Please help! Good guy arrested in Ohio

[Balog]

I can't blame him - he's enforcing the law, as he is sworn to do.

That's known as the Nuremberg defense. It was ajudged to be insufficient for the Nazi soldiers using it at Nuremberg. I agree with that ruling.

I'm curious. At the time of the Dred Scot decision, slavery had always been upheld as legal. Run-away slaves by law had to be returned as stolen property. Would you therefore defend those who turned in run-away slaves to be beaten or killed for escaping? If a person knowingly violated this law by sheltering run-away slaves, would you say "This gentleman, for reasons best known to himself, chose to ignore (heck, flagrantly violate!) a law known to him to be in existence. He is now facing the consequences, and has no-one to blame but himself."?

Or let me put it this way.

Let's say we suffer another huge terrorist attack. Only this time, the radical Muslims who committed the act were American citizens born and raised in the CONUS. Let's then say that in the national outcry that arose, the fed.gov passed some "reasonable restrictions" on the freedom of religion. Let's say these included tracking sales of the Qu'ran, disallowing foreign born teachers at mosques, and governmental monitoring of the sermons presented at all mosques. Would you accept this? Why or why not?

 

[zahc]

They may not do so in so strict or severe a manner that the right is fatally undermined or rendered impractical

and I think Ohio's ban on concealed carry does just that.

 

[Balog]

I got to thinking. To all those who say that we must obey the law.

You do understand that this country was founded by people who made a conscious decision to violently resist governmental forces, right? You do know that the war began on April 19th after local militia members killed a number of government officials who were "just doing their job" by trying to confiscate their arms, right?

Are you familiar with the Boston Tea Party? A group of patriots destroying government property simply as an act of protest. Would you view this as a bad decision? Would you contend that they should have been arrested and punished? Here are a few links to info about the event
http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/chronicle/bostonteaparty-edenton.html

http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/chronicle/episode1.html

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/teaparty.htm



So we see two events where people were killed and property was destroyed "unlawfully." Ask yourself this. If you were alive back then, which side would your present views have placed you on?

 

[Oleg Volk]

Seems to me that by mounting a legal defense instead of hunting the officers who arrested him, the person in question is playing by the rules now.

 

[repsychler]

Yeah, he wants to play by the rules now, and have other people pay for it. Feel free to send him money, I don't care. My dollars will go to someone actually helping RKBA.

 

[Balog]

repsychler: from what I've seen this fellow is a rabid activist who's done a lot to help the RKBA.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

WildAlaska:

There is no constituional right to carry a concealed weapon, and until there is, face the consequences like a man if you break the law.

Comparing this crap to civil disobedience is an insult...ya wanna be civilly disobedient, then make a case out of it..openly and in full view of others...not surreptitiously breaking the law then whining when yoiu get caught.

Why do you say the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect concealed carry? Can you point to a part of the Federalist papers that discusses this point, or other contemporaneous writings that discuss it?

As for civil disobedience, the Russians practiced it on a massive scale, and at the same time, largely surreptitiously. They had to since they didn't want to wind up going to jail for merely exercising rights garuanteed under the Soviet Constitution...Their actions were no less legitimate for being covert.

Alexander Solzenitsyn used to carry his manuscripts concealed on his person to avoid their confiscation.

 

[Blackcloud6]

To you apologists for the state, please, tell me, how are we all safer now that a man who was minding his own business is behind bars?

As I recall, he was speeding.

 

[riverdog]

For those interested in what Ohio's law actually is, check packing.org] under Ohio's "Car/Gun law summary" section:

Date updated: Saturday, January 3, 2004

note: Recent developments indicating that openly carrying a firearm is a fundamental right protected by the Ohio Constitution did nothing to alter the language in 2923.16. Without further changes in the law, an opinion from the attorney general, or direction from the courts the following section of law remains intact. There is no way to "open carry" a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle, and improperly transporting a firearm with a loaded magazine is very risky based on the vague language in this statute:

Section 2923.16

(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.

Note: Some case law exists that deems a loaded magazine within reach of a handgun as a "loaded handgun". While the scope of this decision is not known it is likely statewide. Improper transportation is a misdemeanor, concealed carry is a felony.

So it's fair to say that Ohio is fairly draconian, however, the last line says a lot regarding my feelings in this case, "Improper transportation is a misdemeanor, concealed carry is a felony." There are ways to have a gun fairly close by and fall under the misdemeanor rules rather than the felony rules. Under the misdemeanor rules, the LEO wouldn't have seen anything but an innocent bag on the floor.

That said, I follow the law to the letter and normally travel with all firearms in cases locked in back such that para (C) (2) applies. I've had my truck searched by LE called on me by an anonymous caller and the fact that all weapons were in back under a locked bed cover saved my ???.

Personally I would prefer to see a law such as Colorado's "(I) the handgun is in the possession of a person who is in a private automobile or in some other private means of conveyance and who carries the handgun for a legal use, including self-defense" applied nation-wide. This would allow folks traveling "through" states via the interstate highways to do so without threat of varying firearm laws state-to-state.

I also keep my speed down and don't draw undue attention to myself regardless of firearms laws.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Preacherman wrote:

To those who say that the Constitution gives them the right to carry a concealed weapon, and that this is an unjust law: fellow shooters, I'm sorry, but you are absolutely, totally and completely WRONG on this point. In centuries of jurisprudence, related not only to the Second Amendment but to every part of the Bill Of Rights, local, state and Federal courts have consistently upheld the view that any and every right is subject to reasonable regulation, and have maintained that for reasons of public safety, governments and their agencies are entitled to regulate the exercise of rights. They may not do so in so strict or severe a manner that the right is fatally undermined or rendered impractical: but they may do so in ways that allow the right to be exercised in safe, legitimate ways. For example, the "right to keep and bear arms" can legally be restricted (as in New Jersey, or California, or Massachusetts) to certain types of firearms, with restrictions on caliber and/or ammunition capacity and/or "evil" features, and can also be restricted to certain places (e.g. your home or the firing range) and modes of carry (e.g. open carry only, or no armed carry except when the firearm is unloaded and locked away in your vehicle).

Im going to have to disagree with you here. Governments at all levels must show a compelling need for a restriction that must constitute a widespred public good in order to place any restriction on a fundamental Constitutional right.

Where is the compelling need to regulate concealed carry that necessitates liscensing the practice?

The laws against concealed carry don't stop armed robbery, never have and never will. So that can't be the reason. Vermont, as will Alaska in time, has demonstrated that unrestricted concealed carry does not lead to an increase in crime, so there can't be any public good served by these laws.

As for other firearms laws, they are even less worthy when reviewed under the standard of strict scrutiny.

 

[repsychler]

repsychler: from what I've seen this fellow is a rabid activist who's done a lot to help the RKBA.

I know. And I appreciate that. But he screwed up, and now he's hurt the cause. Do I think he should go to jail? Heck no. If I was a lawyer, I'd gladly defend him, pro bono if I could. If I were on his jury, there's no way I'd convict. But am I going to send money, thinking I'm doing some good deed for RKBA? Not a chance.

And to those who call myself and the others apologists and asking when we're going to turn in our rifles, are you going to grab your rifle if this guy gets convicted? If not, don't talk to me about the boston tea party.

 

[Balog]

And to those who call myself and the others apologists and asking when we're going to turn in our rifles, are you going to grab your rifle if this guy gets convicted? If not, don't talk to me about the boston tea party.

Pssst, the BTP didn't involve shooting people. Why should I have to be willing to immediately start an armed rebellion to refer to it? Illogical.

 

[Ian]

repsychler - Just to clarify things, Hunter didn't ask for anything. The people doing the asking are just his friends, who don't want to see him go to jail.

Blackcloud6 - If his only endagering action was speeding (which as a general rule doesn't endanger anyone anyway) then why don't you call the Ohio governor and suggest they drop all the other charges?

Atticus - Why don't you write a letter to the editor or two and help us prevent him from being paraded about as a nutcase?

Wildalaska - If we all just surrender our guns when they become politically incorrect, the Brady Bunch won't even have to break a sweat to see their goals become reality. If you can't support this man, for whatever reason, then PLEASE don't help string him up!

 

[TheeBadOne]

Just to lighten thins up a bit.....

Something's missing here......oh wait, I know what it is!

"Have you read Unintended Concequences by John Ross"?!!

 

[Bill St. Clair]

Yes. Those hogs are getting mighty hungry. We've kept them waiting way too long.

 

[No4Mk1*]

He is facing three years in prison for keeping and bearing 2 pistols in an unapproved manner.

Amendment VIII:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[Balog]

I rather doubt that was the result TBO was going for Bill.

 

[TheeBadOne]

He is facing three years in prison for keeping and bearing 2 pistols in an unapproved manner.

I don't know Ohio law, but I'd be very suprised if he was sentanced to jail time. (unless there's more charges we don't know about).

 

[Ian]

The charges carry a maximum penalty of 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. It's a 4th degree felony there. All it would take to get that penalty is a rights-ignorant jury and an anti-gun judge (both of which seem to be a great supply today).

 

[Tippecanoe]

This is definitely an interesting forum, and topic.

However,
Preacherman says:
-----------------
"but a state has the right to make its own laws "
-----------------

I just can't agree. A state does have the right to make its own laws, so long as they do NOT abrogate the Constitution of the US and of the State in which the laws the law is being made.
The laws that Ohio has made here, and enforcing abrogate *both* the Constitution of the US *and* the State of Ohio.
That is appalling.

And this man should immediately be set free. If he were but in Indiana, he would be fine. To be considered a *felon* for merely crossing the state line, where Constituional guarantees (whre are they?) should be in effect, is just crazy.

 

[P95Carry]

He has been negligent, foolish - or both. I am not going to ''enter the fray'' .... most aspects have surfaced already many times over. I do though imagine he is both regretful in the extreme .. and fearful for what the future holds - I sympathize with his predicament because it seems a potentially very big hole has been dug.

It is perhaps sad to see this sorta case act as a divisive mechanism .... splitting THR people almost into 2 camps. In part maybe predictable but sad nonetheless .... when normally we would expect to all be pretty much on the same page.

It does tho perhaps in that light ... provoke a great deal of deep thinking - perhaps all the better with which for people to ask themselves where they really stand - on rights, ''the law'' and ''justice''. And why!

I return to my ringside seat.

 

[AZRickD]

WildAlaska said:

Because I dont beleive that all people should be able to carry firearms will nilly?

Isn't that the new law in Alaska? Would you work to repeal concealed carry (and open carry) without a permit as allowed by Alaska law?

Maybe you should change your name to Mild Alaska.

For those of you who think that the 2A doesn't apply to the states, one has to remember that the 14A was drafted and introduced by Senator Jacob Howard, in part, to keep the states from infringing on the newly freed slave's right to keep and bear arms (from GunCite):

To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be "for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature" to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution ... [including] the right to keep and bear arms ... The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.

In the Dred Scot case the Opinion read that if he were a citizen with rights:

it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

And before that from William Rawle, "A View of the Constitution" 125 (2d ed. 1829), was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point:

"In the Second Article, it is declared that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state: a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable, yet ... the militia form the palladium of the country .... The corollary from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. THE PROHIBITION IS GENERAL. NO clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a right to DISARM THE PEOPLE." Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But, if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

 

[444]

Along a different line, I believe that everyone, everywhere has the GOD given right to defend themselves when nessessary. One simply has to look at nature to see that this was and always will be the right thing to do. Even the smallest mouse will defend it's life if cornered. I don't recognize the government's authority to give or take that right away from me.
This man was on a long trip by himself. At any time he could have broken down along the road, or gotten a flat tire. Every time he stopped for gas, or took a nap, or used the restroom there was at least some chance that he might be in danger. So, rather than look to someone else to protect him, or to gamble on the good nature of others he chose to arm himself for his own protection.
The sin in the whole matter is that the state of Ohio doesn't agree that he has a God given right to defend himself.
Let me ask you this. If you or your family were the victim of a violent crime, would it comfort you to know that you didn't defend yourself because the state said you couldn't ? If one of your children was murdered in front of your eyes and you did nothing to stop it, would you feel better about it because you didn't break any laws by having the means nessessary to defend them ?
To me, there are laws that are moral and just. And there are laws that are unjust and imoral. And yes, I believe that we have the right and obligation to decide which ones we are going to obey. As was mentioned, the Nuremberg defense doesn't hold water.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

P95Carry

It is perhaps sad to see this sorta case act as a divisive mechanism .... splitting THR people almost into 2 camps. In part maybe predictable but sad nonetheless .... when normally we would expect to all be pretty much on the same page.

Exactly, those who believe in freedom....and those who want to control it.

 

[Wildalaska]

For AZ

Isn't that the new law in Alaska? Would you work to repeal concealed carry (and open carry) without a permit as allowed by Alaska law?

Yes I would support efforts to repeal non permit concealed carry...

Maybe you should change your name to Mild Alaska.

Maybe you should try taking the High Road...o I forgot, you are on the side of the name callers...whats next...calling me "traitor"?

For 444:

And yes, I believe that we have the right and obligation to decide which ones we are going to obey.

If you want do that fine, as long as you are prepared to pay the price.

For Sarge Bob:

Exactly, those who believe in freedom....and those who want to control it.

I assume your idea of freedom includes all of the social issues that the usaul run of freedom lovers so happily oppose.

Hey ya know what, poeple want to control Mikey Jackson too...

WildneveragainAlaska