last time I checked, the RKBA did not make any mention of felons or any class of people. In fact, it does quite the opposite using the words "shall not be infringed" NOT "may be infringed" NOT "could be infringed if it makes common sense."

[rvrctyrngr]

It is if a special permit is required to conceal, leaving no other means of exercising that right without government intrusion.

I tend to agree with you, CF. Florida was one of the Poster Boys for 'shall issue' CC. However, in the process, we lost our OC option. When I was younger, prior to state-wide shall issue, I had a county CC license (not valid state-wide). I had a job that required me to be armed. I CCd when in the county. A couple of places to which I had to go in the course of my duties were outside the county, and I HAD to OC at those times.

Though Florida's CC laws are QUITE generous, there is no provision for unlicensed carry of a weapon, except in one's home, bidness, vehicle (can't have it on you), or while hunting, fishing, or camping.

I don't consider Florida's CC laws to be in line with the RKBA. Having to have a license and pay a fee makes it a priviledge, not a Right.

The only two states that truly recognize the purpose of the RKBA is Vermont and Alaska. No license, carry howeverthehell you want to. Those states that allow unlicensed carry of a firearm are a close second.

[B-Dog]

After reading this thread from start to finish I've come to a few conclusions:

1) Doubletap has lived in California for way too long.
2) A lot of People on GT are way too eager to bend over when it comes to RKBA.

[vtachrn]

I listened to the audio a few times and have to think that this guy was trolling for something...

I also have feel the the officers were harrising this guy and trying to force their opinion on the kid. I would have mentioned that I dont give a rats behind if it scares or upsets people, they need to get over it and no I dont have to keep it covered.

I have a neighbor from California and she freaked out when she saw me in my driveway with my G23 on the hip getting ready to go to the range. It was a good time to do some education on our laws. I did find out she is a total anti and nothing I said was going to change her mind, and she refused to believe that OC or CC was legal. The next day I handed her a copy of our state laws and suggested that she be a responsible citzen and review the laws of the community in which has relocated to.... :upeyes:

[certifiedfunds]

The next day I handed her a copy of our state laws and suggested that she be a responsible citzen and review the laws of the community in which has relocated to.... :upeyes:

You mean you ASSAULTED her! :tongueout: :rofl: :supergrin:

[fgutie35]

Kenedy, I agree with you that there is a proper way to make yourself heard when it comes to political issues that affect us all and that showing your gun on the streets is not going to have a consius impact on the governor for such state. That is why I stated that "maybe the outcome of that incident would have been different if Bryan would have handle it different". You might have notice already the different opinions on this thread and the spectrum of it, so it gives you an idea of what our country is comprised of. One of the many benefits I find on this forum and many pro-gun forums, is that people like you and me and the rest of us, no matter what race, color, religion or location, can come to a comon ground when it comes to protecting ourselves, our love ones and our rights. The level of knowledge and mentality levels off and we then come to agree in a common denominator. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

[series1811]

He's carrying a tape recorder. Anybody think he might have a lot of other tapes he had to throw away because he didn't get what he was looking for on them?

[PAGunner]

Oh please. :upeyes:

Do you really believe the permit process is designed by Gov't tyrants speciffically to intrude upon your rights?

I have CCWs from three states, and it seems to me that the process is designed to keep concealed weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them- like violent felons and such. Isn't that it's purpose? Maybe it doesn't work as well as it should, but it's better than the alternative.

2nd amendment says nothing about "violent felons" not being able to have a weapon. Every man has the right to self preservation, besides, government harassing law abiding citizens by turning their right into a privilege does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of "violent felons". I grew up in NY, lived there for 25 years and I have seen far more "illegally" owned weapons that legal weapons, sometimes by people as young as 13 who would grow up to become convicted "violent felons", so much for NY's strict gun laws, it has really done a lot to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. :upeyes:

You have become brainwashed by the elitists running the show, who want nothing more than to make laws restricting your rights in an effort to control people like you and me, while they live above the very laws they create. Bottom line, if you don't like RKBA the way it is in the constitution, then you should lobby your local corrupt politician to amend the constitution, not make unconstitutional laws.

[PAGunner]

He's carrying a tape recorder. Anybody think he might have a lot of other tapes he had to throw away because he didn't get what he was looking for on them?

Kind of a moot point don't you think? Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but if he does, so what? LEO are supposed to be professional and uphold the law, not break the law themselves.

[RussP]

it was recorded on his I phoneHe's carrying a tape recorder. Anybody think he might have a lot of other tapes he had to throw away because he didn't get what he was looking for on them?Seems he used his phone, which he normally used to record things in class.

[RussP]

Everybody, this thread deserves to remain open like any other discussion.

HOWEVER, when it starts getting into personal attacks, no matter how subtle, either the offending post is deleted, or the thread will be closed.

Keep the personalities out of it. We're all different, except for one thing - we all carry. This is the forum to discuss carrying, right?

Armed Society = Polite Society

Be polite, please.


:cool:

[rDigital]

I just wanted to say hello to everyone. Exercise your rights or they will go away. I have open carried for at least 6 months and this is the first time that I have ever had a problem with a LEO. I was not looking for trouble. I was only looking for lunch. There was no reason for the LEOs to respond in this manner in my case. The only thing that should have happened after they got the call would be for the dispatcher to ask if my gun was holstered or not. If it's in the holster and I am walking in a non-theatening manner down the street then there in NO problem whatsoever. If I was out to prove a point I think that I would have been a little more prepared in my dialogue with the LEOs. I may come off as preachy about rights, but if you don't speak up you get stepped on.

[RussP]

Welcome, rDigital.

:cool:

[novaDAK]

Carrying a firearm is a RIGHT. Not a PRIVILAGE. When the state requires a license or permit (along with a fee every time you renew it) it is no longer a right. For people 18-20 in most states, they cannot get a CCW permit even if they wanted to since they limit it to 21+.

We should not have to have permission from the state to carry a firearm, and we should not have to pay a fee to do so either. THAT is why OC is so important.

[PAGunner]

I just wanted to say hello to everyone. Exercise your rights or they will go away. I have open carried for at least 6 months and this is the first time that I have ever had a problem with a LEO. I was not looking for trouble. I was only looking for lunch. There was no reason for the LEOs to respond in this manner in my case. The only thing that should have happened after they got the call would be for the dispatcher to ask if my gun was holstered or not. If it's in the holster and I am walking in a non-theatening manner down the street then there in NO problem whatsoever. If I was out to prove a point I think that I would have been a little more prepared in my dialogue with the LEOs. I may come off as preachy about rights, but if you don't speak up you get stepped on.

Giant +1 to you! Btw, for those that criticised the way you came off, I thought you did really well, especially considering there was what, 5 cops grilling you for doing nothing wrong?

[rDigital]

The infighting in this thread really saddens me. There are people that would like to see us stripped of our RKBA. Just because I have a permit doesn't mean anything. I got the permit mainly so that I can carry loaded in a vehicle. In Ohio when you have a CHL you do not have to give up your right to open carry.

There was a time when OC was very common and a time before 2004 for when CC was illegal in ohio. CC is a priveledge and not a right. People used to OC all the time and no one batted an eyelash. If more people start exercising their rights and showing themselves to be responsible citizens there will be less misunderstandings.

Open carry is RKBA and is guaranteed under Article I Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution this was determined by the Ohio Supreme Court decision in the matter of Klein vs Leis.

What I do is 100% legal under Ohio law and is supported by judical precident.

When we fight amongst ourselves we all lose. Divide and conquer and we shall fall one by one. If you OC, CC or don't even carry at all remember you are among friends on here or any pro 2a forum. There is much to debate, and I embrace this, but the less unified we are about anything pro 2a will only weaken our rights in the future. I am not looking to bump heads or make waves. I am just walking to get my lunch.

[rvrctyrngr]

Welcome to GT, rDigital. Stick around. Lots of good info to be had.

The OC v. CC deal gets batted around here quite a bit. Strong views on both sides. Some folks here are good at expressing their opinions in logical, thoughtful tones....some are not.

[coloradokevin]

I'm a police officer, and a former resident of Ohio.

My opinion:

1) The subject of this stop was doing nothing illegal based on OH law.

2) The subject of the stop was also more or less polite to the officers, and didn't act like a fool during the contact (of course, he knew he was recording the conversation, and the initial part of the contact wasn't in the clip I listened to... so I don't know what was said prior to the audio coming on).

3) The subject of this stop was very likely out seeking some sort of confrontation like this. He was carrying two OC weapons, and an audio recorder. Seems a bit suspect to me.

4) It sounded like multiple officers were involved in the conversation. The primary officer seemed to be the one who was having the most problem with understanding the law, and dealing appropriately with the subject of the stop.

5) I see no problem with the officers stopping and talking to this party, as it is a natural response to complaints that we receive. However, their actions during the conversation seemed unreasonable.

EDITED TO ADD: I just read that they immediately took him at gun point... This could go either way depending on the subject's actions. But, if the party was listening to my instruction