RobertNashville

Yes...that's right...dropping your "investigation" is EXACTLY what you are supposed to do because without reasonable suspicion of a crime you shouldn't be investigating; that's per Ohio law and Ohio State Supreme Court decisions. Of course, if you don't give a rip about the law and just want to be, as you called the police in this case, asshats then you ignore the law and just do as you please...that's why lawsuits get filed and that's why THIS lawsuit got filed.   Do you believe that you have the right to stop any car you want just to "make sure" the driver has a DL? I certainly hope you don't because you don't!  A MWAG in these circumstances in Ohio is NO DIFFERENT than seeing someone drive a car down the street; without reasonable suspicion you don't have the right to stop the person's car and "investigate" just to see if the person has a license.     You don't nor do you have any business inquiring...the Ohio Revised Code, and the Ohio State Supreme Court and Federal Appeals Court says it's none of a LEO's business.

Obstruction?  I don't see how NOT answering a question you have absolutely zero obligation to answer can ever constitute obstruction.   Yeah...they had a right to ask him his name and he had a right to absolutely refuse and that's precisely where things should have stopped because under Ohio law, unless there was a (truly, not made up) reasonable suspicion of a crime having been, being or about to be committed they had absolutely no legal authority to go forward and that's where it should have stopped and the officer(s) walk away.   But that's not where the police stopped and that's why there is now a lawsuit and a wonderful opportunity for us to talk about it all.

The police went WAY to far here...most here can see that and agree; including some former LEOs; the fact that you don't seem to understand that is the troubling part I was referring to.   Demanding a person ID himself when he had absolutely ZERO obligation to do so then threatening to charge him with totally bogus charges and then actually charging him with a totally bogus charge is EXACTLY the kind of heavy-handed, unconstitutional acts that case people here to have negative feelings toward police. We have a constitution for a reason, one of which is to protect citizens from actions like the ones that came from these police officers.   A lot of people here have served in the uniform of our country, including me (I actually still do so in a minor way); a lot of people here have worked for FD/EMT, including me (except I always did so as a volunteer)...however, that service doesn't give me or you or anyone else the right to violate a citizen's fundamental rights just because a person is now wearing a LEO's badge.   I do my job well....and I get paid well for it but my job doesn't give me the awesome power to totally screw with a person's life by threatening him with bogus charges, jail time and possible legal fees to defend himself against such charges nor can I detain someone just because he "might" have done something wrong...those with that power have a HUGE responsibility to act within the law they are sworn to protect.   The only proper thing that happened here is that the matter will be settled in court which is as it should be and I think these officers and the city they work for are going to find out just how WRONG they were. The sad part of this is that the need to go to court was totally avoidable had these officers followed the rules.

Well....I didn't say I didn't have any other; I'm just talking about defensive calibers here...I'm just not going to broadcast more than necessary on an internet forums (I think they are building a FEMA camp pretty close to my subdivision). ;)

Many calibers has it's advantages but Iv'e gone the "other direction"...over the past year or so I've narrowed down my pistol calibers to two; my defensive handguns (as well as most of my "for fun" handguns) are either 45ACP or 10MM.   I did that so that I can concentrate on having plenty of both of those two calibers on hand and not have to split my resources among many.

Have you seen any stats on that?   I wonder because I've talked to my local police a couple of times about home invasion concerns and was given the impression that at least in Murfreesboro they are not a major problem.  The problem is, I don't think there is a specific crime of "home invasion" so when they get reported (and Murfreesboro does report to a national database that anyone can access) you can't really tell if a burglary/break-in would be something considered a "home invasion" or not.  

I don't mean to sound "mean" but I'm not sure of the point of the question (or maybe I just don't understand the question!).   I suggest that a person stock up the caliber(s) you use for defensive purposes...for those, I'd say only the size of a save place to keep it shoudl be the limiting factor in how much you keep on hand.   Anything else that you really have just for the enjoyment of shooting I don't see a need to keep a big supply.   That said, I think the current ammo situation should be a warning that buying a little on a regular basis is a pretty good idea; that way you don't have to panic or stop going to the range because you don't have "enough" and don't know when you'll be able to replenish!  :)

Thanks for taking the time to confirm what I think many of us suspected; that being that the "citizen" in this story is an open carry activist and, apparently, was out trolling for an encounter.   I strongly dislike and disapprove of the way the police handled this situation but I have no real sympathy for Mr. Call either...as I said very early on, both he and the cops were idiots (in my always humble opinion).   More troublesome, I think, is the train of thought, espoused in this thread by at least one individual, that the mere presence of a firearm meant that the police had an obligation to "check him out" to make sure he wasn't someone precluded by law from possessing a firearm...from that to "papers please" is a very, very short trip and that destination seems to be getting closer every day.

Fighting pistol and fighting rifle for me and I will likely take the emergency action medical this year from them to compliment other training from other training to round out the year.   I've taken training form several facilities and TR's trainers are good trainers and just plain good folks.

i cant go back and review the entire thread right now but I'm pretty sure that the laws and Oh SC decisions have already be cited earlier. I lived. 34 of my years in Ohio and am there every four to six weeks...it's simple, you can carry openly without a permit - seeing someone doing so shouldn't require the police to harass someone and a citizen has no obligation to ID himself of answer any question unless there is a ressonabl suspicion of a crime.

Okay...I thought it was a 911 call but I don't see the mechanism for the complaint being made (phone call to 911, flagging down a cruiser, etc) has any bearing...the bottom line is some citizen wet his/her pants because they say a person doing a completely LEGAL thing...the police ought to know it's a completely legal sans some significant information to the contrary and then told the citizen to go about his business.   I just don't buy this argument that the police had or must "act"...maybe that's "common police procedure" but if so then I think it's a procedure that needs to be reevaluated.  Were these cops "going to act" because they had any reasonable suspicion that the man had, was or about to commit a crime or was it because police (or at last these officers) think, at least when a gun is involved, everyone is guilty until proven innocent?  The LEOs could have "acted" without stopping and harassing the man who was doing a completely legal thing and it's their unreasonable harassment that has resulted in this law suit.   I would suggest that the way this could have been handled was how a somewhat similar incident was handled about a year ago by Metro Nashville at the Golden Corral in Hermitage.  The TFA was its monthly meeting that night and, as is often the case, many people open carry...some 20-something saw a MWAG and complained to the manager who essentially told him to get lost. Not to be deterred, he called the police...when the police showed up, they told him no one was doing anything illegal and then they left...since this was Tennessee they could have been heavy-handed but they didn't ask for anyone's "papers" or demand to see HCPs or search anyone's cars.   These Ohio cops had far less reason to act in the manner they did since it's perfectly legal for a citizen to openly carry a firearm without "special government permission"...this "well we need to check him out because he might be a convicted felon, etc. ect..."is a load of LEO double talk.   Perhaps these cops had so much time on their hands because all crime in Ohio has been eliminated...I'll have to check that out with my siblings who still live there. I suspect, however, that there is still enough actual crimes being committed in Ohio that these cop's had more productive ways to spend their time.

This story is about ONE thing...a mere "civilian" seen with a gun. Oh my got...that man has a gun so he MUST be a criminal....that's what the person who called 911 thought and that's what these LEOs thought as well. Walking down the street openly carrying a firearm is NOT a crime NOR does it provide a reasonable suspicion that the mane just committed, is committing or about to commit a crime.   I don't buy the "they had an obligation to investigate" line of "reasoning" here.  Based on that line of reasoning a LEO would have to do a vehicle stop and investigate someone just because someone called 911 and said they saw someone driving by a school yard and that the citizen "thought" "looked mean" or "looked like a child molester".   Ware are (supposed) to be protected against UNREASONABLE search and seizure; this stop was unreasonable and if the cops had a "duty to investigate" then they should have hassled the person that called 911 just because he saw a man with a gun and wet his pants (or panties).   I hope this guy wins some money....not a lot because I still think he was an idiot...but enough to catch the attention of at least that police department.  

  I haven’t said you accused me of anything but you certainly seemed to be trying to imply that I was one of “those” you were talking about…       That’s when I stated that “You seem to be implying that anyone who has ammo for sale is price gouging…” to which you asked…     I asked, more than once, for you to post to links to these “post histories” you claim to have looked up and which, apparently, support your insinuation that those of us who don’t have a problem with willing sellers and willing buyers engaging in ammo transactions have some conflict of interest when we post in this thread. Since you’ve claimed to have looked up post histories but are unwilling to name names and then ask if I’m “feeling guilty”; who am I supposed to think you are including in “those”???     I’m not making you out to be anything.   "Wrong" is a value judgement; nothing wrong with you making that judgment for yourself but that's precisely where it should end, with you. I would suggest that you look at what constitutes a free market because I believe that you either don't understand the concept or you understand it but don't like it when it impacts you in a negative way. When a willing seller and a willing buyer strike a deal to sell/buy a perfectly legal item, that is the free market and it’s really nobody’s damn business what price is paid. This ammunition market will eventually correct itself; that's the strength of a free market...that there is some temporary pain while it's correcting itself is a very small price to pay when compared to the alternative.     The “kind of man I am” is one that believes in free markets even if doing so means I may have to pay a higher price for some ammo I want or can’t find any to buy at the moment...the kind of man I am is one who would be happy to pay $1,000 for a $500 generator if it meant that I'd have lights and refrigeration during an extended power outage (especially since the fact that I didn't already have the generator was likely the result of MY lack of planning); I’d much rather have to pay inflated prices for something I want/need than not have it at all and I’d MUCH rather pay inflated prices than to have some government bureaucrat start dictating what I can buy and at what price.   What you really seam to want is "somebody" to step in, take control, and make people "behave" according to your personal needs and moral judgments.  Personally, I'm very happy that hasn't happened, at least not yet and I hope it never does.

I see.   In other words; you are perfectly willing to use innuendo to impune the reputation of fellow TGO members for their "shady practices" provided, of course, that you don't actually have to name names or provide any evidence to support your insults.  I'm SO glad we cleared that up!     Well, since Mr. 556or762 is unwilling to do so, here is the link to the ammo that I sold a couple of months ago (this was ammo for a G31 that I no longer owned and had sold just s couple of weeks earlier on TGO: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/62394-357-sig-ammo-pd-and-target-for-sale/   If anyone thinks my price was too high for this ammo please feel free to say so and explain why you think my asking price was "scalping" and what would have been a fair asking price.

All if it could have been avoided if the cops acted within the law in Ohio which they did not.   What part of of what this man did being absolutely legal in Ohio isn't getting through?   Dose the protection in our Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure not mean anything to you? And yes, stopping a citizen who is doing absolutely nothing illegal IS unreasonable.   What this really amounts to is one "citizen" being afraid of seeing a MWAG and a couple of cops being suspicious of a man simply because he is openly carrying a firearm even though the man was no more breaking the law than if, instead of a firearm, he had a tire iron or a baseball bat under his arm.   Yes, I would normally not be openly carrying...yes, I typically would have answered the stupid cop's questions even though I understand that I have no obligation to do so which is why I said in my initial post, the guy was an idiot. However, I also said that the cops were idiots too because it's idiotic to detain a man when they have absolutely ZERO justification to do so.

I'm suspecting that there is at least one poster in this thread that would find jackboots very comfortable and would also find using the phrase "papers please" quite natural.

Yeah...I'm sure the manufacturer losing money would be a wonderful help to ending the current shortage of ammo. ;)

Poorly, most likely.   I actually lost interest in the Titans a while ago...everything I once admired about them has changed and I just really don't care how they do anymore...I think I watched parts of two games last year and that's it.   Also, I just can't stand all the scalpers trying to sell their tickets for twice what they are wroth...  ;)

Well I'm sure you and everyone else here who buys anything over the internet from retailers that don't collect TN sales taxes are declaring those purchases every year and paying their owed sales/use taxes to the state, correct???  ;)

I'm probably going to start reloading too but not until things settle down and supplies can be had.   That said, I wonder if, with the problem of component availability, retailers are running good deals on equipment?  I would think that the equipment probably isn't moving well right now because of the lack of components (although I may be totally wrong about that). ;)

No, doesn't depend on how much they paid for it...any retailer can sell the products they carry for any price they want that people will pay...they can sell it for 95% less than they paid for it or 95% more than they paid or give it away for free or they can stop carrying the product altogether because it isn't worth the hassle of dealing with all the people who complain about their "unethical" prices. ;)

Open you door and say "come right on in officer, even without a warrant...I have nothing to hide". I don't know why people get so worked up over their "little rights".  ;)

So they will respond...unless the man was actually doing something illegal (which carrying a gun openly in Ohio without a permit isn't illegal) then they should have done nothing more than show up and leave again.

I suspect some cops think so. ;)

This man was an idiot.   These police officers were also idiots.   I don't think the civilian deserves to win a dime but I also suspect he'll either win his case or he'll get a handsome settlement.