Openly carrying gun not a crime in OH

[Im Neero]

He works at Coal Creek Armory, has a blog at http://coltcco.com/

There is always a big flap when someone says they want to exercise their right to open carry. Before it starts this time, can anyone correct and attribute the following quote?

"Those who do not exercise their rights have no complaint when the authorities follow their example."

I bet he's old and dead.

[Guest tadams]

But it wouldn't be unreasonable for officers to draw their guns until they know what the situation is, said Sgt. Rich Weiner of the Columbus Police Division. ...

"The first thing we need to address: This man has a gun," Weiner said. "We're going to pull our guns. ...

You have GOT to be kidding me! Houston, we have a problem... and it's with the Weiner.

----------------------------------------------------------

..."He came up and treated me like a felon for absolutely no reason at all," Turner said. "There wasn't even a suspicious action on my part to warrant him taking this action against me. Had I been out waving a gun around the parking lot, (then) yeah."

After being detained for about 30 minutes, and after Hilliard police arrived at the agent's request, Turner was released without charges. An internal investigation that concluded this week found that neither Agent Timothy Gales, who had stopped Turner, nor his partner, Betty Ford, did anything wrong.

However, it also revealed that Gales did not know it was legal for Turner to carry a gun openly, said Lindsay Komlanc, spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety. As a result, more than 100 agents in the unit are to attend a mandatory refresher course on Ohio's gun laws over the next couple of months, she said.

"If your open display of a firearm is causing panic, you could be charged with inducing panic", Weiner said. ...

What about a charge against Weiner for lack of a name we don't have to laugh about every time this situation is discussed from this point forward. Yes, I said it.

There are a lot of laws. Lawyers have to go to school for 7 years and pass an extremely comprehensive test in order to practice in TN. They also get paid much more than police. ...

....I admit there are lots of laws out there and it is hard to know them all, but I would think LEO's would primarily only need to deal with two sections...Title 39 on Criminal offenses and Title 57 on Traffic offenses. I'm really not bashing LEO's at all...love my brother the LEO, although we don't always agree on these type discussions...lol, but isn't the main job of a LEO to enforce the laws of the jurisdiction they serve? How can you do that if you aren't familiar with them? But if you aren't familiar with them, then fine, but don't try to enforce what "you think" the law is.

... If any of us were to go to court and say "I didn't know it was against the law" the judge would promptly advise us that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" The same should apply to cops ...

Let's face it; of ANY law to know as an officer, the ones regarding something as lethal as a firearm would be the ones that should be known by heart. Any new laws and amendments regarding firearms should be the first thing to read, as they come about.

I agree with Fallguy's opinion regarding Title 39 and 55, as well. But, let's face it... making an ass out of oneself and the department for harassing a legally abiding citizen, when it involves something as serious as a gun.... not to mention being unaware that an individual is allowed to openly carry in your state of public service.... this is ludicrous. These officers should be ashamed of themselves. They should know this long before they know how much to write the ticket for doing 55 in a 40.

Thank goodness it sounds like someone's trying to see to this never happening again. Ultimately, THAT is the real goal, here. Education is the key to proper handling of all LEO's situations, no matter how petty or serious. Obviously, there's also MUCH more than that.. but education is the foundation of it all. I respect an officer and his position more than I can allude to, here. However, when it's something THIS serious, there is no justifiable excuse. "They didn't know" shouldn't have even been said. The words "They were wrong and we're doing mandatory education for all" should have sufficed.

This Turner guy wasn't pushing an issue, making a point that it's legal to carry in such a manner, inciting a riot, arguing with officers, and no one even eluded to any statement that he even looked like he had a bad day. He was just doing his job, in which he was legally justified in carrying a weapon for his own protection, especially since his job required dealing with valuable items.

Education is good. Even though it's too late, I'm glad it's being done. Maybe some other department, somewhere, will be able to educate themselves before another such catastrophe. The fact that they "officially" (and after they had time to develop a statement) still believe what happened was ok and are further telling law abiding citizens that they will harrass you for "inciting a riot", "trespassing", and that they will detain you for no reason... is devastating, to say the least.

Stepping off soap box, now; someone else's turn.

Edited April 1, 2008 by tadams
Title 57 to 55 change

[Fallguy]

Oops.....I make mistakes too. Traffic laws are covered under Title 55, not 57. 57 has to do with Intoxication Liquors. Not sure how I could confuse those two.

[Guest SomeGuy]

There are a lot of laws. Lawyers have to go to school for 7 years and pass an extremely comprehensive test in order to practice in TN. They also get paid much more than police. Police spend a few months in training and then, as far as I know, never really do much else as far as learning laws. An officer could spend their off duty time keeping current and brushing up on state/local code, but they're not getting paid for it.

I'm not saying it's right, but they don't have the extensive legal training that lawyers do, nor any external motivation to learn anything more than is required to pass whatever test they need to get out of the academy.

This is one reason why I like the old Peace Officer concept, as opposed to LEO concept. LEOs enforce all the million laws written. All a PO does is keep the peace. Unless someone is actively causing trouble, they don't get involved. LEO sees a man carrying a gun and wonders whether or not a law is being broken, PO sees a man with a gun, and wonders what is for dinner because he is bored just watching a man with a gun walk around.

Problem is, people always whine "There ought to be a law..." and sooner or later, there is. Now or PO has to become a LEO even if it is ridiculous. When the government grows, the police always get more oppressive. They have to, to enforce all the insane laws. Now, if we went back to a freer more libertarian system, it solves a lot of problems.

[Guest tadams]

Oops.....I make mistakes too. Traffic laws are covered under Title 55, not 57. 57 has to do with Intoxication Liquors. Not sure how I could confuse those two.

I edited my numbers in the above reply.

You're always right... I just figured those numbers were right, too!

Travis

[Fallguy]

Interesting take SomeGuy. Never really thought of it that way.

....and sorry about that Travis.

[Guest Smitty]

You all make some valid points, but in my opinion, I do not think I will ever open carry until I am a little bit older since I'm 21. I think people still have the misconception that a person at my age with a firearm = potential criminal, and I don't want to draw attention to myself because of open carrying from law-abiding citizens and criminals alike. That's my $0.02.

[Guest kwikrnu]

"He came up and treated me like a felon for absolutely no reason at all," Turner said. "There wasn't even a suspicious action on my part to warrant him taking this action against me.

Turner, who has a license to carry a concealed gun, said he was carrying his gun openly "because it's my right. I choose to exercise my right to protect myself."