Talked to a cop in Cuyahoga Falls tonight...

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

So I went to the little rock concert on Front Street in Cuyahoga Falls tonight (I am in Ohio to visit my grandmother for her 80th birthday ) and since I was not able to bring my gun (an unfortunate occurrence that I feeldeeply disenfranchised about) I decided that I would ask a cop that happened to be at the concert about the gun laws.

Here is a list of the things he said.

1) To carry, you need a permit. (He backpedaled when I mentioned OC)

2) If you OC, you will get stopped and checked out to see if you can own a gun. He said that it wasn't a violation of case law.

3) Long gun carry is prohibited. Apparently there was a case of a guy carrying an AK-47 down the street and is now being sent to the DA for prosecution? He couldn't quote the law.

Not that any of this reflects on the good citizens of Ohio, but I COMPLETELY expected that the cops would be more friendly and knowledgeable and, well, professional, than the cops that are out here in California. Unfortunately, it seems that willfulignorance and unprofessionalism runs rampant in even the most free of states.

If I am wrong on anything, please let me know. I will be posting audio once I get back home and process my voice recorder.

 

[Sig229]

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

So I went to the little rck concert on Front Street in Cuyahoga Falls tonight (I am in Ohio to visit my grandmother for her 80th birthday ) and since I was not able to bring my gun (an unfortunate occurrence that I feeldeeply disenfranchised about) I decided that I would ask a cop that happened to be at the concert about the gun laws.

Here is a list of the things he said.

1) To carry, you need a permit. (He backpedaled when I mentioned OC)

2) If you OC, you will get stopped and checked out to see if you can own a gun. He said that it wasn't a violation of case law.

3) Long gun carry is prohibited. Apparently there was a case of a guy carrying an AK-47 down the street and is now being sent to the DA for prosecution? He couldn't quote the law.

Not that any of this reflects on the good citizens of Ohio, but I COMPLETELY expected that the cops would be more friendly and knowledgeable and, well, professional, than the cops that are out here in California. Unfortunately, it seems that willfulignorance and unprofessionalism runs rampant in even the most free of states.

If I am wrong on anything, please let me know. I will be posting audio once I get back home and process my voice recorder.

I look forward to hearing the audio, that was a great idea.

Also, I was wondering why you couldn't take your gun(s) when you visited Ohio?
Every time I fly within the USA, I always take at least a pistol with me.



.

 

[aadvark]

imported post

In Ohio, one does not nee any type of Permit to Open Carry a Long gun.

 

[suntzu]

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

2) If you OC, you will get stopped and checked out to see if you can own a gun. He said that it wasn't a violation of case law.

What section of Ohio Revised Code gives them the authority to do a status check on you simply because you are OC'ing a handgun absent any other facts?

Simply not being a violation of case law does not grant them the legal ability to do as they please--you still have rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures--and being detained for a status check when they have no other facts supporting a such an action would definitely be a seizure--and unreasonable at that.

Next time ask them what section of ORC gives them the ability to do a status check without other facts to support the seizure of your person.

 

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

suntzu wrote:

pullnshoot25 wrote:

2) If you OC, you will get stopped and checked out to see if you can own a gun. He said that it wasn't a violation of case law.

What section of Ohio Revised Code gives them the authority to do a status check on you simply because you are OC'ing a handgun absent any other facts?

Simply not being a violation of case law does not grant them the legal ability to do as they please--you still have rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures--and being detained for a status check when they have no other facts supporting a such an action would definitely be a seizure--and unreasonable at that.

Next time ask them what section of ORC gives them the ability to do a status check without other facts to support the seizure of your person.

I asked the cop on the law 2-3 times, he had nothing but more FUD and "Well, I don't know it off hand, hurrr, durrr, durrr"

The audio is actually pretty funny, he actually soundedconvinced that he can act with such blatant impunity. Given the fact that police have had over 200 years to figure this stuff out, it never ceases to amaze me the depth of ignorance that I witness on a day-to-day basis, even in what is known as a "free state"

On a side note, I visited Pro-Armament on Front Street today (just got back a few minutes ago)and I was pretty stoked to see all the employees OCing in actually nice holsters. However, I was a little dismayed at the fact that the signage seemed to only support CCW, not carry in general. They alsoseemed unfazed about the progress California is making butI guess that isto be expected.

I planned to hit Dick's Gun Room today but they are apparently closed on Saturdays in the summer, so there goes my C&R fix... RATS!

----

BTW, the reason I didn't bring my gun is because we were supposed to be traveling light and I am traveling with my brother, who is one of those impatient/uncaring types for stuff like gun carry or dealing with cops. Never again though, I feel naked without at least my knife.

Next trip, I will have my Tracker with me.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

I asked the cop on the law 2-3 times, he had nothing but more FUD and "Well, I don't know it off hand, hurrr, durrr, durrr"

The audio is actually pretty funny, he actually soundedconvinced that he can act with such blatant impunity. Given the fact that police have had over 200 years to figure this stuff out, it never ceases to amaze me the depth of ignorance that I witness on a day-to-day basis, even in what is known as a "free state"

On a side note, I visited Pro-Armament on Front Street today (just got back a few minutes ago)and I was pretty stoked to see all the employees OCing in actually nice holsters. However, I was a little dismayed at the fact that the signage seemed to only support CCW, not carry in general. They alsoseemed unfazed about the progress California is making butI guess that isto be expected.

I planned to hit Dick's Gun Room today but they are apparently closed on Saturdays in the summer, so there goes my C&R fix... RATS!

----

BTW, the reason I didn't bring my gun is because we were supposed to be traveling light and I am traveling with my brother, who is one of those impatient/uncaring types for stuff like gun carry or dealing with cops. Never again though, I feel naked without at least my knife.

Next trip, I will have my Tracker with me.

Dick's didn't used to actually be closed on Saturday, but used to close EARLY on Saturday, 2:00pm, as I recall.

 

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

OK, I just got home and I just downloaded the audio from my Cuyahoga Falls police encounter.

I am an idiot for not getting a name and badge number, but if it helps any, this cop's partner was a blonde woman.

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D35533_887588_055465

 

[mrjam2jab]

imported post

and THAT"S why you never ask a cop legal questions. :quirky

 

[JSlack7851]

imported post

There are some guys @ OFCC.ORG wanting to do a OC walk in Cuyahoga Falls.There up to about 10.Anybody else?

 

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

JSlack7851 wrote:

There are some guys @ OFCC.ORG wanting to do a OC walk in Cuyahoga Falls.There up to about 10.Anybody else?

If I were still there I would be participating...

 

[Palecon]

imported post

Case law pull is

Pissed Off v Ohio.

PO lost so now if you are in Ohio and you are pissed off it is illegal to carry a slung AK or AR

-p

Cant believe the cop'er didn't know that

 

[cuyfallsOC]

imported post

Hello I am the person that OC with the AK 47.

My understanding is that it is completely legal.

 

[cuyfallsOC]

imported post

I decided in April to go on an open carry walk to a nearby store. I had my handgun clearly visible on my belt and slung my AK across my back. It was not loaded. I know, I know. But I was thinking that being unloaded it wouldn't be scary as being loaded.
I get to the store and waited in the parking lot with my wife while my kids were looking for whatever it was they wanted.
I watched the cruisers pull in and they came at me guns drawn and ordered me to the ground.
They cuffed me, attempted to humilate me for carry what they called an SKS. They called into the prosecutor and I assume he said to let me go. They asked if I wanted them to hold onto my guns for safekeeping. Thanked me for wasting their time and said if I was on this property again they would arrest me for criminal trespass. I have attempted to talk to the police chief and the mayor to come to a resolution about this and they refuse to acknowledge that they did anything wrong.
There are more, much details to all of this but until I have all of my options cleared out I will not be posting them.
I have attempted to seek counsel but they either don't get back to me or don't understand that open carry is legal.

 

[PDinDetroit]

imported post

cuyfallsOC wrote:

I decided in April to go on an open carry walk to a nearby store. I had my handgun clearly visible on my belt and slung my AK across my back. It was not loaded. I know, I know. But I was thinking that being unloaded it wouldn't be scary as being loaded.
I get to the store and waited in the parking lot with my wife while my kids were looking for whatever it was they wanted.
I watched the cruisers pull in and they came at me guns drawn and ordered me to the ground.
They cuffed me, attempted to humilate me for carry what they called an SKS. They called into the prosecutor and I assume he said to let me go. They asked if I wanted them to hold onto my guns for safekeeping. Thanked me for wasting their time and said if I was on this property again they would arrest me for criminal trespass. I have attempted to talk to the police chief and the mayor to come to a resolution about this and they refuse to acknowledge that they did anything wrong.
There are more, much details to all of this but until I have all of my options cleared out I will not be posting them.
I have attempted to seek counsel but they either don't get back to me or don't understand that open carry is legal.

Consider the following in your options: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm

 

[zekester]

imported post

Actually there is CASE LAW

Relying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts
have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific,
legitimate reason. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 21; Fuerschbach,439 F.3d at 1204-6 (holding that a
seizure without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity "would violate the most minimal
Fourth Amendment standard"); Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d at 1228 ("Where no legitimate basis
exists for detaining [an individual], a seizure is plainly unreasonable."); Duran, 904 F.2d at 1378
("If there is one irreducible minimum in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is that a police
officer may not detain an individual simply on the basis of suspicion in the air. No matter how
peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person's conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop
unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed or that there is
an imminent danger to persons or property."); see also Lawrence Rosenthal, Second Amendment
Plumbing after Heller: Standards of Scrutiny, Incorporation, Well-Regulated Militias, and
Criminal Street Gangs, 41 Urb. Law. 1, 37 (2009) (“When applicable law does not ban carrying a
firearm, however, the Fourth Amendment does not permit a stop-and-frisk regardless of any
indication that a suspect is armed or potentially dangerous because there is no indication that the
suspect is violating the law.”). For example, in Sorrel v. McGuigan, 38 Fed.Appx. 970, 973 (4th
Cir. 2002) (unpublished) the Fourth Circuit denied qualified immunity to an officer who seized
an individual for lawfully carrying weapon. Noting that a state statute made the plaintiff's
Case 6:08-cv-00994-BB-LAM Document 48 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 12 of 16
13
concealed carrying of the weapon legal, the court found that, though "[q]ualified immunity
protects law enforcement officers from bad guesses in gray areas," the fact that the plaintiff's
actions were clearly permissible under the statute meant that the officer "was not in a gray area."
Id. at 974.
The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited
Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. See N.M. Stat. § 30-7 et seq.
Because both New Mexico law and the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unjustified seizure
were clearly established, and a reasonable officer is presumed to know clearly established law,
see, e.g., Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-9, qualified immunity does not protect Defendants.
Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment
is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity.

 

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

zekester wrote:

Actually there is CASE LAW

Relying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts
have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific,
legitimate reason. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 21; Fuerschbach,439 F.3d at 1204-6 (holding that a

seizure without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity "would violate the most minimal
Fourth Amendment standard"); Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d at 1228 ("Where no legitimate basis
exists for detaining [an individual], a seizure is plainly unreasonable."); Duran, 904 F.2d at 1378
("If there is one irreducible minimum in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is that a police
officer may not detain an individual simply on the basis of suspicion in the air. No matter how
peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person's conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop
unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed or that there is
an imminent danger to persons or property."); see also Lawrence Rosenthal, Second Amendment
Plumbing after Heller: Standards of Scrutiny, Incorporation, Well-Regulated Militias, and
Criminal Street Gangs, 41 Urb. Law. 1, 37 (2009) (“When applicable law does not ban carrying a
firearm, however, the Fourth Amendment does not permit a stop-and-frisk regardless of any
indication that a suspect is armed or potentially dangerous because there is no indication that the
suspect is violating the law.”). For example, in Sorrel v. McGuigan, 38 Fed.Appx. 970, 973 (4th
Cir. 2002) (unpublished) the Fourth Circuit denied qualified immunity to an officer who seized
an individual for lawfully carrying weapon. Noting that a state statute made the plaintiff's
Case 6:08-cv-00994-BB-LAM Document 48 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 12 of 16
13
concealed carrying of the weapon legal, the court found that, though "[q]ualified immunity
protects law enforcement officers from bad guesses in gray areas," the fact that the plaintiff's
actions were clearly permissible under the statute meant that the officer "was not in a gray area."
Id. at 974.
The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited
Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. See N.M. Stat. § 30-7 et seq.
Because both New Mexico law and the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unjustified seizure
were clearly established, and a reasonable officer is presumed to know clearly established law,
see, e.g., Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-9, qualified immunity does not protect Defendants.
Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment
is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity.

But that is 10th Circuit...

 

[zekester]

imported post

Based on this precedent, it will be upheld anywhere....IMO

 

[JSlack7851]

imported post

I decided in April to go on an open carry walk to a nearby store. I had my handgun clearly visible on my belt and slung my AK across my back. It was not loaded. I know, I know. But I was thinking that being unloaded it wouldn't be scary as being loaded.
I get to the store and waited in the parking lot with my wife while my kids were looking for whatever it was they wanted.
I watched the cruisers pull in and they came at me guns drawn and ordered me to the ground.
They cuffed me, attempted to humilate me for carry what they called an SKS. They called into the prosecutor and I assume he said to let me go. They asked if I wanted them to hold onto my guns for safekeeping. Thanked me for wasting their time and said if I was on this property again they would arrest me for criminal trespass. I have attempted to talk to the police chief and the mayor to come to a resolution about this and they refuse to acknowledge that they did anything wrong.
There are more, much details to all of this but until I have all of my options cleared out I will not be posting them.
I have attempted to seek counsel but they either don't get back to me or don't understand that open carry is legal.


This needs posted @

http://www.ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=43107

Cleveland Heights Police did the same to another member and paid (undisclosed amount)

http://www.ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=36887