I was expecting that response. That is why I prepared the following:Chuck wrote:I'm just trying to help a guy stay within the law for a few weeks until he can get his license. He ain't trying to poke anything, he just wants to be left alone and stay legal.Werz wrote:It's the whole "poking with a pointy stick" thing, Chuck. Some folks actually believe that if they are narrowly within the bounds of the law, there will be no consequences of any kind. Maybe that is self-delusion; maybe it's a complete lack of social interaction. Once an "edgy" practice takes hold, people react, and those who make the rules respond. That's what happened in Texas:Chuck wrote:I have to say I am very disturbed at Bob's comparison of legally transporting a handgun to belligerently bringing rifles into private businesses who don't want them there and causing damage to the entire gun rights movement.
I don't see it, but I do respect his opinion, highly, so perhaps I'm missing something
Actions have consequences. Just because those consequences are not direct does not mean they are not foreseeable.
- Open carry advocates started carrying ARs and AKs into national chain stores;
- Mom's Demand Action started their jihad;
- Large corporations started publicly asking people not to bring firearms into their businesses;
- Open carry got a bad reputation; and
- Open carry laws became poison in the state legislature.
The same was true with "pushing the envelope" on the Sig Arm Brace, as I discussed here.
I know that some people live to push the limits. And some of it is legal. But those people should not pretend that it has no consequences, nor should they pretend that they could not predict those consequences.
I don't see what's edgy about putting your gun in a freezer bag with the magazine in another bag and putting it in the glove box, center console, or on the seat beside him while he droves to his next stop.
* * *
Do you really think this guy trying to get by for the next few weeks REALLY equates to all that stuff you just typed?
Let's say this is not just someone getting by for a few weeks. Let's say this becomes a regular practice amongst unlicensed handgun carriers because, after reading the OFCC forums, they become convinced that it's perfectly legal. And let's say that one of them is stopped by the Ohio State Highway Patrol for a minor violation. As is common practice these days, the officer approaches from the passenger side and is greeted with this:
The driver says nothing because, as a non-licensee, he is not required to do so. The trooper orders him out of the car and seizes the firearm. After looking at R.C. 2923.16(K)(5)(b), the trooper decides that this "hillbilly gun rug" is in no way what the legislature intended, so he recommends that the driver be charged with a fourth degree felony under R.C. 2923.16(B).
Now, let's put aside that this guy will now need to consider hiring a lawyer. And don't even consider the fact that he might be charged, convicted and the conviction upheld on appeal. Let's consider the indirect effects.
The case comes to the prosecutor. The prosecutor refuses to charge. Or the prosecutor charges and the judge or jury acquits. Either way, the trooper and the post commander are stunned that this type of thing is allowed. They contact the colonel, and the colonel agrees. The colonel contacts one of the Ohio State Highway Patrol's favorite legislators (and you know that OSP has a lot of pull in the General Assembly) and complains that this type of stunt is intolerable.
New legislation is introduce. Images like the one above are shown to the committee with the insistence that troopers are seeing guns like this being carried in vehicles by unlicensed gunslingers, and they need to do something to control it. Suddenly, we're fighting the same battle we won back in 2012 with HB 495. And our friends in the legislature are looking at us and asking, "Did you really tell people this was OK?"
Actions have consequences.