OC arrest for carrying non-gun

Open Carry is carrying a firearm unconcealed in Ohio. OC does not require a concealed handgun license, but the practice requires intimate knowledge of the law since there are places and situations where OC is prohibited but carrying concealed would be permitted. OC is also likely to attract attention. This forum is for discussion of OC, not for debating the pro's and con's or coordinating any type of protest events.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
glocksmith
Posts: 3918
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Cincinnati/SW Ohio

OC arrest for carrying non-gun

Post by glocksmith »

OK, I know there are tons of YT open carry videos, and I would'nt normally post one here, but this one is different. Allegedly, they arrested this guy who was carrying a black powder percussion revolver - which has been ruled by BATF to NOT be a firearm. It will be interesting to see where this case goes in a court setting. It is unknown what the guy was doing prior to being detained and arrested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8UXEFhyBz4
Give em' Hell Pike!!!
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: OC arrest for carrying non-gun

Post by Werz »

glocksmith wrote:OK, I know there are tons of YT open carry videos, and I would'nt normally post one here, but this one is different. Allegedly, they arrested this guy who was carrying a black powder percussion revolver - which has been ruled by BATF to NOT be a firearm.
And if those were BATFE agents, he would have a good argument. Unfortunately, those appear to be municipal police officers. Federal definitions apply to federal law. State definitions apply to state law. Neither Ohio nor Texas exempts muzzle-loaders from the definition of "firearm." One would be wise to understand that difference.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
Naticarry
Posts: 1745
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:14 pm
Location: South West Ohio

Re: OC arrest for carrying non-gun

Post by Naticarry »

Werz wrote:
glocksmith wrote:OK, I know there are tons of YT open carry videos, and I would'nt normally post one here, but this one is different. Allegedly, they arrested this guy who was carrying a black powder percussion revolver - which has been ruled by BATF to NOT be a firearm.
And if those were BATFE agents, he would have a good argument. Unfortunately, those appear to be municipal police officers. Federal definitions apply to federal law. State definitions apply to state law. Neither Ohio nor Texas exempts muzzle-loaders from the definition of "firearm." One would be wise to understand that difference.
I think in this case actually it's not a BATFE ruling they are referring to. It is Texas penal code 46.01 which does exempt it from the definition of being a firearm. That being said the particular law they are charging him under may have language to include cap and ball pistols.
glocksmith
Posts: 3918
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Cincinnati/SW Ohio

Re: OC arrest for carrying non-gun

Post by glocksmith »

3) "Firearm" means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:(A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or(B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.

Copied and pasted from TPC 46.01
Give em' Hell Pike!!!
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: OC arrest for carrying non-gun

Post by Werz »

glocksmith wrote:3) "Firearm" means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:(A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or(B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.

Copied and pasted from TPC 46.01
I saw that. Read it very carefully.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: OC arrest for carrying non-gun

Post by Werz »

glocksmith wrote:3) "Firearm" means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:(A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or(B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.

Copied and pasted from TPC 46.01
I saw that. Read it very carefully. I have a replica 1858 Colt, and I cannot find anywhere that is has "as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by [Texas Penal Code Chapter 46]." That is part of the sentence, and an essential characteristic of the "non-firearm" firearm described. The wording is a bit confusing to those not familiar with the rest of the chapter (including what form of unusual weapons may be illegal), but they can't just ignore that clause because they don't understand it. It is similar in intent to R.C. 2923.11(L): an exemption of archaic firearms from the general "illegal" classification of "dangerous ordnance" under Ohio law. A classic example is the muzzle-loaded crowfoot boarding pistol, which might qualify as an "automatic firearm" if not exempted.

If Texas Penal Code §46.01(3) had the same wording as 18 U.S.C. §921(3), (16), I might agree with these guys. It doesn't.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
glocksmith
Posts: 3918
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Cincinnati/SW Ohio

Re: OC arrest for carrying non-gun

Post by glocksmith »

My interpretation is different. I read it as - three types of weapons are NOT defined as firearms: 1. those having an attached "bayonet" (eg. Classic Arms "Cutlass Pistol") 2. antique weapons made pre-1899 3. modern replicas of pre-1899 muzzleloading firearms. IANAL, but I believe that the Texas Penal Code is pretty much following the same definitions as used by BATF. I agree with you that the wording could be better, but we all know that legalspeak is confusing (perhaps intentionally) with regard to the positioning of ifs, ands or buts. This case will be interesting for this very reason. I'd like to know how it gets resolved, though we'll probably never hear what happened. It also has all the hallmarks of a setup - guy open carrying an 1858 (who in their right mind does that?) and half a dozen supporters quoting the TPC and videotaping the encounter. Bad behavior which does not help our cause IMHO.
Give em' Hell Pike!!!
User avatar
parbreaker
Posts: 1246
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:50 pm
Location: Fairborn, OH

Re: OC arrest for carrying non-gun

Post by parbreaker »

glocksmith wrote:My interpretation is different. I read it as - three types of weapons are NOT defined as firearms: 1. those having an attached "bayonet" (eg. Classic Arms "Cutlass Pistol") 2. antique weapons made pre-1899 3. modern replicas of pre-1899 muzzleloading firearms. IANAL, but I believe that the Texas Penal Code is pretty much following the same definitions as used by BATF. I agree with you that the wording could be better, but we all know that legalspeak is confusing (perhaps intentionally) with regard to the positioning of ifs, ands or buts. This case will be interesting for this very reason. I'd like to know how it gets resolved, though we'll probably never hear what happened. It also has all the hallmarks of a setup - guy open carrying an 1858 (who in their right mind does that?) and half a dozen supporters quoting the TPC and videotaping the encounter. Bad behavior which does not help our cause IMHO.
Except that's not how it reads. It says "part 1 about bayonets" AND that is "A or B". It's enough to seal the deal, in my eyes...
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: OC arrest for carrying non-gun

Post by Werz »

glocksmith wrote:This case will be interesting for this very reason. I'd like to know how it gets resolved, though we'll probably never hear what happened. It also has all the hallmarks of a setup - guy open carrying an 1858 (who in their right mind does that?) and half a dozen supporters quoting the TPC and videotaping the encounter. Bad behavior which does not help our cause IMHO.
This ain't his first rodeo, either. It appears that, about a month before, Rev. Holcomb was one the folks responsible for prompting the new Starbucks policy. See news story.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
glocksmith
Posts: 3918
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Cincinnati/SW Ohio

Re: OC arrest for carrying non-gun

Post by glocksmith »

The 1, 2 and 3 which I used were my own language - to illustrate my point that I think the TPC is referring to three types of weapons - attached blade (and)pre-1899 muzzleloading (and) modern repros of the former categories. Again, I think the TPC has poorly ordered wording which makes it confusing. IMO they should have started with, and placed emphasis on antique pre-1899 muzzleoading and their corresponding modern repros....especially since that is an umbrella category under which the oddball "knife pistols" would fall. Mention of the knife pistols should have been last in order. Not the reverse.

Interesting Werz. IDK he was involved with the Starbucks thing too. I did see the raw footage of that incident and I thought they were also a bit out of line.
Give em' Hell Pike!!!
Post Reply