Central Ohio Police Adapting To 'Baiting' Tactics By The Pub

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
BobK
Posts: 15602
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:26 pm
Location: Houston TX (formerly Franklin County)

Re: Central Ohio Police Adapting To 'Baiting' Tactics By The

Post by BobK »

BB62 wrote:
MyWifeSaidYes wrote:..."Open carrying is not a crime."...

...Unless you are within 1000 feet of a school....
NOT illegal.
Licensed open carry on public property within 1000 feet of school: perfectly legal.

Unlicensed open carry on public property within 1000 feet of school: totally illegal.

The key determinant is licensed versus unlicensed. The mode of carry (open) is irrelevant.
I am a: NRA Life Member, Texas State Rifle Association Life Member, Texas Firearms Coalition Gold member, OFCC Patron Member, former JFPO member (pre-SAF).

This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
More Obamination. Idiots. Can't we find an electable (R) for 2016?
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Central Ohio Police Adapting To 'Baiting' Tactics By The

Post by BB62 »

BobK wrote:
BB62 wrote:
MyWifeSaidYes wrote:..."Open carrying is not a crime."...

...Unless you are within 1000 feet of a school....
NOT illegal.
...Unlicensed open carry on public property within 1000 feet of school: totally illegal...
As I said, NOT illegal.

Certain people just want to ignore the USSC's slamming of the use of the commerce clause in the original 1000' case and subsequent reinforcement of the principle in later cases. Congress' re-passing of the same 1000' BS doesn't make it any more legal.

Maybe I'll round up a test subject, and my favorite sparring partner can supply a willing prosecutor.

More when I'm feeling better.
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
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: Central Ohio Police Adapting To 'Baiting' Tactics By The

Post by Werz »

BobK wrote:
BB62 wrote:
MyWifeSaidYes wrote:..."Open carrying is not a crime."...

...Unless you are within 1000 feet of a school....
NOT illegal.
...Unlicensed open carry on public property within 1000 feet of school: totally illegal...
BB62 wrote:As I said, NOT illegal.

Certain people just want to ignore the USSC's slamming of the use of the commerce clause in the original 1000' case and subsequent reinforcement of the principle in later cases. Congress' re-passing of the same 1000' BS doesn't make it any more legal.
<sigh> Here we go again ...
  • In 1995, The United States Supreme Court struck down former 18 U.S.C. §922(q), holding that "the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce," and "§ 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element that would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce." United State v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
  • In 1996, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. §922(q) by adding a jurisdictional element to the offense that the "firearm *** has moved in or *** otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce[.]" Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. A, Title I, § 101(f).
  • In 1999, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Congress had fixed §922(q) by adding the interstate commerce provision, which must be proved as an element of the offense, and a conviction under that subsection was upheld. United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999)
  • In 2005, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Congress had fixed §922(q) by adding the interstate commerce provision, which must be proved as an element of the offense, and a conviction under that subsection was upheld. United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005)
  • In 2007, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals noted that "[t]he current form of the statute contains amendments enacted in the aftermath of United States v. Lopez (Citation omitted) to provide necessary connections to interstate commerce." United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 602 (1st Cir. 2007)
It is what it is. Wishing it wasn't so won't change that, no matter how many coins you throw down the wishing well.
"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.
Splat!!
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:43 am
Location: Middletown, Ohio

Re: Central Ohio Police Adapting To 'Baiting' Tactics By The

Post by Splat!! »

Little more extensive library to sort thru.....But in reality find one in which they were charged only for the Federal GFSZ law, the GFSZ is an add-on..I could be wrong, does happen...........sometimes

In essence, Title 18 U.S.C Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922(q) known as the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 currently on the books, effectively bans all concealed carry reciprocity agreements between States, by making it illegal for any person to have a functional firearm within 1000 Feet of the property line of any Elementary or High School in our country, with very few exceptions.

Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922 (unlawful acts)
United States Code - TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PART I - CRIMES - CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS - section 922

BATFE Opinion (2002) on Reciprocity: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The original version of this law, passed in 1990, was struck down by the US Supreme Court in "United States v Lopez (1995)," because Congress had not claimed a connection to "interstate commerce," however the second version, the one which is currently on the books, was upheld as recently as 2005 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case United States v Dorsey.

One exception to this law, is if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container.

A second exception is having the firearm "on private property not part of school grounds." Remember, the roads/highways/sidewalks are not private property, so this exception does not apply while driving on public streets.

A third exception, is if the person possessing the firearm has a concealed carry permit issued by the State in which the school zone is located. This means that as the law is written, and as it has been interpreted by BATFE, if a person with a concealed carry permit is in any State other than the State that physically issued their permit, and they drive within 1000 feet of any K-12 school (which is impossible to avoid) with an unlocked gun, they are committing a federal crime. Violation of this law is punishable by up to five (5) years in federal prison and a conviction will bar a person from owning firearms for life


There was even a case in 2000 (United States v Tait) where an Alabama concealed carry permit holder was prosecuted under this federal law, for carrying a firearm in Alabama. The prosecution claimed that Mr. Tait's Alabama permit did not exempt him from the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act, even in Alabama.

In another case, United States v Nieves-Castaño, a woman was actually convicted under the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act for having a firearm in her home! Her home (a third floor apartment) just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school and it happened to be public property (a housing project). She was not a student, and her conduct had absolutely nothing to do with the school. This conviction was upheld by the Federal Appeals Court for the First Circuit in 2007.

Ironically, law enforcement officers carrying a handgun under LEOSA are not exempt from the GFSZA, unless they are acting in their official capacity. This means that a law enforcement officer, carrying under LEOSA while on vacation with their family, can not drive within 1000 feet of a school without risking five years in federal prison.

Also note, there is no exception in the law for the discharge of a firearm by anyone other than a law enforcement officer acting in their official capacity on public property while in a school zone (within 1000 feet of the property line of any K-12 school), under any circumstance. This could conceivably be an issue if you're the victim of a violent crime while on public property such as roads, sidewalks, fair grounds, city parks, etc.


Many people think this law has never been enforced. Unfortunately this is not the case. This revised law has indeed been enforced, against several people, below are a few examples:

United States v Danks (1999) USA v. Jordan Danks

United States v Tait (2000) (Attempted prosecution of an Alabama permit holder) 202 F3d 1320 United States v. Tait | OpenJurist

United States v Haywood (2003) UNITED STATES of America v. Ira HAYWOOD, Appellant.

United States v Dorsey (2005) (Upheld the revised law as constitutional) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nikos Delano DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

United States v Smith (2005) USA v. Smith This case says that the mere movement of the gun's component parts in Interstate Commerce is enough to satisfy the jurisdictional element needed for conviction.

United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Belen NIEVES-CASTAÑO, Defendant, Appellant. A woman was convicted for having a gun in her home; which happened to be within 1000ft of a school.

United States v Weekes (2007) [UNITED]UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PHINEHAS WEEKES, Appellant STATES OF AMERICA v. PHINEHAS WEEKES[/url]

United States v Benally (2007) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1364658.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008) Untitled #1668141
"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."
BriKuz
Posts: 698
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: Ashland County, OH

Re: Central Ohio Police Adapting To 'Baiting' Tactics By The

Post by BriKuz »

In United States v Tait, charges the case was dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Circuit Court... yes, he had to pay, but he also clarified case law on the issue...
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Central Ohio Police Adapting To 'Baiting' Tactics By The

Post by BB62 »

Werz wrote:
BB62 wrote:As I said, NOT illegal.

Certain people just want to ignore the USSC's slamming of the use of the commerce clause in the original 1000' case and subsequent reinforcement of the principle in later cases. Congress' re-passing of the same 1000' BS doesn't make it any more legal.
<sigh> Here we go again ...
  • In 1995, The United States Supreme Court struck down former 18 U.S.C. §922(q), holding that "the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce," and "§ 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element that would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce." United State v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
  • In 1996, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. §922(q) by adding a jurisdictional element to the offense that the "firearm *** has moved in or *** otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce[.]" Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. A, Title I, § 101(f).
  • In 1999, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Congress had fixed §922(q) by adding the interstate commerce provision, which must be proved as an element of the offense, and a conviction under that subsection was upheld. United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999)
  • In 2005, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Congress had fixed §922(q) by adding the interstate commerce provision, which must be proved as an element of the offense, and a conviction under that subsection was upheld. United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005)
  • In 2007, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals noted that "[t]he current form of the statute contains amendments enacted in the aftermath of United States v. Lopez (Citation omitted) to provide necessary connections to interstate commerce." United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 602 (1st Cir. 2007)
It is what it is. Wishing it wasn't so won't change that, no matter how many coins you throw down the wishing well.
That's some good stuff to chew on, Werz.

Clearly the lower courts have not recognized the USSC's clarification about what is and what isn't "commerce", however. It doesn't surprise me that the Ninth and First circuits assert the standard has been fulfilled, but I still maintain that that's baloney. I can't remember the case name... Printz?

What say I come up your way and try it out? :mrgreen:
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
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: Central Ohio Police Adapting To 'Baiting' Tactics By The

Post by WY_Not »

Probably been said but gotta disagree with you on this one MWSY. Unless there is a mention of some possibly illegal activity or even suspicious activity, they have NO reason to respond to a call regarding LEGAL activity.

Situation #1
"911 What is your emergency?"
"There's a man with a gun walking down the street."
"Is he pointing it at anyone or threatening them?"
"No, he's just walking his dog...but he's got a gun."
"That's not a crime."
"But he's got a gun."
"That's not a crime, have a nice day."

Situation #2
"911 What is your emergency?"
"There's a man with driving a car down the street."
"Is he operating recklessly or causing any harm to people or property?"
"No, he's just driving down the street...but it is a big SUV."
"That's not a crime."
"But he's got an SUV."
"That's not a crime, have a nice day."


How are the two situations any different? Unless there is some indication of criminal activity/behavior there is no need for LEOs to respond to legal activities.


MyWifeSaidYes wrote: If every caller could provide perfect AND complete information to the dispatcher, maybe.

But what about the trail of blood behind the MWAG that the caller forgot to mention? Or the group of people behind him trying to flag down help?

Neither situation means the MWAG is actually a bad guy, but I would like someone to investigate.

That won't happen if the call is dropped at the dispatcher.

The police SHOULD respond, but not treat the OC'er like a criminal without cause.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: Central Ohio Police Adapting To 'Baiting' Tactics By The

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

WY_Not wrote:Probably been said but gotta disagree with you on this one MWSY. Unless there is a mention of some possibly illegal activity or even suspicious activity, they have NO reason to respond to a call regarding LEGAL activity...
What I was trying to point out is that the 911 dispatcher can't see what's going on and has no way to tell if they are getting the full story from the caller.

A quick "eyes on" the situation can be a good thing.

There is no law against sitting in your car parked across from a playground full of little children and watching them for hours on end.

But a call to the police, even the non-emergency number, might be prudent.
MyWifeSaidYes
Post Reply