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.
SeanC wrote:Every favorable change brings more people from the "I want something changed" camp into the "I'm satisfied" camp. As the latter group grows in size, it becomes more difficult to gain traction for further amendments to our gun laws.
Which is one reason why the past practice of more or less addressing issues one or two at a time may be losing favor to doing a truly comprehensive firearms law overhaul as many other states have done.
True, proposing a comprehensive bill does open the opportunity for mischief but in order to actually happen in Ohio it would have to be at the hands of other Republicans.
SeanC wrote:Every favorable change brings more people from the "I want something changed" camp into the "I'm satisfied" camp. As the latter group grows in size, it becomes more difficult to gain traction for further amendments to our gun laws.
Which is one reason why the past practice of more or less addressing issues one or two at a time may be losing favor to doing a truly comprehensive firearms law overhaul as many other states have done.
True, proposing a comprehensive bill does open the opportunity for mischief but in order to actually happen in Ohio it would have to be at the hands of other Republicans.
I would also posit that if the people in the "I'm satisfied camp" were educated about the current short comings in the law (i.e. clear definitions around the timing requirements on officer notification) they might be moved to the "I want something changed camp". When people realize they can get in hot water due to vagaries in the law they tend to take notice. I would like to think that there are at least some pols that would take it upon themselves to try and correct those types of issue when pointed out to them without a large public outcry.
Isn't there some legal mechanism to use against non uniform enforcement of law? I seem to remember something along those lines for bias in turning a blind eye to B but not A even though both are illegal. My example is there are soooooooooooooooooooooooooo many university students that carry pocket knives. Clearly the pocket clip shining for all to see. Sometimes even a good chunk of the knife body itself sticks up. All those pocket knives never kill anyone. If some people choose to break this law on knives, in the framework of possible prudent measure for self defense, it is wouldn't seem to be much of a stretch that some students (with or without CHL / CCW) choose to break the law prohibiting firearms carry. Whether this actually happens or not there still aren't people being killed by these firearms if they are there. Lord forbid some student actually be seen with a firearm every LEO within a significant distance might flock in. Shall we address the female portion of university populations which carry pepper spray under the pretense of prudent self defense from rape or muggings. These again are students who are not arrested for openly or covertly carrying something illegal. Every student code of conduct law section names these things and more all as illegal weapons.
Uneven enforcement claims are really going to depend on the fact pattern. In the context of a rule it's usually not an all or nothing calculation. Rather the question is whether like cases are treated alike.
If there is a longstanding history of not enforcing the rule against pocket knives, then the only real claim would be the guy who gets jammed up for carrying a pocket knife. There's plenty of wiggle room for them to say that they don't consider a pocket knife to be a weapon, thus they don't enforce it. Or even if they did consider it a weapon but consistently never enforce the rule against it they'd be fine. So long as they don't ignore 1,000 violations and then single out the one guy who coincidentally seems to enjoy his first amendment rights just a bit too much then there's no foul.
But to say "everyone carries a small pocket knife and gets away with it, but you won't let me carry a handgun, stop discriminating against me" is a bit silly.
djthomas wrote:...
But to say "everyone carries a small pocket knife and gets away with it, but you won't let me carry a handgun, stop discriminating against me" is a bit silly.
I kind of like the 'discrimination' idea.
Aren't more people in the US killed with knives than with guns?
djthomas wrote:...
But to say "everyone carries a small pocket knife and gets away with it, but you won't let me carry a handgun, stop discriminating against me" is a bit silly.
I kind of like the 'discrimination' idea.
Aren't more people in the US killed with knives than with guns?
No. More are killed with knives than with *long arms* (rifles, shotguns, etc.), but handguns far outstrip the two of them combined.