• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Just looking for some info.

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Since Congress amended 18 USC 922(q) there has been two courts that I know of that has upheld Congresses changes. See United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999). Both are contrary to Lopez.

Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981), United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) all made it clear that under the Commerce Clause Congress is required to show a tangible link to commerce, not a mere conceivable rational relation. “imply because Congress may conclude that a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce does not necessarily make it so.” See Lopez, supra, at 557, n. 2 (quoting Hodel, supra, at 311 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment).

The Lopez Court made it clear that the Commerce Clause would not carry the day when it comes to carrying a gun in a school zone.

The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce.

To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. See supra, at 556-558. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, cf. Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, at 195, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, cf. Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 30. This we are unwilling to do.

I know of no case in our circuit (6th cir.) that has ruled contrary to Lopez.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Actually I know of no case where the GFSZ Act has been used to prosecute successfully as the primary charge.
I too do not think it would hold up to a challenge.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Despite the laws, the summary of Ohio's laws here, O.R.C. 9.68, the Ohio Constitution, and the United States Constitution, you may be stopped, asked for ID, and threatened with charges.

You can and may be charged with inducing panic, disorderly conduct, or anything else, depending on the officer and the county prosecutor (if he/she is involved).

I know - one or more of the above has happened to me, or someone I know, in the past six months - and I have open carried off and on for more than five years.

That said, if you're prepared to deal with those eventualities, then open carry. Be an ambassador to an inquiring public while you are doing so. Dress and act like a "respectable" citizen. If you want to take part in open carry activism, then do so.

Very simply, if you don't want, and are not willing to accept the potential negative repercussions of open carry, then don't do it.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Despite the laws, the summary of Ohio's laws here, O.R.C. 9.68, the Ohio Constitution, and the United States Constitution, you may be stopped, asked for ID, and threatened with charges.

You can and may be charged with inducing panic, disorderly conduct, or anything else, depending on the officer and the county prosecutor (if he/she is involved).

I know - one or more of the above has happened to me, or someone I know, in the past six months - and I have open carried off and on for more than five years.

That said, if you're prepared to deal with those eventualities, then open carry. Be an ambassador to an inquiring public while do are doing so. Dress and act like a "respectable" citizen. If you want to take part in open carry activism, then do so.

Very simply, if you don't want, and are not willing to accept the potential negative repercussions of open carry, then don't do it.

One can greatly reduce the impact of these possibilities by being well versed in the laws, carrying a recorder, remaining calm and following through after the fact. Not all encounters will end badly.

OCs acceptance depends on responsible activism - if in no other way than by doing so as often as possible.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
One can greatly reduce the impact of these possibilities by being well versed in the laws, carrying a recorder, remaining calm and following through after the fact. Not all encounters will end badly.

OCs acceptance depends on responsible activism - if in no other way than by doing so as often as possible.
Agreed.

"Not all encounters will end badly" - absolutely right, but one should be as prepared as possibly, legally and otherwise, for that eventuality.

As I said "Very simply, if you don't want, and are not willing to accept the potential negative repercussions of open carry, then don't do it."
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Agreed.

"Not all encounters will end badly" - absolutely right, but one should be as prepared as possibly, legally and otherwise, for that eventuality.

As I said "Very simply, if you don't want, and are not willing to accept the potential negative repercussions of open carry, then don't do it."

Understand your point quite well. That can be said about anything in life though - many with equal potential.

Knowledge is power.
 
Top