[zahc]

In Class yesterday I had a disagreement with another student. I thought Oh had a discretionary permit system. He said OH Has absolutely no provision for legal CC.

We both know open carry is legal.

Who's right?

[Gray Peterson]

Concealed carry is prohibited. There is no permit system. They are one of only six states that completely prohibit CCW.

[foghornl]

NO CCW in Ohio.

You could TRY open carry, but I suspect in less than 5 minutes in most of the cities you would get busted for inducing panic, inciting a riot, disturbing the peace, etc.

Had passed a decent [not great, but decent] bill through the Ohio House, but then the Spineless Ohio Senate, in cahoots with Guv. Boobie "Flip-Flop" Daft, the Ohio Hiway Patrol & the FOP screwed it up so bad it couldn't be passed.

[greyhound]

Was just trying to remember the others....Wisconsin, Kansas?, Missouri, Illinois, ?.

Course, then you have Maryland, New Jersey, California, which are actually pretty much the same (though CA seems to be a little better than the others).

[Gray Peterson]

Greyhound,

You got them all except Nebraska.

Course, then you have Maryland, New Jersey, California, which are actually pretty much the same (though CA seems to be a little better than the others).

Maryland and New Jersey are issued by the state police, which are anti-gun and discretionary. There was talk that MD was going to loosen up thanks to Erlich, but no one is sure of that yet.

[AZRickD]

Regarding Open Carry in Ohio and "Inducing a Panic," we dealt with that issue last week over at GlockTalk.com

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=179366&highlight=inducing

ORC 2917.31
quote: The first section of the statute:

§ 2917.31 Inducing panic.

(A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:

(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;

(2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence;

(3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.

(B) Division (A)(1) of this section does not apply to any person conducting an authorized fire or emergency drill.


It doesn't mention anything about carrying a pistol openly in a quality belt holster does it? I wonder what would happen if they were caught red-handed operating under color of law?

Notify the naughty cop that he might very well face a federal lawsuit:
quote:UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1983

Every person who, under color of any statute ordinance, regulation, custom, or by usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

Rick

[Shooter 2.5]

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif

[Coronach]

Inducing Panic under the ORC would not be applicable, unless you gave some intimation that you were about to commit an offense of violence. Merely having a pistol in a visible holster does not rise to that level.

However, check your local listings.

Also, check case law. IANAL.

Mike

[Atticus]

"Inducing Panic under the ORC would not be applicable, unless you gave some intimation that you were about to commit an offense of violence. Merely having a pistol in a visible holster does not rise to that level."

So Mike....how is that enforced (or not) in Columbus....hypothetically anyway?

[falconer]

On several occasions I've had to correct my classmates and instructors (I'm a criminology student) on firearms laws.

Sociology 609 - Neighborhoods & Crime, was particularly agrivating. The prof got sidetracked and starting talking about guns and CCW and how he thinks it doesn't really reduce crime. He then mentions that he has not really read any of the studies (read: he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about). Mind you, this same prof INCLUDED part of a pro CCW study in his course readings.

One kid seemed to think that you needed an FFL to carry concealed. Another classmate said that he did not like the idea of CCW, but it wouldn't bother him if they licensed people. Upon hearing that was what the Ohio legislature was trying to do, he insisted that I was wrong. He then insisted that very few states even allowed CCW. *sigh*

[Atticus]

Isn't it totally amazing that we are having the same CCW discussions that they had in Florida nearly twenty years ago, i.e. "there will be shootouts like the old west"...etc, etc. Is particularly amazing, considering that we are also literally surrounded by states that already have CCW. Bang head on rock time for sure.

[zahc]

Brick will have to do:banghead:

[AZRickD]

So Mike....how is that enforced (or not) in Columbus....hypothetically anyway?I don't know that it is enforced in Columbus since it isn't a city ordinance. I read a newspaper article from the Columbus Dispatch where a police spokesman said it was legal to carry openly in Columbus.

I did two decades ago when I went to OSU.

Rick

[Henry Bowman]

So Mike....how is that enforced (or not) in Columbus....hypothetically anyway?

Arrest made. Arraignment and bail hearing. Bail posted. Fee paid and house or your relative's house given as collateral. Lawyers confir. Time passes. Much money spent. Employment/business/student status interrupted. Charges dropped. Gun lost or destroyed.

Lesson learned? Are you going to open carry again? Can you afford to go through this again?

[Coronach]

Really, Henry? Which jurisdiction did that occur in? Inquiring minds want to know.

Mike

[Coronach]

And to answer the previous question that I missed, the city's Inducing Panic code basically mirrors the ORC. There is no prohibition against open carry.

Mike

[Brian Dale]

we have a statute that prohibits "going armed to the terror of the public." Yep, the feelings of hoplophobes / Gun-Fearing Ninnies take precedence over the right of the general public to self-defense. I don't have any case law in front of me, but the word of LEOs I've spoken with is, "if you carry openly and somebody complains, you'll lose."

Our CCW law makes it a felony for a permit holder to carry anywhere that it's prohibited, rather than just being cause for being kicked out of the place, as in Missouri (and CONGRATULATIONS, MO!!!).

Bottom line = things are better than they used to be, and what we have is MUCH better than nothing.

Baby steps. We'll have plenty of work to do, but things ARE getting better, no matter how fashionable cynicism might be in the modern world.

[Coronach]

Thats how you win. Look how we got where we are today. The Antis took baby-steps forward. Sure, VPC, HCI, et al. want to ban everything. But when a bill that merely limits access to "evil high capacity assault weapons" comes along, do they balk, dig in their heels and say "no, I won't support it unless it is a full-on ban, complete with confiscation"? No, they don't. They take what they can get and advance the ball down the field.

We should be doing the same on offense. Defense? Now thats another story. I've never been a fan of the Prevent Defense. ;)

Mike

[Politically Incorrect]

The problem with open carry is that you cannot simply get into your car with your gun.



§ 2923.16 Improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle.

(A) No person shall knowingly discharge a firearm while in or on a motor vehicle.

(B) No person shall knowingly transport or have a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle in such a manner that the firearm is accessible to the operator or any passenger without leaving the vehicle.

(C) No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle, unless it is unloaded and is carried in one of the following ways:

(1) In a closed package, box, or case;

(2) In a compartment that can be reached only by leaving the vehicle;

(3) In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder made for the purpose;

(4) In plain sight with the action open or the weapon stripped, or, if the firearm is of a type on which the action will not stay open or which cannot easily be stripped, in plain sight.

So everytime you get out of your vehicle, you'd have to go into your trunk to retrieve your pistol and before getting back in, you would have to disarm yourself.

:rolleyes:

[AZRickD]

Jeezus. How many times to I have to post this.

You do not have to put your gun in a trunk in Ohio.

The law says that one of the ways it can be transported is "in plain sight, unloaed, action open."

The State was trying to say that this meant the ammo had to be stored in a separate compartment. A man was arrested (blammo in a magazine). He won his case. The State lost. Another man did the same. He won. State lost.

As a result, the Ohio Attorney General's office issued an opinion saying that the blammo could be in magazines and even on-person. The AG produced a training video on that topic and distributed it to OHP posts all over the state.

How did I know this? I made twenty long-distance calls to 15 OHP posts and a few Sheriffs offices and local PDs from Arizona. The vast majority of them were aware of the new interpretation.

You folks should spend less time on gun forums and more time in law web sites (OHP has a link to the law) and talking to local LEOs and prosecutors to put them on notice.

Rick

[Politically Incorrect]

Like Steve Martin said, "Well exxxxxxxcccccccuuuuuuuuuussssseeee me!"

:D :D :D

I called a local post a couple years ago and they basically said that if you carry the gun inside the car that the ammo had to be in the trunk or in situation of a truck that the ammo had to be stored in the bed preferably in a locked container bolted or welded to the bed.

The problem with the law is that if law enforcement officers have to watch a videotape explaining the law, then it is probably vague and not understood by its citizens.

"Son if you had that loaded magazine five inches away from the gun instead of inside the gun, then we wouldn't have to arrest you." :rolleyes:

[mod12]

on sept. 24 "the canton repository" on the editorial page, urged gov. daft and our milquetoast legislature to enact a "workable" ccw law and to bring ohio into the 21 st century. they cited the vast majority of states allowing concealed carry and noted that crime and violence had not increased in those states allowing ccw. i feel that daft can never make this decision. he has shown a propensity to waffle on even the smallest question. it's a shame his intellect isn't as big as his grandfathers' belly. he is certainly NOT a leader. thank goodness this is his final stint as governor due to term limits.i have informed my county and state republican party offices that i will not support his candidacy for ANY state or national office. i would feel more comfortable with mortimer snerd! he has given aid and comfort to the minority democratic faction in the legislature thereby insuring failure of ccw proponents' efforts. this dupe even had a photo op of him in a walgreen drugstore after he finally signed a prescription bill giving seniors a 10% cost reduction that he worked on two years.he's a perfect example of a political name overriding ability!

[mod12]

i'd also vote for mort over att. gen. betty montgomery, a professional office seeker dedicated to feeding at the public trough! she has regularly used her office to thwart the courts after any decision in hamilton county favorable to gun owners. THROW THE BUMS OUT!

[mod12]

that thumbs down is in the WRONG place!