911 law: Dan Sayers open carry arrest video

Not open for further replies.
There is one key component of this video I think people should take away from this:

What was the one thing they tried to fall back on when they realized the guy may have broken no laws, but they wanted to charge him for something just so he wouldn't be "law abiding"? Or let him know he could be charged with so he would feel he was getting away with something and be grateful they just stopped him at gunpoint and eventually let him go?

Failure to inform! By saying he failed to inform them as required by law that he had a permit from 50 feet away while he had loaded guns pointed at him in the first part of the encounter. (Which seems to just be a requirement for concealed carry and not open there so not even valid? Or does it apply just because you have a permit regardless of whether you are exercising the privilege granted by the permit in Ohio?)
It may have been totally bogus, and they may have known it, but it was what they fell back on.
Now do you want to be yelling to officers with a rifle pointed at you through the back of your car that you have a gun?
Do you think that is going to make them more or less calm? More or less likely to shoot you before they realize what is going on? More or less likely to interpret an innocent movement as going for the gun you yelled at them that you had?

A "duty to inform" is a very stupid law, and this video helps show another reason why. It can be a catch all charge for use after the fact to justify wrong behavior towards citizens legally carrying, making them look like bad guys actually guilty of a crime after, or have them keep silent grateful to not be charged with it.

So had he actually been carrying concealed and the call of "a man with a gun" been after he printed, rather than while open carrying...It may have been a valid charge that got the officers and the department off the hook, and allowed the person carrying to be seen as a bad guy under the law.
Last edited:
Lets face it, there are some LEO's who get a big adrenlin rush over rushing to a "crime scene" and pulling their guns on somebody whether that person is committing a crime or not. Sometimes it just seems that any cheap little excuse will do as long as they get to pull that gun out of the holster. I keep asking myself just why these people get into law enforcement in the first place, and I'm afraid of the answer.

"Failure to inform" was a bit different back then.... It's still got a vague "immediately" or "promptly" instead of "30 seconds" or some such, but it was fuzzier then. Still nonsense.


If memory serves, Dan's Lincoln's power door locks required he turn the ignition on, or at least put his hands someplace dangerous (from the LEO's viewpoint), and no "sorry, gotta flip the lever" was possible. His windows were open, but the doors were locked, so he couldn't just use the outside handle. (My '99 Lincoln can be opened from the inside without mucking with the lock, but you still have to use the inside door handle. I'm not sure about a button on top of the door, though. Dan's was the '90 to something like '97 version.)

(Now I gotta go look.... :D)

Anyway, the doors were locked in a way that he couldn't get out without putting his hands someplace that the Officers might have objected to. Mom's '98 DeVille CANNOT be unlocked/opened from the inside without my hands vanishing into the innards of the car - the lock button and door handle are about halfway up the lower portion of the door. I really don't remember where the goodies are in the Lincoln. I've been driving the Caddy lately....

Just FWIW, this was a long time ago by OH CHL law standards.

I only watched the first ten minutes or so of the video. That was enough. If open carry is legal in Ohio, they had no reasonable suspicion upon which to make a stop of the automobile and the citizen's rights were violated.
Not open for further replies.