CC duty to inform police you are carrying

[ummmreally]

Ok, so I know that sometime this summer a new law supposed to take effect that this will no longer be required. Do I have this info correct? Anyone know the date it takes effect?

In the mean time I want to present some scenarios and get answers from the community.

1. If you have a permit are you required to inform police if stopped but you are not carrying a firearm with you?

2. What if you have a pistol locked in the trunk unloaded, do you still have to inform police?

3. What if you have the pistol loaded but in a lock box where it is accessible to the driver?

4. What if you are carrying pistol on your person, and are a passenger in the vehicle?

[pirateguy191]

Ok, so I know that sometime this summer a new law supposed to take effect that this will no longer be required. Do I have this info correct? Anyone know the date it takes effect?

In the mean time I want to present some scenarios and get answers from the community.

1. If you have a permit are you required to inform police if stopped but you are not carrying a firearm with you?

2. What if you have a pistol locked in the trunk unloaded, do you still have to inform police?

3. What if you have the pistol loaded but in a lock box where it is accessible to the driver?

4. What if you are carrying pistol on your person, and are a passenger in the vehicle?

June 13th

1. No

2. No

3. Yes, if asked

4. Yes, if asked

[willbird]

Ok so here is an interesting twist on duty to inform.

As it was CHL had a duty to inform, and as I see it they even had to inform if they were announcing that they were somehow violating a law by carrying. Despite the 5th amendment still CHL were put in that box by the law. An illegal carrier had no such legally required duty to inform.

So with the law change does the illegal carrier now have a legally required duty to inform if asked ? I don’t see that withstanding legal challenge ? And how can a person be 100% certain when informing that they are not reporting themselves for committing a crime ?

A friend who already owned two machine guns went to buy a rifle, he failed the NICS check. As a young man in CA he plead guilty to a misdemeanor. This offense was changed later on to a felony conviction. When CA entered all their old records into computer they just marked everybody ever convicted of that offense as a felon. He had to hire a lawyer to get it sorted out.

Just one example of his notification would have been self reporting himself as a felon (on paper) carrying a concealed firearm.


Bill

[JustaShooter]

So with the law change does the illegal carrier now have a legally required duty to inform if asked ?
No.

And how can a person be 100% certain when informing that they are not reporting themselves for committing a crime ?

For most people, they will know. But yes, there are some who wouldn't/couldn't be 100% sure without doing research.

[willbird]

So with the law change does the illegal carrier now have a legally required duty to inform if asked ?
No.

And how can a person be 100% certain when informing that they are not reporting themselves for committing a crime ?

For most people, they will know. But yes, there are some who wouldn't/couldn't be 100% sure without doing research.

This guy here who had already bought two machine guns and did the form 4 stuff there was no way he could know other than suddenly it got him a NICS denial once CA entered the info incorrectly. This was before Ohio CHL existed yet, just using it as an illustration.



Bill

[Brian D.]

This happened to a Kentucky friend of mine, years ago. When he lived in Florida, he got convicted of some sort of fishing related violation. Paid the fine, went on with his life, moved back to Kentucky. Got his Kentucky CCDW license when those became available there. Next time he went to buy a gun though, the background check came back "denied". He hired a lawyer to find out why. Florida told her that the fishing infraction had been retroactively "felonized" , if you take my meaning.
My friend's lawyer had to go to the state government in Tallahassee and work with an attorney licensed to practice down there.

Eventually Florida "unfelonized" that law, at least the retroactive part. Someone should have been thrown under the prison for pulling a shenanigan like that to begin with.

[WeinerDog]

Most conversations are about informing from a vehicle. But once I was sitting in a neighbors yard when police did a welfare check and I informed as then required. With the new law would I not have to inform now ? I know if asked I would but police certainly arent asking everyone they casually come into contact with. Or are they ?

[JustaShooter]

Most conversations are about informing from a vehicle. But once I was sitting in a neighbors yard when police did a welfare check and I informed as then required. With the new law would I not have to inform now ? I know if asked I would but police certainly arent asking everyone they casually come into contact with. Or are they ?

You would not have to inform unless asked, whether in a vehicle or out.

And, technically, you didn't have to inform in the scenario you describe above - you were only required to inform if *you* were "stopped for a law enforcement purpose". Being a bystander as an officer performed a welfare check on someone else would not constitute a "stop".

[WeinerDog]

I actually engaged in conversation with the officer so felt I was required to inform. We were like 10 feet apart. What do you think Justashooter.

[JustaShooter]

Engaging in conversation did not require one to notify under the old rules. Even if you were discussing the reason the officer is there. While outside of a motor vehicle, *you* needed to be the object of their official business. (In a motor vehicle, it was different - passengers had to notify as well as the driver.)

This is one of the reasons we at OFCC fought so hard to change the notification law. There was so much grey area and misunderstanding - even among law enforcement - that a lot of people were just never sure when they had to, and when they didn't.

[Whirlwind06]

Pardon the slight tread drift.
CC carrying in a car, from what I have read on AG sight it's fine to have a loaded firearm on you while driving?

Some other people that I have talked with seem to think that without a CHL you are in violation of the law.

[welshj]

^ there is a "ohio concealed carry guide" going around on the net- that states (incorrectly) that it is illegal to carry a weapon in a vehicle without putting it in a case- under the new law.

From the ohio attorney general's website, and guide on ohios new carry laws:

"Transporting in Motor Vehicles

You may transport a loaded concealed handgun in a motor vehicle but are not permitted to do so if you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Motorcycles fall under the definition of motor vehicles. Thus, the same requirements apply to those who carry a handgun while on a motorcycle."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... anual-(PDF).aspx&ved=2ahUKEwi_ueq396b5AhWdjokEHXdgBSkQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3tTryAR94p3KsTy4qFsTXy

[JustaShooter]

CC carrying in a car, from what I have read on AG sight it's fine to have a loaded firearm on you while driving?

Some other people that I have talked with seem to think that without a CHL you are in violation of the law.

Under the new law, a person over 21 who can legally possess a handgun and has nothing in their background that would prevent them from getting a CHL can legally carry a loaded firearm on their person or elsewhere in a motor vehicle as long as they are not under the influence of alcohol or other drug of abuse.

There are unfortunately people who have misread and misunderstood the new law and believe differently, but reading the AG pamphlet as welshj mentioned above, it is clear that it is legal.

[Whirlwind06]

Thanks! That is what I read as well and have been telling people that you can carry a loaded firearm.