The Challenge to all Ohioans who care about our rights.

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Michael Courtney
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:31 pm

Re: The Challenge To All Ohioans Who Care About Our Rights

Post by Michael Courtney »

ballistic wrote:Frankly I am beside myself with wonder and amazement regarding the pre-legal CCW interactions with LEO's some people have posted here. I don't question anyone's truthfulness. I just don't understand why anyone wasn't arrested on these occasions. While it is true the "officer on the scene" can exercise discretion in a given circumstance, the overwhelming majority (i.e., 99.99%) of LEO's would never let a person carrying a concealed weapon simply "walk." (Scene back at the station: "What! You mean you stopped a person with a concealed weapon and you didn't arrest him?") The prevailing attitude would be "Tell it to the judge." That is what "Klein v. Leis" was all about. I can only conclude these posted incidents are truly the rare exceptions to the rule. You should acknowledge yourselves as a extraordinarily fortunate group.
I disagree. Prosecutors are reluctant to charge honest citizens, especially in cases where they are unlikely to succeed at trial. And LEO's are unlikely to arrest honest citizens who are unlikely to be charged.

Very few law abiding Ohio citizens who were charged ONLY with carrying a concealed weapon have been found guilty by a jury where an affirmative defense is presented. Most Ohio convictions for carrying a concealed weapon in Ohio were in 1) plea bargains 2) cases where jury trial was waived 3) cases where the concealed weapons charge is one on a much longer list of charges 4) cases where an affirmative defense was not presented 5) cases where an affirmative defense is presented, but the defendant is not eligible (under 21, already a felon, subject to restraining order, carried in prohibited area).

The vast majority of law abiding citizens who are not under disability and were charged only with carrying a concealed weapon and insisted on a jury trial in order to present an affirmative defense either got the charges dismissed or were acquitted by the jury.

In addition, many LEOs have a healthy respect for the 2nd amendment and aren't willing to trample citizen's rights regardless of department policy. Even LEOs who don't fully respect the 2nd amendment realize that Ohio's RKBA is even broader, and neither LEOs nor prosecutors were eager to create high-profile test cases for the Ohio's concealed carry laws by dragging honest citizens into court. The more the general public became aware of how hard concealed carry convictions are to get, the more the general public would be emboldened to pack heat under the affirmative defense laws. The best way to keep concealed carry acquittals out of the news was not to bring charges.

Our local department was really fond of searching vehicles and made a large number of concealed weapon arrests as a result. The local prosecutors didn't want to touch the cases where the only chage was carrying a concealed weapon, the citizen had a clean record, and there was a hint of presenting an affirmative defense.

And even most of the LEOs who don't care about the above concerns simply have better things to do than the paperwork and court appearances generated by arresting honest citizens. Almost all LEO's have a healthy respect for the fact that their job is to get the bad guys off the street, and they aren't real eager to waste time hassling the good guys. The only LEO's who tend to arrest a citizen when concealed carry is the only factor are those anti-gunners who truly believe that mere possession of a firearm makes someone a menace to society. And even these jack-booted thugs get the message when prosecutors don't bring charges, judges dismiss, and juries acquit.

Michael Courtney
Every day is 9/11 for unborn Americans.
awalls
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:53 am

Re: The Challenge To All Ohioans Who Care About Our Rights

Post by awalls »

ballistic wrote:Frankly I am beside myself with wonder and amazement regarding the pre-legal CCW interactions with LEO's some people have posted here. I don't question anyone's truthfulness. I just don't understand why anyone wasn't arrested on these occasions. While it is true the "officer on the scene" can exercise discretion in a given circumstance, the overwhelming majority (i.e., 99.99%) of LEO's would never let a person carrying a concealed weapon simply "walk." (Scene back at the station: "What! You mean you stopped a person with a concealed weapon and you didn't arrest him?") The prevailing attitude would be "Tell it to the judge." That is what "Klein v. Leis" was all about. I can only conclude these posted incidents are truly the rare exceptions to the rule. You should acknowledge yourselves as a extraordinarily fortunate group.
I have to agree here there are far more cases that resulted in criminal charges being taken down to the station stripped searched then found guilty of felony concealed weapons carry. I will point out that most of Michaels senarios involved a shotgun which wasnt concealed so they have no relevance in this discussion. They did not fall under affirmative defense. From the little detail provided it sounds as if was openly carrying which was legal. Also unless I be mistaken HB12 ended affirmative defense for all weapons including shotguns and rifles.
Michael Courtney
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:31 pm

Re: The Challenge To All Ohioans Who Care About Our Rights

Post by Michael Courtney »

awalls wrote: I have to agree here there are far more cases that resulted in criminal charges being taken down to the station stripped searched then found guilty of felony concealed weapons carry.
I challenge you to reference 10 cases where concealed carry was the only charge AND in which a jury convicted in spite of an affirmative defense offered on behalf of a defendant without a criminal record who was not otherwise disqualified from possessing a handgun (felony, under 21, etc.) If they can't get a plea bargain, even anti-gun prosecutors are extremely reluctant to bring these cases before a jury because the resulting failures to convict tend to embolden other citizens to carry.

Most of the time a defendant was found guilty, they plead guilty, waived their right to trial by jury, are charged with a list of offenses, cannot legally possess a handgun, or do not offer an affirmative defense. You're trying to claim that the affirmative defense doesn't work based on cases where it wasn't tried.
awalls wrote: I will point out that most of Michaels senarios involved a shotgun which wasnt concealed so they have no relevance in this discussion. They did not fall under affirmative defense. From the little detail provided it sounds as if was openly carrying which was legal.
Only two of the cases I mentioned involved a shotgun. The "don't go for yours and I won't go for mine", "thanks for telling me", and "no problem" examples I gave were all cases where I was carrying a pistol.
awalls wrote: Also unless I be mistaken HB12 ended affirmative defense for all weapons including shotguns and rifles.
You really should be more familiar with the law before making such speculations. Rifles, shotguns, knives, and all other weapons other than handguns and dangerous ordnance may still be carried under the affirmative defense. In addition, handguns may be carried concealed in one's home under the affirmative defense.

The currently applicable ORC 2923.12 reads

(D) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (A)(1) of this section of carrying or having control of a weapon other than a handgun and other than a dangerous ordnance that the actor was not otherwise prohibited by law from having the weapon and that any of the following applies:

(1) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes while the actor was engaged in or was going to or from the actor's lawful business or occupation, which business or occupation was of a character or was necessarily carried on in a manner or at a time or place as to render the actor particularly susceptible to criminal attack, such as would justify a prudent person in going armed.


(2) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes while the actor was engaged in a lawful activity and had reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack upon the actor, a member of the actor's family, or the actor's home, such as would justify a prudent person in going armed.

(3) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for any lawful purpose and while in the actor's own home.


(4) The weapon was being transported in a motor vehicle for any lawful purpose, was not on the actor's person, and, if the weapon was a firearm, was carried in compliance with the applicable requirements of division (C) of section 2923.16 of the Revised Code.

(E) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (A) of this section of carrying or having control of a handgun other than a dangerous ordnance that the actor was not otherwise prohibited by law from having the handgun and that the handgun was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for any lawful purpose and while in the actor's own home, provided that this affirmative defense is not available unless the actor, prior to arriving at the actor's own home, did not transport or possess the handgun in a motor vehicle in a manner prohibited by division (B) or (C) of section 2923.16 of the Revised Code while the motor vehicle was being operated on a street, highway, or other public or private property used by the public for vehicular traffic.

Michael Courtney
Every day is 9/11 for unborn Americans.
ballistic
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:06 am

The Challenge To All Ohioans Who Care About OUr Rights

Post by ballistic »

Mr. McNaughten, obviously Ohio's prior prohibition on concealed carry and its affirmative defenses failed to produce their desired effect in you, i.e., of bullying you into submission. Do you believe the thousands of us who worked to make CCW legal in this state were wrongheaded in our efforts?
ballistic
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:06 am

Post by ballistic »

Sorry, my post of 7/25/05 at 4:15 p.m. should have been directed to Michael Courtney.
Michael Courtney
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:31 pm

Re: The Challenge To All Ohioans Who Care About OUr Rights

Post by Michael Courtney »

ballistic wrote:Mr. McNaughten, obviously Ohio's prior prohibition on concealed carry and its affirmative defenses failed to produce their desired effect in you, i.e., of bullying you into submission. Do you believe the thousands of us who worked to make CCW legal in this state were wrongheaded in our efforts?
Absolutely not. I believe the state as a whole is better off under the current laws, than under the affirmative defense laws that it existed before. But there are tradeoffs, and in a few ways the affirmative defense was better. (It was instantly available, fewer places were off limits, no requirement to notify LEOs, names not published in newspaper, records not kept at Sherrif's office, no government bureaucracy, no waste of money on license fees or rudimentary training.)

Ideally, we would have both concealed carry and the affirmative defense. An early version of HB12 had this, but it was removed in negotions with the Senate.

Michael Courtney
Every day is 9/11 for unborn Americans.
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Re: The Challenge To All Ohioans Who Care About OUr Rights

Post by Petrovich »

Michael Courtney wrote:
ballistic wrote:Mr. McNaughten, obviously Ohio's prior prohibition on concealed carry and its affirmative defenses failed to produce their desired effect in you, i.e., of bullying you into submission. Do you believe the thousands of us who worked to make CCW legal in this state were wrongheaded in our efforts?
Absolutely not. I believe the state as a whole is better off under the current laws, than under the affirmative defense laws that it existed before. But there are tradeoffs, and in a few ways the affirmative defense was better. (It was instantly available, fewer places were off limits, no requirement to notify LEOs, names not published in newspaper, records not kept at Sherrif's office, no government bureaucracy, no waste of money on license fees or rudimentary training.)

Ideally, we would have both concealed carry and the affirmative defense. An early version of HB12 had this, but it was removed in negotions with the Senate.

Michael Courtney
I still talk to people who don't get their CHL because they think the law is too restrictive. Personally I think those folks fall into one or more of three categories.

1. They can't get a CHL because of some problem on their record.
2. They're too cheap to part with 45 bucks and the cost of the training.
3. Somebody filled their head with a lot of bullsugar.

The new law IS too restrictive; but it's a darn sight better than what we had. Affirmative defense was WAY too restrictive.

Would I still like to have affirmative defense in addition to HB12??? Heck yeah. Would I trade back HB12 for affirmative defense.....Heck no!!
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Re: The Challenge To All Ohioans Who Care About OUr Rights

Post by TunnelRat »

ballistic wrote:Mr. McNaughten, obviously Ohio's prior prohibition on concealed carry and its affirmative defenses failed to produce their desired effect in you, i.e., of bullying you into submission.

I don't bully easily...
ballistic wrote:Do you believe the thousands of us who worked to make CCW legal in this state were wrongheaded in our efforts?
No way, I much prefer the new CHL even with all its restrictions and stupidities. The primary problem with the old affirmative defense was that it was a defense -- it was only good if I went to court. Every time I had to deal with a police officer I held my breath. Just because I was right and legal didn't mean that a cranky cop on a bad day couldn't decide to put me through a legal wringer anyhow. Even though most didn't, any one of 'em could, and that's a heckuva way to carry.

Besides, with the reciprocity provision I can carry in many more states now than I could before, back when I used my Maine, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania non-resident permits. Carry in Michigan was really iffy using a non-resident permit. Some cops would honor them, and some cops wouldn't. The DA in Kalamazoo County promised (promised!) to prosecute anybody he caught carrying on an out of state non-resident permit. No thank you. I much prefer our new screwed up law.

And, by the way, I was one of those thousands whose letters, phone calls, and visits to our representatives helped bring the new law about.
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
Mark
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Mass email

Post by Mark »

Now that I think about it, my membership has probably expired. You guys need to send out an email to all members who have let their membership expire, if this information is in your database. This can easily be done with PHP.
Post Reply