Your disagreement is noted. Unfortunately, your opinion is contrary to law. Carrying a firearm, openly or concealed, within 1000 feet of a school is a violation of federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A), § 921(a)(25)(B). There are a number of affirmative defenses. 18 U.S.C. § (q)(2)(B). However, aside from the private property and locked container provisions [(B)(i),(iii)], none would be immediately apparent to a police officer. Therefore, a reasonable suspicion to detain would exist. United States v. Lewis, 674 F.2d 1298, 1304 (11th Cir. 2012), quoting Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 (2000).BB62 wrote:No, but you said that they would have RAS, and I disagreed - and still do.MyWifeSaidYes wrote:And, BB62, if you consider these two things together:
then expect to be stopped.MyWifeSaidYes wrote:...They would have RAS because you are in the 1000' limit...
[and]
...Dublin police have proven themselves to not be well-trained on laws regarding firearms...
I never said it would be a LEGITIMATE stop. Right?
If Karock is openly carrying a firearm on his own property, under circumstances which make it readily apparent that he lives there, reasonable suspicion to detain probably does not exist; if he is openly carrying a firearm while out walking the dogs in a federally-defined "school zone," that may be enough to constitute a reasonable suspicion. The real issue here is not so much reasonable suspicion as it is jurisdiction. Local law enforcement officers don't have the jurisdiction to enforce that federal provision. However, if he does it often enough - thus scaring the sheep and causing them to fear for their lambs - local law enforcement might call the local BATFE office. By the same token, if Karock has an Ohio CHL, local law enforcement will probably learn that pretty quickly, and thus, they will have notice of the affirmative defense, thereby obviating future suspicions.