Canton Ohio Wants To revoke CCW permits

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike, Ohio just moved up on the list of GOOD CCW states from no citizen CCW about 7-8 years ago to recent legislation tht permits being armed in restaurants that serve alcohol. That is more permissive than a lot of other states, when combined with relative ease and cost of getting a CCW license. Reciprocity is growning, too. Beats hell out of CA, NY, MI, MA, PA, etc. Now if we can just train our cops to be professional......

Okay, then we'll limit expulsion to just the city of Canton.:D
 
Yes, the Councilman is absolutely right...

A CCW permit immediately turns a citizen (having just passed a criminal background check) into a slavering homicidal beast.

It's more like: "A Police badge immediately turns a citizen (having just passed a criminal background check) into a slavering homicidal beast."

From the officer in the dashcam video: " I should have [...], pulled my Glock 40 and just put ten bullets in your ass"

And as we all know very well the police are the only ones "profeshunal enough" to carry Glock 40s... exemplary.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can make a blanket accusation of every Canton, OH cop ! Like in any other endeavor - particularly politics - some folks get drunk on authority.

No doubt the esteemed Councilman has determined taking a page out the Quartzite, AZ town council's rulebook is a good idea. Given a short length of rope he'll likely hang himself. >MW
 
Ohio should further amend this law to REQUIRE LEO's to immediately ASK persons being stopped if they are carrying any weapons. Along with possible physical control and close observation, this would keep the officer at the ready and get to the point immediately, instead of ignoring subjects, searching cars, and having other less important stuff on their minds


Good solution
 
I don't think you can make a blanket accusation of every Canton, OH cop ! Like in any other endeavor - particularly politics - some folks get drunk on authority. >MW

Tom Gresham of Gun Talk has been on this story since it broke, and he has had some interesting discussions with various people about the incident. He has a pod cast available if you didn't hear his show.http://www.guntalk.com/site.php
Some of what he has talked about, and I agree wholeheartedly, is that other police were aware of Daniel Harless outburst, yet nobody did anything about it. In the second released tape, where he yelling death threats, there were several other officers present, yet no one told him to shut up, or apparently reported it to his superiors. Maybe the other officers didn't engage in such behavior, but their inaction indicated their acceptance of it. I don't think it inappropriate or out of line to suggest that many people who are bullies tend to be attracted to positions of power and authority. If the "good" cops don't want to be tarred by the actions of rogues like Harless, then they need to take proactive steps to eliminate the "Harless's" from their organizations.
 
Here in Portland, my kids ask for the scanner more than music on the radio in the car.

I've heard officers call each other out for inappropriate statements over the air more than once.

Whatever they may say about the bad apples, there ARE good officers on the force everywhere.

Unfortunately, just as we Responsible gun owners know, We could link hands across the nation and sing "I want to give the world a Coke" (RC for me, don't like that vanilla taste... ) and the story of the night would focus on the one Idiot who spewed the worst stereotypical garbage, and we'd all be tarred with the same brush.

The worst examples always outstrip the efforts of the best of us to make progress.
 
Maybe the other officers didn't engage in such behavior, but their inaction indicated their acceptance of it.

This.^^

It is true that most cops are probably not like this Harless character, but I would bet good money that most know of such behavior and allow it to be carried out in front of them repeatedly and do nothing about it. For all practical purposes they are complicit in allowing and enabling injustice and criminal behavior to occur. Is that what a "good" cop does? It's like they hold no loyalty to the law or community, only to their little group, or gang.

Ambushing and stopping people on the street, forcefully pulling out occupants of vehicles, holding people at gun point, putting hands on a person and ruffling through personal belongings, forceful entry into people's homes, taking away personal property, ordering people into submissive positions under threat of death, general threats of violence all around, tying up people, wiretapping galore.... these are all behaviors proper of a thug and are understandably criminal by default. Police get a special pass to do these things by law and more importantly by society's consent because, supposedly, their intent is honest and moral: to actually protect people and property from those that do not respect people nor property. But what happens when the police are the ones that do not respect people and property? I think that a lot of times police forget that their authority and legitimacy actually comes from their intent to do good for the people who live under their watch. Authority and legitimacy do not come from a blue costume, a hostile attitude and flashy lights all over your car.
 
Authority and legitimacy do not come from a blue costume, a hostile attitude and flashy lights all over your car.


you would be surprised how much authority one can gain from an "official" looking uniform.

if you have never heard of the Stanford prison experiment......the results are actually quite terrifying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment


heck, with nothing more than a clipboard and a hardhat........i would have no trouble at all convincing people that a certain road was closed......that they needed to evacuate a certain building.......ect.


you wonder why many police depts are going with a "military" style uniform........its not for "tactical efficiency".......its because to most people......that style is more intimidating....and commands more respect.....and thus more cooperation.

its also the same reason you see mall cops in "police" garb.......no one is going to listen to a guy in a polo and khakis...........but put on a nice crisp uniform, a shiny badge, a duty belt full of stuff they legally cant use......people are more apt to follow his orders.
 
Last edited:
"its also the same reason you see mall cops in "police" garb.......no one is going to listen to a guy in a polo and khakis...........but put on a nice crisp uniform, a shiny badge, a duty belt full of stuff they legally cant use......people are more apt to follow his orders"

Damn straight M-Cam. Appearances are not everything, but they sure as heck make a difference.

Way back in the 90's, one of my first jobs was in a Radioshack, selling communications equipment, scanners, $4000 IBMs (100 mhz, 32 mb of ram and a 100 mb hard drive, it'll last you for a decade!!!) and components to HAMmers and guys trying to build "companion" (shudder) robots.

Oh the power of the variable resistor...

One of the fun parts of the job, even at my size( 6'5") was dealing with the shoplifters... the battery thieves weren't so bad, but the guys coming in to steal butane torches for smoking crack were a problem.

Dealing with them in suit and tie got one reaction... sometimes violent.

At the time I rode a motorcycle ALL weather( including snow) and it was my habit to enter the mall, and my workplace in full head to toe leathers, often not even removing my helmet... with my suit beneath.

Snapping the magnetic tag to the lapel of my Jacket, It was a WORLD of difference the reaction I'd get when looming out of nowhere to snag the torch out of their pocket. (I"M SORRY I"M SORRY I"M SORRY I"M SORRY!!!!!!)

I used to zip-tie them to the balcony outside of the store and let security pick them up, at least till the Sherrif's office in the mall quietly let me know I was risking a Kidnapping charge each time I did this. They of course knew me well from dealing with the Loss prevention side.
 
In the case of an officer ASKING about weapons, any good officer will still treat the subject as armed, but be able to charge them with false report, CCW, or some other offense if the subject was found in a lie, etc. A licensed CCW carrier will simply respond, "Yes, I have a CCW license and a gun", etc. How much simpler can it be for the cop or the armed citizen?

Not that I advocate this, but what about the illegally armed citizen who has a right against unreasonable search and siezure?

Does the CCW holder have to tell the officer that he has a gun but the non-CCW holder can keep his mouth shut?
 
In the case of an illegally armed person, unless he is a bona fide SUSPECT, the officer may ask him questions without a Miranda advisory. If the subject BECOMES a suspect in a crime, THEN the officer must cease questioning, or advise the suspect of his rights. In the case of a non-licensed person carrying a gun, and being asked by a police officer if he is armed, the officer has no probable cause to believe a cirme is being committed until he becomes aware thath the subject IS armed (by way of observation, an affirmative answer, or a protective "frisk" (allowed for the officer's safety). At this point, if the subject answered that he did have a gun, the next question is "do you have a license?" If no, the officer now has a crime to deal with. If the officer asks if the subject has a gun, and the answer is "No", and is later found (by way of the protective "frisk" or observation reveals signs of a gun, or bulge, etc), then the officer has the crime of illegal CCW, giving false information, etc. Pretty simple stuff: Terry & Miranda. A person carrying an illegal gun does not have immunity to being frisked for the officer's protection, should he come into contact with an officer, and the officer deem it necessary to frisk. NOT an illegal seach (lots of case law).
 
There was a SCOTUS case a few years ago, that I can not cite unfortunately, that says someone with an illegal gun does not have to (declare it, register it, something like that), as that would be a violation of their right to not incriminate themselves.
 
As stated, there are procedures and case laws establishing exactly how and when a person stops being a SUBJECT being interviewed, and a SUSPECT, requiring advising of one's rights. "Confessions" made by non-suspects CAN be used against them, as long as they are not truly SUSPECTS before the acquired statement. Until a person being contacted by a police officer becomes a suspect, he is not the focus of an investigation, and may make culpable statements that can be used against him. It would follow that a person illegally carrying a weapon is not going to be found innocent of such a charge just becuase he blurted it out to a nearby police officer. "Officer, I am illegally carrying a gun!" "OK, since you told me, the Supreme Court says you can go without being arrested. Thanks for telling me."
 
NANNY STATE/JACKBOOT alert :scrutiny:

Used to live in the Canton area ten years back. Stark County has to many issues with both county and city leo's so this doesn't surprise me. Cleveland and Akron aren't any better.
I'd imagine this tough guy will eat his own bullet if he gets fired.
 
In CT, two cities good sized cities have ordinances that prohibit CCW, neither one is considered to be enforceable
 
Chalk me up as another witness to unanimous back-up of irrational cops by their nearby brethren. I know a lot of cool people who happen to be cops (nature of my job), but in every experience of which I have personally dealt with the irrational minority of punks with badges who were waaaaay out of line, or seen others have the similar misfortune, the other cops have NEVER put the punks in check...even if they outranked them in rank, years, experience, etc. To me, it is their sworn duty to uphold the law, especially when it involves out of line cops. I have almost begged the cool cops to at least keep an eye on these psychos. If they do, they certainly have never told me they would.
 
I once threatened to arrest one of my co-worker cops when he tried to bully his way into an incident that I was handling. You should have seen the look on his face........because he could see I wasn't kidding. There were numerous other times that I quietly stepped in to stop a few things, and often chided guys for unprofessonal treatment of people, but the nose to nose warning of arrest was priceless. Personally, I worked too hard to treat people fairly to have a co-worker turning the public against the police. I wasn't the most popular guy at the PD, but then, that wasn't what I was getting paid to do. :evil:
 
Chalk me up as another witness to unanimous back-up of irrational cops by their nearby brethren. I know a lot of cool people who happen to be cops (nature of my job), but in every experience of which I have personally dealt with the irrational minority of punks with badges who were waaaaay out of line, or seen others have the similar misfortune, the other cops have NEVER put the punks in check...even if they outranked them in rank, years, experience, etc. To me, it is their sworn duty to uphold the law, especially when it involves out of line cops. I have almost begged the cool cops to at least keep an eye on these psychos. If they do, they certainly have never told me they would.

I thought about the police as a career (the local CC has the police academy as part of an associates CJ program). But then I realized I'd have to tow the 'blue wall' or I'd get treated worse than an IAB investigator.
 
There was a SCOTUS case a few years ago, that I can not cite unfortunately, that says someone with an illegal gun does not have to (declare it, register it, something like that), as that would be a violation of their right to not incriminate themselves.
I would love to know more about that. Not sure how to search for that, though.
 
Where is the NRA on this mess?
Ya know, I'm a life member of the NRA, but they're rather disappointing on this. Their position that "humanoid" targets are only suitable for LEOs and military is telling, and I think that attitude is keeping them from saying anything that would alienate LEOs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top