Oregon Response to Motion To Dismiss filed - Hearing Friday

[jgarvas]

Despite the fact that the Ohio Supreme Court found that carrying a firearm is a fundamental individual right, and despite the fact that at least two of the justices in Klein v. Leis argued that they know of many people who “carry openly” without arrest in Columbus, the City of Oregon argued yesterday in this response brief that there is no constitutionally protected right to carry a firearm openly.

In its brief, the City of Oregon copied a portion of Ohioans For Concealed Carry’s website found here, where the prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County issued a mandate to Hamilton County law enforcement agencies declaring that openly carrying a firearm should never result in an “automatic arrest”, and “Openly carrying a firearm does not mean that the person is automatically guilty of Disorderly Conduct (R.C. 2917.11) or Inducing Panic (R.C. 2817.31). Each case must be judged on it’s own set of facts.”

The Response Brief & More Here: Oregon Files Response To Motion To Dismiss

[MySQLQuery]

What I wonder, is, why does dan owe oregon $2 in this case?!?!?!

[MeanStreaker]

Nice that the esteemed Prosecutor found a way to work "Wild West" and "Dodge City" into the official Memorandum.

[MySQLQuery]

Dan, Dan, Dan! This memo even says they have you on tape washing the windows with your guns!

That's not good for the glass man! Use the squeege! (Or at least, try that blocky 'ol glock, it'd do a WAY better job....)

[jgarvas]

Nice that the esteemed Prosecutor found a way to work "Wild West" and "Dodge City" into the official Memorandum.

BTW:

If there is any doubt that the discussions on these forums are not being regularly read by the Prosecutor's office in Oregon, and elsewhere by other officials, let the last two pages of the response brief serve as the rude awakening that anything you write here can become a public document.

[Glockulator]

Dan, Dan, Dan! This memo even says they have you on tape washing the windows with your guns!

That's not good for the glass man! Use the squeege! (Or at least, try that blocky 'ol glock, it'd do a WAY better job....)

by the time i finished laughing about that while reading the brief, i went to type a response and notice i'd been beaten to it. again.

well, MySQL, they were Bersas afterall, washing windows with them is about all they're good for. oh! did i just type that? uh oh, better use my backspace and get rid of it, ooops, it's stuck.

this dugan dork sounds like another liberal more interested in social engineering the "good citizens of oregon" rather than the letter of the law.

i also like how he managed to work in calling us "gun toting", nice, real nice A__.

[haspelbein]

I'm confused, wasn't the ability to carry to openly used for the longest time as a reason to deny concealed carry in Ohio because we already had a mode of carrying, therefore making concealed carry licensing consitutional? The fact that open carry exists is the only reason that concealed carry can be licensed, simply because of the right to bear arms. Can people now carry in Oregon concealed without a license?

[dalum]

Reading over the brief I came to the point where it has the ORC for failure to notify. I'm confused because at the end it states
"No person...who is stopped for a law enforcement purpose, and who is carrying a CONCEALED handgun shall fail to promptly inform any law enforcement officer...that the person has been issued a license...to carry a concealed handgun and that the person THEN is carrying a CONCEALED handgun."

Follow that law to the letter. Dan had NO duty to notify because his guns were open, in plain site, and non-concealed as another portion of the ORC requires while in a car. The law itself is written wrong and does not co-exist with the other law saying the firearm has to be kept in the open in a car.

Also from the same ORC it does not state Dan had any obligation to announce outside of the car, where he was when the police approached, that he had a concealed carry license because he was not carrying a concealed firearm at the time.


"Therefore, the Legislature has made it plain that the reguirement to promptly inform the police that a person is armed and has a permit for that weapon is an important safety issue and shot not in any way be limited."

Again this is wrong. The legislature made it plain that a person carrying a CONCEALED weapon must promptly inform the police that a person is CURRENTLY CONCEALING A WEAPON. Also we have no permits for specific weapons in Ohio. The person is licenced to carry any handgun he choses.

[MySQLQuery]

Yeah, the prosecutor does seem to be a liberal anti, pushing an agenda, at least in my opinion... (Yes, VERY aware he's reading Jeff )

Why do I think that? This supposedly 'educated man' (Hey -- he IS a lawyer after all!) Still can't call it what it is! L-I-C-E-N-S-E!! Heh, sorry, that always bugs me, wether it be out of republican cantidate for governor, or, official court documents....

[gokatgo]

Hear Ye... Hear Ye...free citizens of Ohio.
It is time to take our state back and have an organized peaceful march in Oregon Ohio with all participants legally carrying firearms in the open.

The parade route should begin at the Sunoco gas station and end at the police station where the arresting officers will be offered a free seminar in safe firearms handling, constitutional law, public relations and why cover ups and tampering with evidence can taint a case and degrade a free society.

I'm still in shock in how Dan Sayers was treated and the ignorance shown by members of the Oregon Ohio Police Dept. It was disgraceful and unprofessional. I still can't understand why an M-16 and two .380s were pointed at head level at the passing motorists while left on the hood of the cruiser.

These officers are fascists with a capital F and acted like Barney Fife on Crack.

Can a peaceful demonstration be organized ?

[WBL_2006]

It is interesting how the text goes from a seemingly formal document to a personal commentary/opinion letter and then back to a formal document. That seems odd to me...."Chutzpa".....odd.

Good luck on Friday Dan.

WBL

[dalum]

The prosecutor even admits in his own brief that he’s wrong when he quotes the Supreme Court in State v. Hogan(1900), 63 Ohio St. 202, 58 NE 572, which said “…A man may carry a gun for any lawful purpose, for business or amusement, but he cannot go about with that or any other dangerous weapon TO terrify and alarm a peaceful people.” (emphisis mine)

The fourteenth listing of the word “to” in the dictionary is: “for the purpose of: went out to lunch.”

Dan’s purpose was not to terrify and alarm a peaceful people. So the listed text from the Supreme Court upholds Dan was doing no wrong. The court was silent in the Klein case because open carry had already be commented on in the Hogan case.

[Cruiser]

They keep saying Dan "yelled". How else does one respond to someone on a PA apx. 30 feet away?

[MySQLQuery]

They keep saying Dan "yelled". How else does one respond to someone on a PA apx. 30 feet away?

Maybe I'm missing something, but, I keep seeing people say that the Oregon Jokers used the PA....

I can't find where they did in the video... it just seems to me, that they relied on screaming at dan.....

[almega]

"chutzpa" heh ... sorry I dont speak Yiddish. This whole response speaks volumes about the prosecutors office.

Jeff, not sure what you mean about the last 2 pages. It seems to be something from 2003? Not sure what you're trying to point out, please explain