FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry stop

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

User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry stop

Post by BB62 »

Found on OCDO: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... terry-stop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... -fear.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"...But under the bill, he said, an officer would be limited in taking such steps because he or she would need probable cause to stop the person — meaning the person would have to do something that appeared to warrant an arrest..."

So, according to the FOP, it appears that OC is RAS.
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)

Got Freedom?

Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
User avatar
Pecker
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by Pecker »

I think that provision is merely highlighting what is the status quo.
“I think it will complicate prosecution of those offenses, because you can make anything you want out of that,” he said. “It’s ammunition for a defense lawyer.”
No bull excrement...it also limits the prosecution of law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong.
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by BB62 »

Pecker wrote:I think that provision is merely highlighting what is the status quo...
I disagree. It's putting on paper what a number of officers and departments disregard.
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)

Got Freedom?

Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
User avatar
deanimator
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Rocky River

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by deanimator »

If the FOP is against something, it's usually a good idea.

Remember, they're the guys who think that convicted wife beaters should be able to carry guns... but only if they also carry badges.
Life comes at you fast. Be prepared to shoot it in the head when it does.
curmudgeon3
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:31 pm

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by curmudgeon3 »

Simple solution ..... take away their badges.
User avatar
Pecker
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by Pecker »

BB62 wrote:
Pecker wrote:I think that provision is merely highlighting what is the status quo...
I disagree. It's putting on paper what a number of officers and departments disregard.

I was referring more towards what is established via case law, but I see your point.
mreising
Posts: 6274
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:07 pm
Location: Warren County

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by mreising »

The FOP always wheels out the same old tired arguments at every opponent testimony. :roll:
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny

Mark
NRA Training Counselor-Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, Reloading, Personal Protection in the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home, Home Firearms Safety, Chief RSO. NRA Endowment Life member.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by djthomas »

BB62 wrote:"...But under the bill, he said, an officer would be limited in taking such steps because he or she would need probable cause to stop the person — meaning the person would have to do something that appeared to warrant an arrest..."
They should really talk to the Columbus Law Department before they suppose to understand how the law currently stands today.
Karock
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Dublin, OH

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by Karock »

I admit confusion ref:
Under current law, for example, if a person carrying a gun is seen pacing in front of a store or a park playground, an officer can stop and question that person, said Mike Weinman, a retired Columbus police officer and now a lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.
Such a stop can help establish why the person is there and whether he or she is carrying the weapon legally, he said. “It could be as simple as a quick ID check and walking away.”
Is that not the definition of a Terry Stop, and not legal? Am I misunderstanding something, or is he wrong in this article?
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by JediSkipdogg »

Karock wrote:I admit confusion ref:
Under current law, for example, if a person carrying a gun is seen pacing in front of a store or a park playground, an officer can stop and question that person, said Mike Weinman, a retired Columbus police officer and now a lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.
Such a stop can help establish why the person is there and whether he or she is carrying the weapon legally, he said. “It could be as simple as a quick ID check and walking away.”
Is that not the definition of a Terry Stop, and not legal? Am I misunderstanding something, or is he wrong in this article?
He's wrong. The police have to "reasonably suspect the person is involved in criminal activity." So under his example, he can't stop and question that person.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
Karock
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Dublin, OH

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by Karock »

JediSkipdogg wrote:
Karock wrote:I admit confusion ref:
Under current law, for example, if a person carrying a gun is seen pacing in front of a store or a park playground, an officer can stop and question that person, said Mike Weinman, a retired Columbus police officer and now a lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.
Such a stop can help establish why the person is there and whether he or she is carrying the weapon legally, he said. “It could be as simple as a quick ID check and walking away.”
Is that not the definition of a Terry Stop, and not legal? Am I misunderstanding something, or is he wrong in this article?
He's wrong. The police have to "reasonably suspect the person is involved in criminal activity." So under his example, he can't stop and question that person.
Ok. That was my understanding. Wanted to be sure, or at least as sure as I can be from the interwebs. :lol:
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by Werz »

JediSkipdogg wrote:
Karock wrote:I admit confusion ref:
Under current law, for example, if a person carrying a gun is seen pacing in front of a store or a park playground, an officer can stop and question that person, said Mike Weinman, a retired Columbus police officer and now a lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.
Such a stop can help establish why the person is there and whether he or she is carrying the weapon legally, he said. “It could be as simple as a quick ID check and walking away.”
Is that not the definition of a Terry Stop, and not legal? Am I misunderstanding something, or is he wrong in this article?
He's wrong. The police have to "reasonably suspect the person is involved in criminal activity." So under his example, he can't stop and question that person.
In terms of the description given, I believe you are probably right. Nevertheless, there are lawful activities, when combined, which are sufficiently suspicious and disturbing to others that they will constitute a reasonable, articulable suspicion sufficient to detain. The infamous Leonard Embody established that.

Naturally, there are those who will vehemently disagree with that proposal. But they do not have the legal authority to interpret the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals does.
"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
dsk
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:06 am
Location: central ohio

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by dsk »

Right, even the part of town in which the stop occurs can be part of the Terry analysis IIRC, such as a high-crime neighborhod.
Pay your dues.
Splat!!
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:43 am
Location: Middletown, Ohio

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by Splat!! »

Werz wrote: In terms of the description given, I believe you are probably right. Nevertheless, there are lawful activities, when combined, which are sufficiently suspicious and disturbing to others that they will constitute a reasonable, articulable suspicion sufficient to detain. The infamous Leonard Embody established that.
This what I don't get.....Granted, he done what he done. But that whole do not talk to law enforcement can work very much against you....They took him into custody because of not knowing if gun or silencer is legal or not.....Tell them the facts only, if innocent......

If I am in my backyard late at night and someone calls PD for whatever reason.....Then I decide not to speak to them, or identify myself when they arrive ya think they will just let me be.......?

There is pushing the sides of box and then there is BrainDead.....
"Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

Splat!! wrote:...They took him into custody because of not knowing if gun or silencer is legal or not...
This is exactly right. And THAT is why it is exactly wrong.

I'm not trying to defend Mr. Embody, but...

In Ohio, a law enforcement officer cannot stop me just to see if I have a valid driver license.

They have to have RAS of criminal activity.

Driving a car is not a crime, if you follow the law.

Owning a gun is not a crime, if you follow the law.

Carrying a gun is not a crime, if you follow the law.

Putting a suppressor on a gun is not a crime, if you follow the law.

There has to be RAS that you have BROKEN THE LAW before they can stop you!

They can NOT stop you and THEN check and see if you are breaking the law!
MyWifeSaidYes
Post Reply