Use this forum to post your experience with encounters with law enforcement, criminals, or other encounters as a result of your firearm or potential to be carrying one.
fisher wrote:So he is unarmed, outside of his vehicle, which has a loaded gun inside, and is in trouble for failing to notify about the contents of his vehicle?
From the blurb that was posted he was not unarmed, it was the beer that was found in the car not the firearm.
He was asked if he had any weapons and he responded "yes". He was found to be in possession of a loaded 9mm handgun. He had a CCW but did not inform officer of this information. He had an open bottle of Labatt Blue in his vehicle.
So all the conjecture about the failure to inform because the firearm was in the car is useless. The ORC requires 2 things to notify, I have a CHL and I am armed, from the report he only met one of those.
Ignorant or Stupid, I'm not sure which is worse. If someone were stupid, at least they'd have an excuse for all the dumb things they say.
Pass the Peace Pipe I need another hit
IANAL and neither are most people on this board, its just shows more with some than others.
FN Enter wrote:I appreciate how everyone has a different perspective and certain elements to comment on that pique their interest. I love this site and all the info/feedback.
I do see and agree with Carmen on the part of...
I believe he is still in possesion.....If there were drugs in the car,I believe he could be charged with possesion, if he is the only one around or in the car...Imo
Whether it's drugs, weapons, etc...if it's your car and contraband is found, well then you take the hit I would think. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's your car then YOU are responsible for the contents (if your flying solo).
All our service trucks are my bosses property. Should he be arrested if they found a brick of Marijuana in the unoccupied one I drive which is in KY, when he is sitting in his office in Ohio?
Last edited by pleasantguywhopacks on Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
2007 CRB 01136 JEFFREY M GRIMM Birth Date: xx-xx-1985
Judge: ELUM
Agency: PERRY POLICE DEPT
2923.12A M1-CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS
2925.14C1 M4-DRUG PARAPHERNALIA OFFENSES
2925.11AC3A MM-DRUG POSSESSION
4301.62B4 MM-OPEN CONTAINER IN A MOTOR VEHICLE
the CCW was a knife he was found guilty on all3 charges. (ETA: he was found not guilty on the possession charge)
Had another weapons charge in 2011. A hunting charge for a loaded weapon after hours, He lost the firearm in that case.
With the 2a conviction under 2925 he should probably not even have a CHL to begin with, either the charges would be a disquailifiers and make him subject to rejection or revocation.
Ignorant or Stupid, I'm not sure which is worse. If someone were stupid, at least they'd have an excuse for all the dumb things they say.
Pass the Peace Pipe I need another hit
IANAL and neither are most people on this board, its just shows more with some than others.
cashman966 wrote:So all the conjecture about the failure to inform because the firearm was in the car is useless. The ORC requires 2 things to notify, I have a CHL and I am armed, from the report he only met one of those.
I think that falls under the category of the officer deciding the guy "needs arresting". The "charge him and let the courts sort it out" approach.
cashman966 wrote:So all the conjecture about the failure to inform because the firearm was in the car is useless. The ORC requires 2 things to notify, I have a CHL and I am armed, from the report he only met one of those.
I think that falls under the category of the officer deciding the guy "needs arresting". The "charge him and let the courts sort it out" approach.
Being drunk in posession of a firearm and having discharged two rounds is probably why they thought he "needs arresting".
fisher wrote:So he is unarmed, outside of his vehicle, which has a loaded gun inside, and is in trouble for failing to notify about the contents of his vehicle?
Am I missing something? It says the alcohol was in the car, and the suspect was in possession of a firearm. It doesn't say the firearm was in the car....
Edit: Cashman already pointed this out, I didn't read page 2.
“You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word.” - Al Capone
“Victorious warriors win first, then go to war; defeated warriors go to war first, then seek to win.” - Sun-Tzu
I don't know if anyone will see this since this incident did take place 2 years ago and that is when this was posted. I just want to take a moment to point out that not all the facts from that night are present in the article. I personally know what happened that led to the gun being discharged. Should he have had his gun in his possession while he was drinking? No but he also went out that night with no intention of drinking, hence why he has his weapon on him. So, before you go on calling him a moron make sure you get the facts. There was what I'll call a dispute between him and someone else (not myself) and out of drunken anger he discharged his gun. To this day he admits that it was a stupid decision on his part but in the heat of the moment it was either fire off a couple of rounds into the air or fire off at the other party involved. Seeing as how a life sentence was and is extremely unappealing, he took the alternative route. He regrets his decision and it angers me when I see people jumping to conclusions about a situation they don't know the facts about.
nosuchluck wrote:I don't know if anyone will see this since this incident did take place 2 years ago and that is when this was posted. I just want to take a moment to point out that not all the facts from that night are present in the article. I personally know what happened that led to the gun being discharged. Should he have had his gun in his possession while he was drinking? No but he also went out that night with no intention of drinking, hence why he has his weapon on him. So, before you go on calling him a moron make sure you get the facts. There was what I'll call a dispute between him and someone else (not myself) and out of drunken anger he discharged his gun. To this day he admits that it was a stupid decision on his part but in the heat of the moment it was either fire off a couple of rounds into the air or fire off at the other party involved. Seeing as how a life sentence was and is extremely unappealing, he took the alternative route. He regrets his decision and it angers me when I see people jumping to conclusions about a situation they don't know the facts about.
Ok without knowing all the facts, let's look at what you have stated....
"Should he have had his gun in his possession while he was drinking? No but he also went out that night with no intention of drinking, hence why he has his weapon on him...and out of drunken anger he discharged his gun."
These are the facts you present - and yep, I'd say he was a moron. Sorry, but it's not that hard to not have a drink if you know you have a weapon and shouldn't be drinking. He made the choice to drink, and that was stupid given that he had a gun. I realize he's your friend, but with the facts you present yourself above, he made stupid decisions - the first of which was to have a drink while knowingly having a firearm.
Scruit wrote:Being drunk in posession of a firearm and having discharged two rounds is probably why they thought he "needs arresting".
That's definitely a good start.
"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.
nosuchluck wrote:Should he have had his gun in his possession while he was drinking? No but he also went out that night with no intention of drinking, hence why he has his weapon on him. So, before you go on calling him a moron make sure you get the facts. There was what I'll call a dispute between him and someone else (not myself) and out of drunken anger he discharged his gun.
So, despite the fact that he was armed, the beer managed to sneak up on him, wrestle him to the ground, and pour itself down his gullet?
"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.
I quit drinking in 1962. Started carrying (mostly 24/7) in 1967.
It's been fairly easy for me to forget that I'm carrying in "daily life". Preparing for a trip, though, I remember....
Carrying in a Class D way back when, before anybody passed any laws against it (ignoring the Liquor Department), but I think I've had the equivalent of about one beer since 1962, too, and all at somebody's house. Carried in hospitals, houses of worship, too....
The rules we have now were largely conceived to keep us from carrying....
That said, lock the dumb thing up if you're going into a bar and think that you may drink. Or stay out of the bar. Worst case, scamper out to the car as soon as a drink appears imminent (or at least unload it).
It's unfortunate that the "moron" screwed over all of us in this way, but the guy pretty well sank himself. None of us like the "one strike and you're out" law as it stands now, but it's going to be hard to change....
Regards,
Stu.
(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)
(Why do those who claim to wish to protect me feel that the best way to do that is to disarm me?)
nosuchluck wrote:I don't know if anyone will see this since this incident did take place 2 years ago and that is when this was posted. I just want to take a moment to point out that not all the facts from that night are present in the article. I personally know what happened that led to the gun being discharged. Should he have had his gun in his possession while he was drinking? No but he also went out that night with no intention of drinking, hence why he has his weapon on him. So, before you go on calling him a moron make sure you get the facts. There was what I'll call a dispute between him and someone else (not myself) and out of drunken anger he discharged his gun. To this day he admits that it was a stupid decision on his part but in the heat of the moment it was either fire off a couple of rounds into the air or fire off at the other party involved. Seeing as how a life sentence was and is extremely unappealing, he took the alternative route. He regrets his decision and it angers me when I see people jumping to conclusions about a situation they don't know the facts about.
Let's see here: Goes out armed with no intention of drinking.
Discharges gun in fit of drunken anger.
Yep, he definitely qualifies as a moron.
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