6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

[Werz]

Yes, you, I, and the denizens of this forum know what a TRUE "assault rifle" is, but because of the court's repeated misstatements of law, I think it's clear the court doesn't...

Let's push it up to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Mama O'Connor knows the difference.

The next stop from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is the United States Supreme Court.

HTH

[Werz]

As far as semi-autos being nearly indistinguishable from full-autos, yes, from a distance, I agree. An up-close investigation will reveal differences, but I think we both know that the chances of finding a LEO who performs a stop for that reason is pretty remote.

Would a court buy such a lie?

A court would grant that about as much credibility as the claim that open carry of an AR- or AK-platform rifle is "perfectly normal" and has nothing to do with "scaring the sheep" or showing off what one can get away with.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Yes, you, I, and the denizens of this forum know what a TRUE "assault rifle" is, but because of the court's repeated misstatements of law, I think it's clear the court doesn't...

Let's push it up to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Mama O'Connor knows the difference.

The next stop from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is the United States Supreme Court.

HTH

I'd still rather see it in front of O'Connor.

[evan price]

I recall a video of a person carrying a GSG 22lr.carbine, the one that looks like a suppressed HK mp5, and the officer approached, stopped and detained based upon it looking like the one he had in the cruiser's trunk, which was a real FA version, to determine if it was a title 2 or not.
Or so he said.

[Werz]

I recall a video of a person carrying a GSG 22lr.carbine, the one that looks like a suppressed HK mp5, and the officer approached, stopped and detained based upon it looking like the one he had in the cruiser's trunk, which was a real FA version, to determine if it was a title 2 or not.
Or so he said.

If that's the one I recall, the cop ended up looking rather polite, and the street-lawyer YouTube star ended up looking pretty silly.

[BB62]

As far as semi-autos being nearly indistinguishable from full-autos, yes, from a distance, I agree. An up-close investigation will reveal differences, but I think we both know that the chances of finding a LEO who performs a stop for that reason is pretty remote.

Would a court buy such a lie?

A court would grant that about as much credibility as the claim that open carry of an AR- or AK-platform rifle is "perfectly normal" and has nothing to do with "scaring the sheep" or showing off what one can get away with.

Who knows, but that wasn't your initial assertion, was it?

Let's circle back around on that: in order for a LEO to affect a legal stop, he must have reasonable, articulable suspicion of recent, present, or imminent criminal activity. And since we both agree that one can't tell from a distance whether such a rifle is select-fire or not, it's impossible to support a claim of RAS ("I thought it might be select-fire") on that basis since the LEO would be hard-pressed to answer the question "Why did you think so?"

Simply wondering if such a rifle might be select-fire (which isn't credible anyway) isn't RAS.

As to OCing longarms, I must have missed the part of the law that requires activities to be "perfectly normal" in order to be legal.

[Werz]

As to OCing longarms, I must have missed the part of the law that requires activities to be "perfectly normal" in order to be legal.

I condone the dog-and-pony show of carrying long arms because it is legal. That does not mean it is a good idea. The same is true of burning an American flag in protest.

There are many things that one can do which are legal but which do not win the hearts and minds of the electorate.

[Metal1]

Reading that whole paragraph in context I think by "assault rifle or some other illicit firearm" what they meant to say, in Ohio terms is dangerous ordnance, which would include your SBS/R, anything full go, or something with a suppressor hanging off the end. Reason being one must have a permit (or be exempted from the permit requirement) to merely possess such items, thus they are illicit by default.

When the stop involves an AR/AK (as Werz suggested) it seems that there might be some room for fact-dependent analysis because you'll have the officer's perception of barrel length, possibility of full-auto, etc.

No "permit" is required to possess such items. Having paid the "TAX" and filed the appropriate paperwork BAT&F are the requirements. They do not issue you "Permits" for SBR's or Suppressors.

Side Note:
So would a Glock 18 make all Glocks subject to inspection?

[Werz]

Reading that whole paragraph in context I think by "assault rifle or some other illicit firearm" what they meant to say, in Ohio terms is dangerous ordnance, which would include your SBS/R, anything full go, or something with a suppressor hanging off the end. Reason being one must have a permit (or be exempted from the permit requirement) to merely possess such items, thus they are illicit by default.

When the stop involves an AR/AK (as Werz suggested) it seems that there might be some room for fact-dependent analysis because you'll have the officer's perception of barrel length, possibility of full-auto, etc.

No "permit" is required to possess such items. Having paid the "TAX" and filed the appropriate paperwork BAT&F are the requirements. They do not issue you "Permits" for SBR's or Suppressors.

OK. Your statement implies that you give a dealer the money for a suppressor, and you mail the BATFE a check for $200 and the ATF Form 4, and you walk out with your suppressor the same day, right? No? So there must be more "requirements" that just that, right?

Concealed carry of a handgun is illegal unless you have a concealed handgun license. See R.C. 2923.12. Possession of dangerous ordnance in the form of NFA items is illegal unless you have proof of registration. See. 2923.17; 26 U.S.C. § 5841. Both acts are presumptively unlawful, and the person committing that act has the burden of demonstrating that he or she is exempt.

Side Note:
So would a Glock 18 make all Glocks subject to inspection?

If one sees a police officer with a holstered Glock, the average person thinks nothing of it. If one sees a police officer carrying an AR-15, the average person thinks, "Uh-oh! Something's up." They're not the same thing. An esoteric exception like the Glock 18 does not change that.

[MacDonald]

Arguments of AR/AK/Assault rifles aside, I think this is a great step in the education of LEOs on legalities. Additionally, I am surprised that the judge took the stance that LEOs should be as conversant with legalities as LACs are expected to be. I thought the stance was that since there are so many laws, LEOs could not know them all, but we were expected to.

[Metal1]

Reading that whole paragraph in context I think by "assault rifle or some other illicit firearm" what they meant to say, in Ohio terms is dangerous ordnance, which would include your SBS/R, anything full go, or something with a suppressor hanging off the end. Reason being one must have a permit (or be exempted from the permit requirement) to merely possess such items, thus they are illicit by default.

When the stop involves an AR/AK (as Werz suggested) it seems that there might be some room for fact-dependent analysis because you'll have the officer's perception of barrel length, possibility of full-auto, etc.

No "permit" is required to possess such items. Having paid the "TAX" and filed the appropriate paperwork BAT&F are the requirements. They do not issue you "Permits" for SBR's or Suppressors.

OK. Your statement implies that you give a dealer the money for a suppressor, and you mail the BATFE a check for $200 and the ATF Form 4, and you walk out with your suppressor the same day, right? No? So there must be more "requirements" that just that, right?

Concealed carry of a handgun is illegal unless you have a concealed handgun license. See R.C. 2923.12. Possession of dangerous ordnance in the form of NFA items is illegal unless you have proof of registration. See. 2923.17; 26 U.S.C. § 5841. Both acts are presumptively unlawful, and the person committing that act has the burden of demonstrating that he or she is exempt.

Side Note:
So would a Glock 18 make all Glocks subject to inspection?

If one sees a police officer with a holstered Glock, the average person thinks nothing of it. If one sees a police officer carrying an AR-15, the average person thinks, "Uh-oh! Something's up." They're not the same thing. An esoteric exception like the Glock 18 does not change that.

What difference does the amount of time make? What's your point? If the BATF had the ability to process the Form 4's in a day, yes, I could walk out the same day with a Suppressor. Until that day you have to wait until the Form 4 is returned.

As far as 2923.17 it states
(C) Division (A) of this section does not apply to:
"(5) Owners of dangerous ordnance registered in the national firearms registration and transfer record pursuant to the act of October 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1229, 26 U.S.C. 5841, and any amendments or additions thereto or reenactments thereof, and regulations issued thereunder ;"

Where does it say the person committing that act has the burden of demonstrating that he or she is exempt?

(8) Persons who own a dangerous ordnance that is a firearm muffler or suppressor attached to a gun that is authorized to be used for hunting by section 1533.16 of the Revised Code and who are authorized to use such a dangerous ordnance by section 1533.04 of the Revised Code.

So now we are going to stop and request papers from hunters too? Because it is perceived as being illegal? Bull@&$^

[Werz]

What's your point?

My point is simple, even if you you don't want to accept it. Some things are presumptively lawful, like open carry in the State of Ohio. Some things are presumptively unlawful, but with exceptions, like concealed carry and possession of a dangerous ordnance in the State of Ohio. The occurrence of something presumptively lawful does not create reasonable suspicion to detain or demand identification. The occurrence of something presumptively unlawful does create reasonable suspicion to detain and demand identification until the existence of an exception is established. That general rule has been established by U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

So now we are going to stop and request papers from hunters too? Because it is perceived as being illegal? Bull@&$^

Hunters have been stopped many times for hunting licenses. If they are now hunting with suppressors, they may also be asked to produce a copy of their tax stamp to establish that the suppressor is registered.

[curmudgeon3]

...... or if the stop is at dusk, and there's a spotlight mounted on the pickup truck with a rifle in the rear window, that might also attract the LEO's attention.