Canton Ohio Wants To revoke CCW permits

[basicblur]

I would love to know more about that. Not sure how to search for that, though.

I remember hearing about it-Tom Gresham has laughingly (guess it was that or cry) mentioned it a few times on his Podcast.
So...as Mr. law abiding citizen, when I'm pulled over in a duty to inform state, I have to.
But Mr. Felon does not have to as it would amount to self-incrimination?

I think that's basically how it goes? I'd love to know the case or ? folks were talking 'bout from a few years back.

 

[eazyrider]

Isn't threatening someones life viewed as a "terrorist threat"? I thought it was a crime. If I had done that on camera I would think that at the very least I would have a court date. It amazes me how much cops get away with. Hell just watch the show. Seems to me that every time a cop uses excessive force he justifies it by saying that it's a dangerous job and he wants to go home. Well hell if your that scared quit. You don't have a contract, like the military, there is no such thing as AWOL, like the military. I know there are good cops and I respect that, but I just don't hear them calling out the bad ones enough.

I guess I am just one of those kind of guys who think the cops have way too much power.

 

[foghornl]

In the first video released, the citizen has his CCW permit IN HIS HAND while being berated by Harless.

Bad officer, even worse for the other officers that showed up and did NOTHING about Harless.

 

[seed]

I agree that cops have waaaay too much power, especially when you consider that it is a lot more likely for them to get away with abusing it (and trampling the rights of non-cops) and or receive far less severe punishment than a non-cop would, in the unlikely event that they got caught on video...which is the ONLY way cops ever get caught for said abuses. This is why it is extremely important that they screen out the obvious bad apples and then make it more common for the ones who slipped through to lose their jobs. Good cops need to step up on this one.

If I were hiring cops and came across a candidate who was super gung-ho about becoming a cop, had no record of any sort, had few jobs because they were young, did not heavily participate in social and extracurricular activities such as sports, had few school friends who participated in social activities, etc...it would set up an immediate gigantic red flag and it would be an almost virtual lock that I would not hire them. I want cops who are interested in going after actual criminals and not those who are set on inflicting their pain of social torment on noncriminals. Social retards (not being vulgar here...that is the proper word to use) have no place in a police department. Fortunately they make up the minority of cops. Unfortunately, they make up the majority of cop encounters with non-criminals which go bad, most often unnecessarily. Their existence is felt very heavily by upstanding citizens by the sheer volume of unnecessary encounters and the disporpotionate mass of pain they enjoy inflicting on citizenry during these encounters.

 

[xfyrfiter]

with 20 years as a firefighter under my belt, I have met, and had professional association with many LEO, most are good, but there are always a few bad apples in the barrel. The bad apples need to be removed or they will spoil all. It does seem that the bad ones get to be on adminastrative leave much too long, with pay no less and full bennies . Good union reps?

 

[paramedic70002]

The case is Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88, 88 S.Ct. 722, 725 (1968).

Wikipedia:

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.

Read the case:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13743174728606423450&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

NRA-ILA topic:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=22&issue=006

 

[basicblur]

The case is Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88, 88 S.Ct. 722, 725 (1968).

I knew it was based on an older SCOTUS ruling (no doubt the one referenced above), but I thought the matter discussed by Gresham et al. was based on a more recent case. The above case covers felons registering, but I was thinking maybe the recent discussions (from about two years ago?) covered a felon (not?) notifying-maybe a local case in which the outcome was based on the 1968 ruling?

Mebbe I'm wrong and the discussions I heard from a few years back were simply folks discussing theoretical situations based on the ruling?

IANAL, but I noticed this on Wikipedia's page (assuming it's accurate?):
As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration. The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes and the new registration provision was upheld in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).

Since we have no gun registration, and it references the NFA, I assume the felon in the '68 case had an automatic weapon etc covered under the NFA (which does require registering automatic weapons etc)?
Does the NFA being amended after Haynes mean felons do now have to register (inform), etc?

 

[splithoof]

SharpsDressedMan:
Thank you. Your replies are very rational. There are plenty of other states that don't have it nearly as good as Ohio.

 

[cambeul41]

SARDiver asked --

I would love to know more about that. Not sure how to search for that, though.

So I Googled ["fifth amendment" gun carry] and got a bunch of responses including
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

 

[SARDiver]

Thank you all for the responses! I had had a long day and I just wasn't thinking hard enough to grab what I needed (and what has been provided).

 

[the_skunk]

A San Diego cop gets into a road rage incident and shoots 5 bullets into a windshield of a car, hitting a mother and her 8 yr old child.

http://obrag.org/?p=42058

 

[M-Cameron]

A San Diego cop gets into a road rage incident and shoots 5 bullets into a windshield of a car, hitting a mother and her 8 yr old child.

fixed

 

[hermannr]

If you are stopped for a simple traffic violation, there is no reasonable purpose gained by informing, or even for the officer to even ask. Your having a firearm on you has absolutely nothing to do with why you failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or that you were going 5 mph over the posted limit. That cell phone you were talking on is a lot more dangerous to the public than a proper carry.

If you are committing a property crime, that is a different matter, in which case it would be to your advantage to keep your mouth shut and let the lawyers do the talking.

Here in WA when they run your drivers license, your CPL comes up anyway. Doesn't mean you are carrying, just that you have a CPL. I personally have never been asked if I was armed, (most likely because I OC) and have never brought it up as we are not required to volunteer that info.

I would think if an officer were to stop someone for a petty traffic stop, and saw the person had a license, it should put him at ease because they don't give permits to criminals? (except for maybe in Chicago and NYS) do they?

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Don't try to apply logic to this section of the Ohio law on CCW. The legislators drafted it with requested help from some Ohio law enforcment reps, who had never had any experience with licensed CCW carriers (they thought it would be a good thing if the person carrying had to tell the police that he was armed). Had they talked to LE from other states, they might have drafted a better law, but being that we had been denied CCW for so long (previously no permit or legal licensed CCW), we kind of accepted the law they pushed through, and crossed our fingers that the governor wouldn't veto it. They have made some changes and improvements over the last 6 years, but it still needs this secton to be dropped or amended. We'll see what happens. For the moment, we are stuck with the "advisement to police" requirement.

 

[SleazyRider]

I would think if an officer were to stop someone for a petty traffic stop, and saw the person had a license, it should put him at ease because they don't give permits to criminals? (except for maybe in Chicago and NYS) do they?

Now that, sir, is an excellent point! I can't speak for Chicago, but I csn assure you that NYS does not issue permits to criminals.