Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: New to open carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Gahanna
    Posts
    2

    New to open carry

    Hi all Im new to the forum and have been reading around for 2 or 3 days. I have recently bought a Ruger SR9c and I open carried on the 9th for the first time but i was extremly nervous about it, nobody had said anything to me or looked afraid but it got me wondering if someone called the police could you be charged for menacing or anything similar?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    If a cop approaches then don't answer any question ... just turn and walk away. I don't think your state requires ID or permit upon request .. chk that out .. if so, just hand him the permit and keep your mouth shut. If he says you are required to answer questions, its a lie...just remain mum.

    Welcome to the forum !
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-11-2012 at 10:49 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Gahanna
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If a cop approaches then don't answer any question ... just turn and walk away. I don't think your state requires ID or permit upon request .. chk that out .. if so, just hand him the permit and keep your mouth shut. If he says you are required to answer questions, its a lie...just remain mum.

    Welcome to the forum !
    I would think that if I remained quite and didn't responed I anything that they might slap some bs charge on me. Also as for the ID and permit I looked into that before I first oc'd and I don't need either to oc I'm working on getting my ccw but I still plan to oc after I have my ccw.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    60
    Under Ohio law you are only required to show ID if 1. you're suspected of committing a crime, in the process of committing a crime or about to commit a crime. 2. You're a witness to a crime or have knowledge of a conspiracy to commit a crime.

    So the magic phrases are:
    "Am I being detained."
    If Yes - "What crime do you suspect me of committing."

    This is the best example of how to handle the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugw8Py_b_HE or stay quiet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n1BHJs5V5c
    Good or Bad Post it - http://www.FriendOrFoe.us

  5. #5
    Regular Member asfkd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hamilton, Ohio
    Posts
    2
    "officer am i being detained?" If no then "Okay then have a nice day" exit stage left. If yes "why am I being detained?" they are going to avoid the question just keep asking. Most likely they are going toask for I.D. "Am i being charged with a crime?" If yes then "what crime am i being charged with?" if no "why am i being detained?" If they say "your not" or the like then ask "Am i free to go?" if yes exit stage left this is a bit of a marry-go-round but your atleast not going to get baited into saying something that will give them reason to arrest you. The less you say the better (starting out anyway) NEVER reach for your weapon! Even if they ask you to remove it tell them they have to do it. for both your safety.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If a cop approaches then don't answer any question ... just turn and walk away. I don't think your state requires ID or permit upon request .. chk that out .. if so, just hand him the permit and keep your mouth shut. If he says you are required to answer questions, its a lie...just remain mum.

    Welcome to the forum !
    Hmmm...

    You are required under Ohio law to give your name, and/or date of birth. You don't need a permit to open carry. Only to OC in a motor vehicle. You also don't need to pass a drivers license on request When you are asked, 'what you doing", your educating the public that OC is legal. That to is protected under the 1st Amendment. No matter what else he tells you, however he/they piss and moan, as long as your minding your own business they can't charge you with anything. That's the reason he / they will stand there and express their ignorance, and not put you in hand cuffs. A few things LEO hate is when you answer their questions, with questions, ie: Am I being detained? Am I under arrest? Am I free to go,,, YET?

    There are plenty of OC education videos on you tube. Check 'em out their pretty cool, and good training. If you are carrying that weapon, you need to know enough not to be nervous. That might be a disadvantage should you ever need to use that weapon.

    Heres one I viewed yesterday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g71Vf...eature=related
    Last edited by JSlack7851; 08-14-2012 at 05:57 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by JSlack7851 View Post
    Hmmm...

    You are required under Ohio law to give your name, and/or date of birth. You don't need a permit to open carry. Only to OC in a motor vehicle. You also don't need to pass a drivers license on request When you are asked, 'what you doing", your educating the public that OC is legal. That to is protected under the 1st Amendment. No matter what else he tells you, however he/they piss and moan, as long as your minding your own business they can't charge you with anything. That's the reason he / they will stand there and express their ignorance, and not put you in hand cuffs. A few things LEO hate is when you answer their questions, with questions, ie: Am I being detained? Am I under arrest? Am I free to go,,, YET?

    There are plenty of OC education videos on you tube. Check 'em out their pretty cool, and good training. If you are carrying that weapon, you need to know enough not to be nervous. That might be a disadvantage should you ever need to use that weapon.

    Heres one I viewed yesterday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g71Vf...eature=related
    You are not required to ID yourself in Ohio unless as I mentioned that you're suspected of crime or witness to a crime. As long as you're carrying where a permit wouldn't be necessary to carry there you have no obligation to provide ID. The only time you need to ID yourself if ask by a LEO is if you are OC within a school zone or a bar, etc... where you need to have a CHL to carry there then you have to produce your CHL if asked.
    Good or Bad Post it - http://www.FriendOrFoe.us

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroC View Post
    You are not required to ID yourself in Ohio unless as I mentioned that you're suspected of crime or witness to a crime...
    Correct.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    291
    Jeff, I have to disagree:

    ORC 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.


    (A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

    (1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

    Yes, this is the short list. If your carrying that would constitute reasonable suspicion that any Court would support. If your carrying concealed, and notify, LEO have the right to ask for your permit. However, if your Openly Carrying, that would be another matter. You wouldn't be required to show a card, just give your name and DOB or address. This is called a 'Sterile Carry.'
    Last edited by JSlack7851; 08-16-2012 at 11:21 PM. Reason: Punctuation

  10. #10
    Regular Member CornfedinOhio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    39

    New to open carry

    Openly carrying is not RAS for a terry stop. You must give name, birthdate, address but not ID.



    Guns kill and iPhones mispelt wordz.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by JSlack7851 View Post
    Jeff, I have to disagree:

    ORC 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.


    (A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

    (1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

    Yes, this is the short list. If your carrying that would constitute reasonable suspicion that any Court would support. If your carrying concealed, and notify, LEO have the right to ask for your permit. However, if your Openly Carrying, that would be another matter. You wouldn't be required to show a card, just give your name and DOB or address. This is called a 'Sterile Carry.'
    Huh???

    JSlack & CornFed: So I'm openly carrying. And to be required to show ID/disclose my name, address, or date of birth, I have to have committed, be committing, or about to commit a crime, right?

    Just what crime have I, am I, or am I about to commit??
    Last edited by BB62; 08-17-2012 at 08:03 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member CornfedinOhio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    39

    New to open carry

    That's correct, the tricky part is law enforcement isn't obligated to disclose their RAS to you because it may Impede the crime they are investigating.
    For instance if a bank was robbed in an area you were walking through you most certainly will be detained but LEO isn't going to feel the need to explain why.


    Guns kill and iPhones mispelt wordz.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    60
    So back in the end. Open carrying is not RAS for a stop. No need to give name, address, DOB, or ID at all unless they have RAS.
    Good or Bad Post it - http://www.FriendOrFoe.us

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Something else you may consider is to not give any documents to a LEO. If you do give information, give it verbally, do not give them something they can hold hostage. jus sayin
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroC View Post
    So back in the end. Open carrying is not RAS for a stop. No need to give name, address, DOB, or ID at all unless they have RAS.
    OC in it self is not RAS for a Terry stop. Should LEO have RAS, and you don't offer them up at least name, address or DOB, I believe you could be charged. Best to CYA.

    I was walking my dog, in the park. A tree hugger called 911, told them I was shooting. I wasn't, clean barrel. Rangers responded, I was in handcuffs. I had no idea until later about the RAS the Ranger had. I had no problem offering up my name and address, just to be covered. BB62 is a lot smarter than me, but I wasn't arrested. I trust he's right. But if you don't know, or LEO won't tell you, what would you do?

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by JSlack7851 View Post
    OC in it self is not RAS for a Terry stop. Should LEO have RAS, and you don't offer them up at least name, address or DOB, I believe you could be charged. Best to CYA.

    I was walking my dog, in the park. A tree hugger called 911, told them I was shooting. I wasn't, clean barrel. Rangers responded, I was in handcuffs. I had no idea until later about the RAS the Ranger had. I had no problem offering up my name and address, just to be covered. BB62 is a lot smarter than me, but I wasn't arrested. I trust he's right. But if you don't know, or LEO won't tell you, what would you do?

    Several problems with that scenario - the officer did not have RAS that you had committed a crime - he only had 2nd hand hearsay, he did not witness anything.

    There are conditions that must be met, to require disclosure of personal ID information.

    You may not have been charged, but you were arrested, restrained and detained, not free to leave - that is actionable.


    Ohio: 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

    (A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:


    (1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.


    (2) The person witnessed any of the following:


    (a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;


    (b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;


    (c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;


    (d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.


    (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.


    (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.


    (D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.


    Effective Date: 04-14-2006



    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Several problems with that scenario - the officer did not have RAS that you had committed a crime - he only had 2nd hand hearsay, he did not witness anything.

    There are conditions that must be met, to require disclosure of personal ID information.

    You may not have been charged, but you were arrested, restrained and detained, not free to leave - that is actionable.
    I contacted 2 attorneys, sent them my story, complete with audio voice recording. Neither one agreed with you.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by JSlack7851 View Post
    I contacted 2 attorneys, sent them my story, complete with audio voice recording. Neither one agreed with you.
    Whether they agreed or not isn't important. Many attorneys will tell you to cooperate with LEO's when you've done nothing wrong, as it makes things easier. The fact is, you had committed no crime and were not suspected of any crime being committed (with the exception of hearsay), and therefore they had no RAS. They could have mistaken you for the guy who was called on, and you were arrested for no reason all because of hearsay. There is a reason why hearsay is generally not admissible in court (unless exceptions apply).

    Despite that no legal action has been taken against you, should something ever happen in the future you can be sure that they will look back and see that you were detained once because of this. Whether or not anything happened doesn't matter, there is a record of you being detained, and you didn't commit any crime.

    I was detained once, forcibly removed from my house, by dozens of police late into the night. Without revealing too much information, a serious crime allegedly occurred against an ex of mine. I was named as the person who had committed the crime, and was arrested that night, paraded in front of my home with a dozen flashing cruisers lighting it up, all because of a single person making a claim. After 20 minute they had realized the mistake they made and quickly apologized and left. I was placed in handcuffs with weapons pointed at me, my body was searched without permission (though they requested to search my home, and I not understanding the laws at the time, allowed it). Yet I hadn't done anything wrong. Six months later she made the same claim, after talking to the detective for a few minutes I finally told him that unless he had reason to arrest me, not to call me again. I've not heard back from him.


    Long story short, unless they have any REAL reason to suspect you, you shouldn't have given them any information.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    291
    You guys are right, I am wrong. I'm done.

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by CornfedinOhio View Post
    That's correct, the tricky part is law enforcement isn't obligated to disclose their RAS to you because it may Impede the crime they are investigating.
    For instance if a bank was robbed in an area you were walking through you most certainly will be detained but LEO isn't going to feel the need to explain why.
    That's a new one on me. If asked he better be able to articulate his reason for the stop. You need to read all of "Terry" and all the associated cases.

    In the first place, if the frisk is justified in order to protect the officer during an encounter with a citizen, the officer must first have constitutional grounds to insist on an encounter, to make a forcible stop. Any person, including a policeman, is at liberty to avoid a person he considers dangerous. If and when a policeman has a right instead to disarm such a person for his own protection, he must first have a right not to avoid him but to be in his presence. That right must be more than the liberty (again, possessed by every citizen) to address questions to other persons, for ordinarily the person addressed has an equal right to ignore his interrogator and walk away; he certainly need not submit to a frisk for the questioner's protection. I would make it perfectly clear that the right to frisk in this case depends upon the reasonableness of a forcible stop to investigate a suspected crime.

    Where such a stop is reasonable, however, the right to frisk must be immediate and automatic if the reason for the stop is, as here, an articulable suspicion of a crime of violence. Just as a full search incident to a lawful arrest requires no additional justification, a limited frisk incident to a lawful stop must often be rapid and routine. There is no reason why an officer, rightfully but forcibly confronting a person suspected of a serious crime, should have to ask one question and take the risk that the answer might be a bullet.
    Also name only.......

    When any of us are carrying concealed we understand that we must inform an officer of our conceal carry status and also have identification on our persons and supply that identification if requested.

    When open carrying we are not required to have any type of identification on our persons. Knowing that the Ohio legislature passed ORC 2921.29.

    Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a law enforcement officer has wide leeway during an investigatory stop. But, that wide leeway is not unlimited. A stop under Terry is limited by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and also limited by Article 1 Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. ORC §2921.29 is unconstitutional as written. ORC §2921.29(A) states in part “No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:...” ORC §2921.29 goes well beyond the holding of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

    The U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel stated that:
    Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
    The Hiibel court made it abundantly clear that, until Hiibel, an open question existed as to whether a suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for the refusal to answer questions, ie a suspect exercising their Fifth Amendment right. Through Hiibel the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. The Court did not extend that principle beyond the giving of the suspect's name.

    ORC §2921.29 states “no person...shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth.” The term “or” in Websters dictionary is a conjunction introducing an alternative. Thus, in plain English ORC §2921.29 allows a person to give one of the three alternatives. But, what if an arresting officer charges an Accused with not supplying all three because the officer treated the term “or” as if it meant “and.” According to ORC §1.02(F) (“And” may be read “or,” and “or” may be read “and” if the sense requires it.) the officer is permitted to make such interpretation. The officer's interpretation, however, would be in direct violation of ORC §1.42 which states in part “Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” Accordingly, the application of term “and” in ORC §2921.29(A) would then be in direct violation of Hiibel. Clearly, ORC §2921.29(A), when applied with the term “and” instead of “or”, would be beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed under the Fourth Amendment and therefore, ORC §2921.29 would be unconstitutional.

    If an Accused gave their name, but was arrested and jailed for not giving his address and date of birth, the arrest and jailing would be under the color of law and in violation of the Accused's constitutional right under the U.S. and Ohio Constitution.
    Last edited by color of law; 08-19-2012 at 11:28 AM.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    That's a new one on me. If asked he better be able to articulate his reason for the stop. You need to read all of "Terry" and all the associated cases.



    Also name only.......

    When any of us are carrying concealed we understand that we must inform an officer of our conceal carry status and also have identification on our persons and supply that identification if requested.

    When open carrying we are not required to have any type of identification on our persons. Knowing that the Ohio legislature passed ORC 2921.29.

    Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a law enforcement officer has wide leeway during an investigatory stop. But, that wide leeway is not unlimited. A stop under Terry is limited by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and also limited by Article 1 Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. ORC §2921.29 is unconstitutional as written. ORC §2921.29(A) states in part “No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:...” ORC §2921.29 goes well beyond the holding of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

    The U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel stated that:


    The Hiibel court made it abundantly clear that, until Hiibel, an open question existed as to whether a suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for the refusal to answer questions, ie a suspect exercising their Fifth Amendment right. Through Hiibel the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. The Court did not extend that principle beyond the giving of the suspect's name.

    ORC §2921.29 states “no person...shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth.” The term “or” in Websters dictionary is a conjunction introducing an alternative. Thus, in plain English ORC §2921.29 allows a person to give one of the three alternatives. But, what if an arresting officer charges an Accused with not supplying all three because the officer treated the term “or” as if it meant “and.” According to ORC §1.02(F) (“And” may be read “or,” and “or” may be read “and” if the sense requires it.) the officer is permitted to make such interpretation. The officer's interpretation, however, would be in direct violation of ORC §1.42 which states in part “Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” Accordingly, the application of term “and” in ORC §2921.29(A) would then be in direct violation of Hiibel. Clearly, ORC §2921.29(A), when applied with the term “and” instead of “or”, would be beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed under the Fourth Amendment and therefore, ORC §2921.29 would be unconstitutional.

    If an Accused gave their name, but was arrested and jailed for not giving his address and date of birth, the arrest and jailing would be under the color of law and in violation of the Accused's constitutional right under the U.S. and Ohio Constitution.
    Though i agree with the application of Terry and Hibel decisions, I think you miss the syntax usage of "or" in ORC §2921.29. The option is not for you to chose which one to give, but rather if any one of the requirements is not met you have failed to provide as required.

    "Or" in addition to being a regular conjunction is not so limited and can be either a inclusive or exclusive disjunction.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Grapeshot, I was not implying an option is that you get to chose which one to give the officer. It was based on the wording of the statute.
    (A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
    The officer requests the name or address or date of birth. Versus name and address and date of birth.

    The bottom line is Hiibel only requires giving your name if and only if the officer can articulate that a crime is about to be committed.

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Grapeshot, I was not implying an option is that you get to chose which one to give the officer. It was based on the wording of the statute.

    The officer requests the name or address or date of birth. Versus name and address and date of birth.

    The bottom line is Hiibel only requires giving your name if and only if the officer can articulate that a crime is about to be committed.
    I understand Hibal.

    Your syntax comparison of the statute is flawed. If you fail to give any of the required elements, you are at fault: Name, address or date of birth. Replacing the "or" with an "and" would indicate that all 3 elements would need to be withheld - that is clearly not the case.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I understand Hibal.

    Your syntax comparison of the statute is flawed. If you fail to give any of the required elements, you are at fault: Name, address or date of birth. Replacing the "or" with an "and" would indicate that all 3 elements would need to be withheld - that is clearly not the case.
    Not flawed at all. The issue has already been before the court word for word as I posted. The person was charged with only giving their name and refusing to give address AND date of birth. The person was acquitted.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Not flawed at all. The issue has already been before the court word for word as I posted. The person was charged with only giving their name and refusing to give address AND date of birth. The person was acquitted.
    Was that before a court of record that will effect lower court rulings or are you still subject to the next interpretation?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •