as bad as it gets (test case)

[rhwiley]

The ACLU will do nothing to support the 2a. It's not part of their agenda.

Normally they don't. I wouldn't be too quick saying that is an absolute truth. I did a google search, and this was one of the better written articles (on-line) despite the fact it's a left-wing-slanted article:

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/003355.html

Personally, if you would've told me the ACLU was backing the 2A, I would've probably thought it was a new addition to the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Aside from that - I wish Dan well. Let's hope the city of Oregon realizes what they're up against, and decides to revise some things today (starting with dropping everything on Dan).

Besides, I have to be up there this weekend for some duty, and I would personally sleep better knowing I'm not hanging out in Anti-Central.

Am I being realistic? Probably not, but I can always hope.

[tjs]

The ACLU will do nothing to support the 2a. It's not part of their agenda.

Normally they don't. I wouldn't be too quick saying that is an absolute truth. I did a google search, and this was one of the better written articles (on-line) despite the fact it's a left-wing-slanted article:

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/003355.html

Personally, if you would've told me the ACLU was backing the 2A, I would've probably thought it was a new addition to the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Aside from that - I wish Dan well. Let's hope the city of Oregon realizes what they're up against, and decides to revise some things today (starting with dropping everything on Dan).

Besides, I have to be up there this weekend for some duty, and I would personally sleep better knowing I'm not hanging out in Anti-Central.

Am I being realistic? Probably not, but I can always hope.

Please, notify me in advance if such a gem as that is forthcoming so I can be sure not to be drinking any carbonated beverages. That really stings comin' out yer nose!

[rickt]

The ACLU will do nothing to support the 2a. It's not part of their agenda.

Normally they don't. I wouldn't be too quick saying that is an absolute truth. I did a google search, and this was one of the better written articles (on-line) despite the fact it's a left-wing-slanted article:

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/003355.html

Personally, if you would've told me the ACLU was backing the 2A, I would've probably thought it was a new addition to the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Aside from that - I wish Dan well. Let's hope the city of Oregon realizes what they're up against, and decides to revise some things today (starting with dropping everything on Dan).

Besides, I have to be up there this weekend for some duty, and I would personally sleep better knowing I'm not hanging out in Anti-Central.

Am I being realistic? Probably not, but I can always hope.

The ACLU thinks the second amendment is a collective right, not an individual right. Here is their position in their own words:

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

[Redhorse]

...who was that masked man...

[Mustang380gal]

The whole thing that concerns me about Dan's plight is the idea of home rule. If he should lose the charge on carrying in Oregon, based on home rule, then all these other home rule cities may get embolden to add their own prohibitions.

Unfortunately, since he has a history with the police department, and judicial system, his winning may not be a sure thing. It ought to be because Oregon's law is wrong. But ought to be doesn't seem to count for much these days.

This may better be won by top down, ie HB 347 or something similar. I don't know if that would have helped Dan, but it may keep us from ending up in the same predicament.


Linda

[TunnelRat]

Unfortunately, since he has a history with the police department, and judicial system, his winning may not be a sure thing.

A history with the police department may be a factor in determining how the police treat you, but shouldn't be an issue whatsoever in a case that turns on state constitutional law.

[Redhorse]

When we get H.B. 347 (or some similar legislation negating home rule) there will undoubtedly be a stubborn town/city or two that will still try and enforce their illegal ordinance. I think it would still have lead to a court case...just one that ended a little quicker.

It amazes me how many pro-gun/pro-carry people out there still say carrying open shouldn't be done. I have carried openly on many occasions (even before H.B.12) and had some looks, but that's it. I'm not affraid to do something that's legal for me to do.

I deer hunt with a pistol, and since H.B. 12 I've open carried throughout the week of deer season everywhere I go... gas station, deer check station, etc...! The illegal provision by our wonderful DNR that states my CHL isn't valid while hunting ensures I do it. Can't cover it in the woods + can't cover it in my truck = don't cover it at all! Though I look like a hunter, and have a "reason" to carry a firearm that week, I see no difference between that and what Dan did.

Many times while pumping my gas through the summer, I don't cover up. When riding my motorcycle, I open carry everywhere I go. I guess it all depends on where you do it, and who sees you doing it... .

This situation Dan is in will not stop me from open carrying...as a matter of fact, I may make it a point to do it a little more often for good measure...

[Aaron]

When we get H.B. 347 (or some similar legislation negating home rule) there will undoubtedly be a stubborn town/city or two that will still try and enforce their illegal ordinance. I think it would still have lead to a court case...just one that ended a little quicker.

It amazes me how many pro-gun/pro-carry people out there still say carrying open shouldn't be done. I have carried openly on many occasions (even before H.B.12) and had some looks, but that's it. I'm not affraid to do something that's legal for me to do.

I deer hunt with a pistol, and since H.B. 12 I've open carried throughout the week of deer season everywhere I go... gas station, deer check station, etc...! The illegal provision by our wonderful DNR that states my CHL isn't valid while hunting ensures I do it. Can't cover it in the woods + can't cover it in my truck = don't cover it at all! Though I look like a hunter, and have a "reason" to carry a firearm that week, I see no difference between that and what Dan did.

Many times while pumping my gas through the summer, I don't cover up. When riding my motorcycle, I open carry everywhere I go. I guess it all depends on where you do it, and who sees you doing it... .

This situation Dan is in will not stop me from open carrying...as a matter of fact, I may make it a point to do it a little more often for good measure...

Right on!

[PAJOHNOHIO]

Unfortunately, since he has a history with the police department, and judicial system, his winning may not be a sure thing.

A history with the police department may be a factor in determining how the police treat you, but shouldn't be an issue whatsoever in a case that turns on state constitutional law.

Very, very true words here! Once the police have marked you, it is boderline harassment. Especially if you challenged the LEOs conduct and won. They are a tight knit organization and seem to stick close. Not slamming but pointing out reality. There are many, many good cops. But, there are also a lot of cowboys in the field of LE too!

For example, when you read the daily police blotter, how many cops do you ever see arrested for OVI? especially after a FOP meeting. Not many I would say. But...you will read about John Q. Citizen daily.

I was very surprised to read about the recent OVI charge against the Eastlake Police Detective. That's a rare bird!

I do hope the courts follow the letter of the law and that Dan is not forced to plea bargain in any way....I think he may have a case for wrongful arrest and harassment!

[Shadow]

I thought the arraignment was this AM at 0900.

Anybody hear anything???????

I sent some dinero to support and I think we all need to know if we need to do more.

Shadow

[LousyNventR]

I noticed that some here criticized the officers for failing to run Dan's tags and thereby figure out by themselves that what they probably had was a law abinding CHL holder. While that may have changed the circumstances of this particular case, what would have happened to me?

I drive a company vehicle. The CHL reference never would have come up if they ran my plates. The same goes if I happen to be driving my wife's car, which is in her name.

In this scenario, there is a call about a "man with a gun", they run the tags, no CHL reference soooooo he must be a BG. uh oh....

[NavyChief]

In this scenario, there is a call about a "man with a gun", they run the tags, no CHL reference soooooo he must be a BG. uh oh....

Or, flip the coin - a goblin has stolen your car moments ago - you don't even know it yet so it's not been reported. They run your plates, "Hey, otherwise law-abiding CHL'r - wonder why he blew that stop sign - reckon I'll ask him here in a minute..." Then the LEO pulls 'em over and his guard is just a teeny bit relaxed. IMHO CHL/DL/DMV databases should be completely separated.

[TunnelRat]

It amazes me how many pro-gun/pro-carry people out there still say carrying open shouldn't be done.

The right secured by the U.S. and the Ohio constitutions has been interpreted since the very beginning of the country to mean open carry.

[Don't take my word for it, go look at the various state constitutions -- even those of the original 13 colonies. Don't settle for your own opinion either -- go do the homework.]

The Supreme Court of Ohio, like many other state courts, has consistently held that concealed carry can regulated or forbidden -- even while insisting that there is a right to bear arms! If firearms cannot be concealed even in our own private dwellings (the position of our law prior to HB12), yet we have the right to bear arms, then almost by definition open carry is and has always been the law in this state.

Just because the police and the papers don't like it, doesn't mean it is not the law. Unfortunately, here is a glaring example of "if you don't use it, you lose it".

[WBL_2006]

Unfortunately, here is a glaring example of "if you don't use it, you lose it".

Now THAT is something to think about for sure. I've stayed away from this thread for a bit and did some serious thinking about it. At first I was stuck on the fact that this situation could have been avoided. But after much thought I realized my tunnel vision was keeping the larger, more important issues out of my head.

Thanks Tom for typing those words above, I think they pack a big punch.

@Dan - If you are out there, my donation will be headed your way in the next day or so....Hang in there Brother.

WBL

[Scott]

I noticed that some here criticized the officers for failing to run Dan's tags and thereby figure out by themselves that what they probably had was a law abinding CHL holder. While that may have changed the circumstances of this particular case, what would have happened to me?

I drive a company vehicle. The CHL reference never would have come up if they ran my plates. The same goes if I happen to be driving my wife's car, which is in her name.

In this scenario, there is a call about a "man with a gun", they run the tags, no CHL reference soooooo he must be a BG. uh oh....

I heard that a few years ago when Arizona got their CCW law, the vehicle registration database also had CHL holders listed--- then, EVERY stop of a known CHL holder was treated as a felony stop for whatever unjustifiable reason. Lotsa fun being held on the hot pavement face down in the July sun, that! I'm sure that brilliant plan did a lot to improve civilian-police relations. I believe they have since separated the two databases---at least they're not doing the felony stop thing anymore to CHLs.

In this scenario, there is a call about a "man with a gun", they run the tags, no CHL reference soooooo he must be a BG. uh oh....

Or, flip the coin - a goblin has stolen your car moments ago - you don't even know it yet so it's not been reported. They run your plates, "Hey, otherwise law-abiding CHL'r - wonder why he blew that stop sign - reckon I'll ask him here in a minute..." Then the LEO pulls 'em over and his guard is just a teeny bit relaxed. IMHO CHL/DL/DMV databases should be completely separated.

Now THIS is what the legislature needs to hear as a good reason to separate the databases..."...if it saves just one officer's life, sniff...."