6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

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

techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by techguy85 »

Werz wrote:
djthomas wrote: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.
I think the take-home lesson is:
  • If you're openly carrying a holstered handgun, you should be left alone.
  • If you're openly carrying something else, hoping to draw negative attention, you probably will.
What if someone sees you load your gun and then go about your business and calls 911? Asking for a friend...
Qfac
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:30 pm
Location: Columbus

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by Qfac »

techguy85 wrote:
Werz wrote:
djthomas wrote: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.
I think the take-home lesson is:
  • If you're openly carrying a holstered handgun, you should be left alone.
  • If you're openly carrying something else, hoping to draw negative attention, you probably will.
What if someone sees you load your gun and then go about your business and calls 911? Asking for a friend...
Nothing different, it is a MWAG call and the police need to respond correctly and by correctly I mean they can drive by and see if there is anything to be alarmed about or they could approach and have consensual conversation (providing you want to engage with them) . Without RAS that you have-are-will commit a crime combined with the fact that the default state is that it is legal to openly carry they should not detain you or ask for ID in any way.
Utopia would be for the 911 dispatcher to ask the caller a few questions as to the nature of the situation and then politely inform the concerned citizen that the activity is legal and no officer will be sent out.
NRA Endowment Life Member

"Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service." -- U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008.
techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by techguy85 »

Qfac wrote:
techguy85 wrote:
Werz wrote: I think the take-home lesson is:
  • If you're openly carrying a holstered handgun, you should be left alone.
  • If you're openly carrying something else, hoping to draw negative attention, you probably will.
What if someone sees you load your gun and then go about your business and calls 911? Asking for a friend...
Nothing different, it is a MWAG call and the police need to respond correctly and by correctly I mean they can drive by and see if there is anything to be alarmed about or they could approach and have consensual conversation (providing you want to engage with them) . Without RAS that you have-are-will commit a crime combined with the fact that the default state is that it is legal to openly carry they should not detain you or ask for ID in any way.
Utopia would be for the 911 dispatcher to ask the caller a few questions as to the nature of the situation and then politely inform the concerned citizen that the activity is legal and no officer will be sent out.
:lol: my question was a poor attempt at a joke pointed back at something that happened to be. And I'm not sure I agree with your take so far as the law, although I agree with you that is how it should be.
Here's why: if concealed carry is illegal in Ohio with exceptions, does RAS attach to someone reported to have been armed who is not openly carrying?
Qfac
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:30 pm
Location: Columbus

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by Qfac »

What if someone sees you load your gun and then go about your business and calls 911? Asking for a friend...[/quote]

Nothing different, it is a MWAG call and the police need to respond correctly and by correctly I mean they can drive by and see if there is anything to be alarmed about or they could approach and have consensual conversation (providing you want to engage with them) . Without RAS that you have-are-will commit a crime combined with the fact that the default state is that it is legal to openly carry they should not detain you or ask for ID in any way.
Utopia would be for the 911 dispatcher to ask the caller a few questions as to the nature of the situation and then politely inform the concerned citizen that the activity is legal and no officer will be sent out.[/quote]
:lol: my question was a poor attempt at a joke pointed back at something that happened to be. And I'm not sure I agree with your take so far as the law, although I agree with you that is how it should be.
Here's why: if concealed carry is illegal in Ohio with exceptions, does RAS attach to someone reported to have been armed who is not openly carrying?[/quote]


You make a very good point, if a MWACG call came in to 911 and it was worded like "I saw a man loading a gun and stuffing it under his shirt and he looked like he was up to something" then an officer may indeed be able to use that as reason to stop, ID and ask to see your CHL license as it being illegal with out a qualifying exception. My earlier points were directed towards the Open Carry topic of the thread. :-)
NRA Endowment Life Member

"Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service." -- U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008.
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by Werz »

djthomas wrote:
Werz wrote:
  • If you're openly carrying a holstered handgun, you should be left alone.
  • If you're openly carrying something else, hoping to draw negative attention, you probably will.
There's also a subtle distinction going on in so far as the purpose of the suit. In this case it's not about trying to get evidence tossed by claiming that there was a lack of reasonable suspicion. This is going a step further and saying that not only was there no reasonable suspicion but in this case, that should have been clearly known to the officer in question, hence the plaintiff can defeat qualified immunity and sue for damages.

There's a big difference between having charged dropped and/or a conviction overturned based on police actions and actually being able to collect for damages.
All true. But to circle back to my earlier point, it's very much a matter of how it's done. After all, less than three years ago, the same Sixth Circuit, and the same Judge Sutton, in his special literary style, wrote of the incorrigible Leonard Embody and his stunt of walking through a state park in camouflage and armed with a Draco pistol:
Having worked hard to appear suspicious in an armed-and-loaded visit to the park, Embody cannot cry foul after park rangers, to say nothing of passers-by, took the bait.
Embody v. Ward, 695 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2012).

Play stupid games; win stupid prizes.
"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.
CroManGun
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:29 am
Location: Paarmaa!

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by CroManGun »

What effect would this opinion have on police responding to a call from an anti bent on swatting an open carrier. Wouldn't the swatter's so-called "description" of the situation be enough for the police to claim RAS to perform a stop? Or would they still be expected to first observe the behavior of the OC before intervening?
Genuine Scooter Trash
Member: NRA/OFCC/AAA/GER/AFG
Former Member: Amish Chippendales
I Am Not A Lawyer, But I Have Played One In Real Life
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

CroManGun wrote:What effect would this opinion have on police responding to a call from an anti bent on swatting an open carrier. Wouldn't the swatter's so-called "description" of the situation be enough for the police to claim RAS to perform a stop? Or would they still be expected to first observe the behavior of the OC before intervening?
Depends on if it is an anonymous tip or not.

As I understand it...

If it's anonymous, once on scene, the officer would have to determine on his own if there is RAS for a stop.

If the swatter is not anonymous, then their call is basically a witness statement and that would give the officer RAS.
MyWifeSaidYes
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by bignflnut »

2nd Paragraph of page 5
This requirement and the impropriety of Officer Bright’s demands are particularly acute
in a State like Ohio. Not only has the State made open carry of a firearm legal, but it also does
not require gun owners to produce or even carry their licenses for inquiring officers.
See Ohio Rev. Code §§ 9.68(C)(1), 2923.12; Mike DeWine, Ohio Att’y Gen., Ohio’s Concealed Carry
Laws and License Application 15 (2015) (“Ohio’s concealed carry laws do not regulate ‘open’ carry of firearms. If you openly carry, use caution. The open carry of firearms is a legal activity in Ohio.”); R. 26 at 121 (“If an officer engages in a conversation with a person who is carrying a gun openly, but otherwise is not committing a crime, the person cannot be required to produce identification.”).
So by signing up for a CHL, we also burden ourselves to identify, on top of notification.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by djthomas »

bignflnut wrote:So by signing up for a CHL, we also burden ourselves to identify, on top of notification.
Only while carrying concealed or in a motor vehicle, yes.
User avatar
Schadenfreude
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:07 am

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by Schadenfreude »

An interesting outcome to be sure.

Hopefully, all other Ohio LE agencies will take note and emphasize in their respective academies just what ORC 9.68 means.
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by BB62 »

Werz wrote:A very favorable decision, but citing the litigation of everyone's pal, Leonard Embody:
What about the possibility that Northrup was carrying a firearm not covered by the Ohio law? Had Northrup been carrying a gun that looked like an assault rifle or some other illicit firearm, that might have justified the officer’s conduct. Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep’t, et al., No. 14-4050 (6th Cir. May 13, 2015), citing Embody v. Ward, 695 F.3d 577, 580–81 (6th Cir. 2012).
A word of caution to those who like to openly carry firearms styled on the AR and AK platforms: the court does not consider them to be the same as a handgun when it comes to reasonable suspicion.
Overall a great ruling, but the court proved itself clueless in the quote above as well as in a number of other places.

Note the words used: "...looked like an assault rifle or some other illicit firearm..." - meaning that the court considers "assault rifles" to be illicit also. (not to mention the question of just what is an "assault rifle" - but I digress)

And, it appears to me that only because of the courts cluelessness, and in places where indeed possession/carry of an "assault rifle" is illegal or related to ones licensure, would your word of caution be supportable.
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: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by Werz »

BB62 wrote:
Werz wrote:A very favorable decision, but citing the litigation of everyone's pal, Leonard Embody:
What about the possibility that Northrup was carrying a firearm not covered by the Ohio law? Had Northrup been carrying a gun that looked like an assault rifle or some other illicit firearm, that might have justified the officer’s conduct. Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep’t, et al., No. 14-4050 (6th Cir. May 13, 2015), citing Embody v. Ward, 695 F.3d 577, 580–81 (6th Cir. 2012).
A word of caution to those who like to openly carry firearms styled on the AR and AK platforms: the court does not consider them to be the same as a handgun when it comes to reasonable suspicion.
Overall a great ruling, but the court proved itself clueless in the quote above as well as in a number of other places.

Note the words used: "...looked like an assault rifle or some other illicit firearm..." - meaning that the court considers "assault rifles" to be illicit also. (not to mention the question of just what is an "assault rifle" - but I digress)

And, it appears to me that only because of the courts cluelessness, and in places where indeed possession/carry of an "assault rifle" is illegal or related to ones licensure, would your word of caution be supportable.
I know you don't want to hear that, but it is what it is. We both know what an "assault rifle" is; that means selective fire. Because semi-automatic ARs and AKs are largely indistinguishable from their fully automatic counterparts, it may give a peace officer reasonable suspicion to more closely inspect the firearm. You may not like the rationale, but I can guarantee that most courts will find it sound. And yeah, that probably applies to your beloved PS90, too, although the longer barrel is strongly indicative of "semi-automatic only."

Will this affect long gun carry for planned events where notice is given and representations of lawful carry are made? Probably not. Will it affect the "lone wolf" open carry activist who is bucking for a chance to be a YouTube star? It very well might.
"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.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by JediSkipdogg »

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:
CroManGun wrote:What effect would this opinion have on police responding to a call from an anti bent on swatting an open carrier. Wouldn't the swatter's so-called "description" of the situation be enough for the police to claim RAS to perform a stop? Or would they still be expected to first observe the behavior of the OC before intervening?
Depends on if it is an anonymous tip or not.

As I understand it...

If it's anonymous, once on scene, the officer would have to determine on his own if there is RAS for a stop.

If the swatter is not anonymous, then their call is basically a witness statement and that would give the officer RAS.
Wasn't it a California appellate court that said an anonymous cal ref. reckless driving, even if the police follow for 5 miles and see no violations, was probable cause for a stop? I could see an Ohio court looking at that ruling and ruling in the same fashion.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by BB62 »

Werz wrote:
BB62 wrote:Overall a great ruling, but the court proved itself clueless in the quote above as well as in a number of other places.

Note the words used: "...looked like an assault rifle or some other illicit firearm..." - meaning that the court considers "assault rifles" to be illicit also. (not to mention the question of just what is an "assault rifle" - but I digress)

And, it appears to me that only because of the courts cluelessness, and in places where indeed possession/carry of an "assault rifle" is illegal or related to ones licensure, would your word of caution be supportable.
I know you don't want to hear that, but it is what it is. We both know what an "assault rifle" is; that means selective fire. Because semi-automatic ARs and AKs are largely indistinguishable from their fully automatic counterparts, it may give a peace officer reasonable suspicion to more closely inspect the firearm. You may not like the rationale, but I can guarantee that most courts will find it sound. And yeah, that probably applies to your beloved PS90, too, although the longer barrel is strongly indicative of "semi-automatic only."

Will this affect long gun carry for planned events where notice is given and representations of lawful carry are made? Probably not. Will it affect the "lone wolf" open carry activist who is bucking for a chance to be a YouTube star? It very well might.
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.

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? Maybe so and maybe not. One thing is clear to me, though - officers who resort to such subterfuge to enforce their biases, and the prosecutors who support them, rightfully deserve derision.
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
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: 6th Circuit opinion re: Ohio open carry

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

BB62 wrote: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.

:mrgreen:
MyWifeSaidYes
Post Reply