OC NEAR a school / property

[Werz]

And, BB62, if you consider these two things together:

...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...

then expect to be stopped.

I never said it would be a LEGITIMATE stop. Right?

No, but you said that they would have RAS, and I disagreed - and still do.

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).

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.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

...they will have notice of the affirmative defense, thereby obviating future suspicions.

Unless they WANT to harass him...

...like this poor guy:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/21/v ... tches.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BB62]

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)...

After reading the cases you cited, I have to ask: "What kind of game are you playing?" U.S. v Lewis and Illinois v Wardlow have nothing to do with the question of whether a local officer can detain an individual for a potential violation of Federal law which is clearly not within their jurisdiction.

Yet, you assert without caveats that RAS exists - then back off that assertion in your second paragraph (bold and color are mine):

...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.

Then you go on to make it clear that the locals might call the BATFE - to do what? Check the legality of the carrier that you assert that the locals have a right to do? Or, in your construct can the locals just detain an individual while they call the ATF and have the ATF tell them "Are you serious????"

Either way, I strongly suggest that you re-read Lopez, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html, which made it clear that effect on "interstate commerce" or not, not only was the previous "school zone" law invalid, but it follows that the new, "improved" version would be too - for reasons that Lopez makes clear.

If, after all this you still think that the cops have RAS to check out one's compliance with a Federal law not of their local or state jurisdiction, I'll drop up your way and we'll run it through the courts. Sound like a plan?

[Werz]

Yet, you assert without caveats that RAS exists - then back off that assertion in your second paragraph ...

I didn't back off anything. For a federal officer, reasonable suspicion exists from the beginning. The second paragraph related to jurisdiction. People who do real legal writing tend to write like that. IANAL(BIPOOTI) types just post lots of eye-rolly icons.

Either way, I strongly suggest that you re-read Lopez, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html, which made it clear that effect on "interstate commerce" or not, not only was the previous "school zone" law invalid, but it follows that the new, "improved" version would be too - for reasons that Lopez makes clear.

I already deconstructed the Lopez argument which The Paralegal® tried to make in OCDO-Ohio, and suddenly, he disappeared. I won't re-post that here. If The Paralegal® wants to make that argument here, he can do so. I have already confirmed that his departure from OFCC was not by a ban, but by self-imposed exile. If he wants to float the Lopez argument here, he should do so himself and not use you as a proxy.

If, after all this you still think that the cops have RAS to check out one's compliance with a Federal law not of their local or state jurisdiction ...

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.

I figured the extra large font might help you remember what I wrote. It is frequently used in books for younger children, who also like to yell and stomp their feet when someone tells them something they don't want to hear.

And there it is!

[techguy85]

Yet, you assert without caveats that RAS exists - then back off that assertion in your second paragraph ...

I didn't back off anything. For a federal officer, reasonable suspicion exists from the beginning. The second paragraph related to jurisdiction. People who do real legal writing tend to write like that. IANAL(BIPOOTI) types just post lots of eye-rolly icons.

Either way, I strongly suggest that you re-read Lopez, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html, which made it clear that effect on "interstate commerce" or not, not only was the previous "school zone" law invalid, but it follows that the new, "improved" version would be too - for reasons that Lopez makes clear.

I already deconstructed the Lopez argument which The Paralegal® tried to make in OCDO-Ohio, and suddenly, he disappeared. I won't re-post that here. If The Paralegal® wants to make that argument here, he can do so. I have already confirmed that his departure from OFCC was not by a ban, but by self-imposed exile. If he wants to float the Lopez argument here, he should do so himself and not use you as a proxy.

If, after all this you still think that the cops have RAS to check out one's compliance with a Federal law not of their local or state jurisdiction ...

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.

I figured the extra large font might help you remember what I wrote. It is frequently used in books for younger children, who also like to yell and stomp their feet when someone tells them something they don't want to hear.

And there it is!

And, we also heard earlier that some local officers may have been deputized by federal authorities and thus could theoretically arrest for or investigate violations of federal law, unless this isn't true? Until the law is actually ruled unconstitutional by a court with the authority to do so, saying that it is likely unconstitutional, no matter how much we might agree that it shouldn't be, won't soften the blow any and relying on such would be... Unwise in my opinion.

[Werz]

And, we also heard earlier that some local officers may have been deputized by federal authorities and thus could theoretically arrest for or investigate violations of federal law, unless this isn't true?

A few weeks ago, I rode with one of them. She's still employed by a local agency, but she was visibly displaying federal credentials.

Until the law is actually ruled unconstitutional by a court with the authority to do so, saying that it is likely unconstitutional, no matter how much we might agree that it shouldn't be, won't soften the blow any and relying on such would be... Unwise in my opinion.

As I said before, I will not re-post my argument from another forum. Suffice it to say that multiple U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have upheld the post-Lopez amendment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) as being in compliance with the Interstate Commerce Clause.

[cashman966]

I already deconstructed the Lopez argument which The Paralegal® tried to make in OCDO-Ohio, and suddenly, he disappeared.

The one constant that can be depended on. He is like an illegal dumper, drops his trash and runs, leaving it for others to clean up.

[BB62]

...If he wants to float the Lopez argument here, he should do so himself and not use you as a proxy...

I'm no one's proxy.

My offer stands, by the way.