Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: LEO encounter while OCing in Akron

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    Last Friday 10 Aug, I was taking my daughter to luch in downtown Akron while OCing. We had just left her place of work (a law office, where I had picked up a few cards from attorneys just in case) and entered a non-posted sub shop on the first floor of her building.

    As soon as I walked in I noticed apolice luitenant seated on my right. While standing in line he approached me and asked where I worked. I didn't really understand and asked him to clarify. He said he noticed the gun and wondered where I worked. I explained I was not a LEO and carried for personal protection. He suggested that it was illegal for me to carry in that manner and asked if I had any ID. I told him what I was doing was perfectly legal and that as far as ID, while I did have it, I did not wish to provide it to him. He suggested my daughter and I go ahead and order and we would talk later. While we waited to order he went outside and called a Sgt from the training department. Once we received our food and sat down he agian approached me and asked if I could step outside the shop with him.

    He introduced the training Sgt as well as himself and stated that he was aware (the Sgt must have filled him in) that OC was legal but informed me that Akron still had a law (ordinance) on the books that prohibited OC. I informed him that HR347 passed last Nov and that went into effect in Mar/Apr preempted all locality laws. The training Sgt agreed but the Lt said because the law was still on the books in order to get the law repealed they may have to charge someone (arrest). I informed him thatmy lawyers were right upstairs if he wanted to take that route. He seemed reluctant to go that route and asked for ID. Again I told him that unless I was in a vehicle, I was not required to show ID. The training Sgt backed me up on this point as well.

    The Lt went on about OC and scaring the sheeple and tried to explain about the no-gun stickers on places of business (both the Sgt and I informed him nearly simultaneously, that the place I had entered was not posted). In the end I returned to the sub shop and finished my lunch without incident.

    Later the Sgt contacted me while heading back upstairs that he was going to use this instance and a training opportunity. He would issue a bulletin and ensure officers were reminded at roll-call that OC is legal in Ohio. At the same time, because I had told them I had a VA CC permit with Ohio reciprocity, he continued to suggest I carry CC and that if I persisted in OC that I may have more encounters with police.

    I felt this encounter, although it seemed to start off bad, went very well. Thanfully the training Sgt was well aware of Ohio gun laws and privately expressed to me he was pro 2A and that I was fully within the law, he supported me, and that I carried and acted responsibly during the encounter.

  2. #2
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Great job! Still makes me mad to be challenged for legally carrying. And in my own "backyard" too! The good that came out of this is that officers were educated, and more will be soon, if they follow through with reminding officers in roll call that OC is legal. Hopefully other than our crappy weather, my state has not left a bad impression on you.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    It's me state too. Born and raised, a Buckeye through and through.

  4. #4
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    [shadow=red]O-H[/shadow]

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    I-O

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Englewood, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    654

    Post imported post

    Well glad to hear it ended okay for you Tac.

    I've got an appointment with my lawyer on Tuesday to discuss my detention last Sunday at the park. Maybe we can get the city of Englewood to do the same thing and get the city ord. off the books and get the PD trained and up to date also.. That would be a least two more cities who should know the laws.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    somewhere, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    Good job Taclead on standing your ground and educating the Lt. (he should have known already, being a supervisor) on the practice of OC'ing.

    At least he confronted you in a respectful way and didn't prone you out in the sub shop.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Typical - a lieutenant has to consult a seargent for clarification.

    -ljp

  9. #9
    Regular Member reefteach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    Great job. I wonder how much of LEO threats are honest confusion, VS bullying.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Well done!

    I wonder how the legislature would feel upon hearing that their repeal didn't count until a magistrate or a court activated the repeal by charging or trying someone.

    The only thing I cansuggest in theway of very subtle tweakingis to avoid letting the police isolate you where witnesses can't overhear the conversation. If I recall, I got this advice from a LEO or ex-LEO on this forum.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    Ilove hearing stories like this, especially with a pro 2nd Ammendment officer involved.

  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Very well done, Taclead.

    You were totally prepared and represented yourself with a high levels of appropriate confidence, responsibilityandeffectiveness.

    Seems to me that the 2 LEOs did pretty well also, given the strongbias that the lieutenant started out with.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    I think a newspaper ad in the local paper advising leo of what the law actually is might well deny them a defense in court, such as "I had a reasonable belief that my actions were legal". That would open them up to all kinds of civil actions both Federal and State. Just one lawsuit like that would clarify the situation for most leos. I dont know of anything else that will.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ravenna, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    I copied Taclead's post in an e-mail and sent it to my wife's parents. They both have their concealed permit and they both conceal carry all the time. Her moms seems rather disinterested but her step-father seems to think we(my wife and I) are crazy for wanting to open carry. They say it will cause more trouble than it is worth. I am curious to know how you would respond to this and what laws I could show him that would educate him. (if that is possible)

    BELOW IS THE E-MAIL THAT WAS SENT IN RESPONSE TO MY APPROVAL OF OPEN CARRY. I EDITED THIS BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE MISUNDERSTOOD THE POST.

    The guy was very lucky that he ran into two experience, educated cops. The 1st one (the lieutenant) was patient and realized that it was pointless to make a scene in the restraint that could possibly result in a dangerous situation and someone getting shot. The second cop, the training sergeant, was apparently well versed in the law and let the situation drop.

    The situation could have been far worse if this open-carry nutcase had run into an inexperienced cop. The #1 thing cops are taught is to 'control' the situation. They're taught to do this for their safety. In so doing they're not going to listen to any 'civilian' tell them what the law is. On top of that, if there is a local ordinance, and it hasn't been overturned in court (or if it was and they don't know about it) then Cops have 'probable-cause' to demand ID and take the necessary steps to secure it. If they turn out to be wrong later, they are covered by government insurance and the city prosecutor can work out any problems, so it'll be no money out of the cops pocket.

    On the other hand if the cop had pushed the situation, the worst case could have been innocent bystanders, a cop, or this idiot being shot. A more likely scenario would have been for this guy to get arrested and spend a couple thousand $$ on attorney's fees. Sure, the guy had the business cards of a couple of lawyers, but was he that well off that he's able to shell out 100's$$/hour? On top of that, an aggressive prosecutor could see this guy as a nutcase and not a good person to be owning a gun. They could have dropped the weapons charge and gone after a charge of resisting arrest or some other felony that would completely strip the right of the guy to POSSESS a gun. Once that happens, you can't even be seen handling one, much less owning or carrying it. And who's going to have the final decision whether the guy was in the right? - a jury of his 'peers.' That means the average Joe/Janet will decide. And if the case is tried in your typical city by people who are scarred of guns, guess what, you loose big time!!!

    In addition, how can this guy walk around openly carrying a gun in the city feel safe??? If anything, it would make them a target of criminal wanting to get hold of a gun - simply run up behind them with a baseball bat and smack them over the head before they can 'draw partner'.... These people watched too many cowboy movies when they were kids!

    Finally, these armchair lawyers into absolute rights need to do some research on the 2nd Amendment - it's the right to "keep and BEAR" arms. 'Keep' is somewhat straightforward but 'BEAR' is not what it seems. 'Bearing' a gun is not synonymous with walking around town with it. There is a US Supreme Court case for the mid 1800's that make it clear State & City governments have the right to proscribe carrying guns in public. A city banned open carry and the US Supreme Court held that 'carrying' a gun was not synonymous with 'bearing' and therefore wasn't protected by the second amendment.



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    "Nutcase"? "Idiot"? "Too many cowboy movies"? A tad uncharitable, this interpretation, from someone supposedly in sympathy with the 2nd amendment. JMO.

    -ljp

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Pauly wrote:
    The situation could have been far worse if this open-carry nutcase had run into an inexperienced cop. The #1 thing cops are taught is to 'control' the situation. They're taught to do this for their safety. In so doing they're not going to listen to any 'civilian' tell them what the law is.
    Then they would be responsible for their own death for operating outside of their lawful duties. Police are not above the law, nor are they given any authority to operate outside of the law to 'control' a situation that does not need to be controlled.
    On top of that, if there is a local ordinance, and it hasn't been overturned in court (or if it was and they don't know about it) then Cops have 'probable-cause' to demand ID and take the necessary steps to secure it. If they turn out to be wrong later, they are covered by government insurance and the city prosecutor can work out any problems, so it'll be no money out of the cops pocket
    This is wrong and shows that you really have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to the law. This is YOU representing what you THINK is supposed to happen.

    Everything else you've posted simply shows that you are not an open carry person, which is fine, but this is an open carry board where WE prefer to carry openly or push for it in places it is yet deemed unlawful.

    This may not be the board for you.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ravenna, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    I edited my post for clarity. I just assumed bold and italicized text would be indication enough that those aren't my words. I apologize for the confusion. Again, the bold stuff is the response I received from my wife's step-father. They aren't my words. I support open carry and was looking for apropriate responses to the e-mail. I don't want to just call him a *****. I want concrete evidence and law backing my beliefs. Any help would be apreciated.

    (wow! I have enemies 4 posts in. That must be some kind of record, huh?)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I don't know that there are any objective legal issues raised that he's wrong about - he's presenting hypothetical situations which are not entirely without foundation (believe me on this one). I don't know that there's been any definitive ruling from SCOTUS concerning the definition of the "bearing" of arms exactly, but the rest is within the realm of possibility, if not probability. I don't know if that raises him to the level of a "*****" though.

    -ljp

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ravenna, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    I agree that there is a chance of certain misunderstandings happening here. (i especially agree and listen when this comes from you) However, he seems to think the 'easy' rode is to conceal and hide the fact he has a gun. I don't see it that way. I don't think carrying a gun is bad. I personally think that concealing a gun doesn't deter possible crime against me. I think that if I carry openly I am less likely to be bothered by criminals. However, I am probably more likely to be bothered by the police service. Simply put, he states that although I am legally allowed to open carry that doesn't mean I should due to the way the law can be interpreted. I feel I am doing the 2A a great injustice by not doing so. He is very much afraid of confrontation and unwilling to 'fight' for his rights. He would rather give up his right to carry than to be confronted with a police officer about it.

    Which brings me to this. This question just popped into my head when I typed the above paragraph. With everything that has happeded to you has your opinion on OC changed? When this is finally over and, hopefully, you are able to carry again will you OC or CC? I don't mean to pry and if it is not my business please accept my apology.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    No, you're not prying overmuch. It's a timely question and relevant to the forum, given my situation...

    If/when I get through this, I think that I will get a concealed carry license and exclusively OC anyway. That would at least remove this crap about transport in a vehicle (van)that I'm up against. No more loading/unloading/locking/unlocking everything every time I drive somewhere. No more nights in jail, indictments, hearings, 4-digit lawyer bills, etc. This assumes thatI either win or get a hung jury and they drop it at long last.

    If I go down over this, it's all moot. I lose my guns and gun rights, my job, my future prospects for non-trivial employment, and a large measure of my liberty generally. Even if I don't go to prison, I'd be on probation and have fines and costs and other such hoops to jump through, and would be obliged to look for work as a felon - not ideal in any economy, much less the stagflation we're likely up against soon.

    I'm too old and jaded to go through this ******* contest with the police any more. It's not enough to be right. It will be a Pyrrhic victory if I do walk away from this - limp, more likely. I have to wonder that the Man will bear a grudge and want revenge after all these months of building this up so disproportionately. They're liable to plant a dead hooker in my car if I ever get stopped up there again. No, I've had enough, which is not to concede defeat. I really just want to get on with my life. No poster child status, no movie of the week, no cash settlement - I'd just don't want to become a hateful ***** like the people who have visited this misery upon me.

    -ljp

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Pauly wrote:
    I edited my post for clarity. I just assumed bold and italicized text would be indication enough that those aren't my words. I apologize for the confusion. Again, the bold stuff is the response I received from my wife's step-father. They aren't my words. I support open carry and was looking for apropriate responses to the e-mail. I don't want to just call him a *****. I want concrete evidence and law backing my beliefs. Any help would be apreciated.

    (wow! I have enemies 4 posts in. That must be some kind of record, huh?)
    my apologies for my remarks. I do understand being new to a forum and not knowing how to separate quotes from a copy as well as those being your own words.

    I understand now that these are not your words and would like to retract my statement towards you. welcome to OCDO

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Taclead wrote:
    He introduced the training Sgt as well as himself and stated that he was aware (the Sgt must have filled him in) that OC was legal but informed me that Akron still had a law (ordinance) on the books that prohibited OC. I informed him that HR347 passed last Nov and that went into effect in Mar/Apr preempted all locality laws. The training Sgt agreed but the Lt said because the law was still on the books in order to get the law repealed they may have to charge someone (arrest). I informed him thatmy lawyers were right upstairs if he wanted to take that route.
    Well, it looks like the LT came around to the fact that when state statutory law says a local ordiance is invalid it does not take a court to specifically strike it down - arresting you under the facts alleged where he had acknowledged personal knowledge of a clear state law forbidding enforcement could have enabled you to overcome the usual qualified immunity defense in a civil action agsoint the officer and the City.

    More folks need to OC on foot in Ohio like you so that the word gets out. For those uncomfortable refusing an LEO's "request" for your papers (ID), it might be easiest of you sterile carry (no ID) while on foot and then you can simply say "ID, I don't have any ID. But do you have a businesscard or somthing? As I will be making an inquiry to your department as to why you are asking me for ID when I have (1) done nothing wrong and (2) have no duty to have any ID."

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,731

    Post imported post

    OHIO REVISED CODE

    2921.13 Falsification - in theft offense - to purchase firearm.

    (A) No person shall knowingly make a false statement, or knowingly swear or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when any of the following applies:

    (1) The statement is made in any official proceeding.

    (2) The statement is made with purpose to incriminate another.

    (3) The statement is made with purpose to mislead a public official in performing the public official’s official function.

    (4) The statement is made with purpose to secure the payment of unemployment compensation; Ohio works first; prevention, retention, and contingency benefits and services; disability financial assistance; retirement benefits; economic development assistance, as defined in section 9.66 of the Revised Code; or other benefits administered by a governmental agency or paid out of a public treasury.

    (5) The statement is made with purpose to secure the issuance by a governmental agency of a license, permit, authorization, certificate, registration, release, or provider agreement.

    (6) The statement is sworn or affirmed before a notary public or another person empowered to administer oaths.

    (7) The statement is in writing on or in connection with a report or return that is required or authorized by law.


    (8) The statement is in writing and is made with purpose to induce another to extend credit to or employ the offender, to confer any degree, diploma, certificate of attainment, award of excellence, or honor on the offender, or to extend to or bestow upon the offender any other valuable benefit or distinction, when the person to whom the statement is directed relies upon it to that person’s detriment.

    (9) The statement is made with purpose to commit or facilitate the commission of a theft offense.

    (10) The statement is knowingly made to a probate court in connection with any action, proceeding, or other matter within its jurisdiction, either orally or in a written document, including, but not limited to, an application, petition, complaint, or other pleading, or an inventory, account, or report.

    (11) The statement is made on an account, form, record, stamp, label, or other writing that is required by law.

    (12) The statement is made in connection with the purchase of a firearm, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code, and in conjunction with the furnishing to the seller of the firearm of a fictitious or altered driver’s or commercial driver’s license or permit, a fictitious or altered identification card, or any other document that contains false information about the purchaser’s identity.

    (13) The statement is made in a document or instrument of writing that purports to be a judgment, lien, or claim of indebtedness and is filed or recorded with the secretary of state, a county recorder, or the clerk of a court of record.

    (14) The statement is made with purpose to obtain an Ohio’s best Rx program enrollment card under section 173.773 of the Revised Code or a payment under section 173.801 of the Revised Code.

    (15) The statement is made in an application filed with a county sheriff pursuant to section 2923.125 of the Revised Code in order to obtain or renew a license to carry a concealed handgun or is made in an affidavit submitted to a county sheriff to obtain a temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun under section 2923.1213 of the Revised Code.

    (16) The statement is required under section 5743.72 of the Revised Code in connection with the person’s purchase of cigarettes or tobacco products in a delivery sale.

    (B) No person, in connection with the purchase of a firearm, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code, shall knowingly furnish to the seller of the firearm a fictitious or altered driver’s or commercial driver’s license or permit, a fictitious or altered identification card, or any other document that contains false information about the purchaser’s identity.

    (C) No person, in an attempt to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code, shall knowingly present to a sheriff a fictitious or altered document that purports to be certification of the person’s competence in handling a handgun as described in division (B)(3) of section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.

    (D) It is no defense to a charge under division (A)(6) of this section that the oath or affirmation was administered or taken in an irregular manner.

    (E) If contradictory statements relating to the same fact are made by the offender within the period of the statute of limitations for falsification, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one or the other was false.

    (F)(1) Whoever violates division (A)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11), (13), (14), or (16) of this section is guilty of falsification, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

    (2) Whoever violates division (A)(9) of this section is guilty of falsification in a theft offense. Except as otherwise provided in this division, falsification in a theft offense is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is five hundred dollars or more and is less than five thousand dollars, falsification in a theft offense is a felony of the fifth degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is five thousand dollars or more and is less than one hundred thousand dollars, falsification in a theft offense is a felony of the fourth degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is one hundred thousand dollars or more, falsification in a theft offense is a felony of the third degree.

    (3) Whoever violates division (A)(12) or (B) of this section is guilty of falsification to purchase a firearm, a felony of the fifth degree.

    (4) Whoever violates division (A)(15) or (C) of this section is guilty of falsification to obtain a concealed handgun license, a felony of the fourth degree.

    (G) A person who violates this section is liable in a civil action to any person harmed by the violation for injury, death, or loss to person or property incurred as a result of the commission of the offense and for reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, and other expenses incurred as a result of prosecuting the civil action commenced under this division. A civil action under this division is not the exclusive remedy of a person who incurs injury, death, or loss to person or property as a result of a violation of this section.

    Effective Date: 04-08-2004; 06-30-2005; 04-06-2007; 07-01-2007

    This law applies to LEOs as well as citizens!!!

  24. #24
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    More folks need to OC on foot in Ohio like you so that the word gets out.
    +1 It will take time, but hopefully more and more people will start to OC here in Ohio, (which is, btw, is home to the #1 college football team in the country!)



Posting Permissions

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