LEO encounter while OCing in Akron

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 The training Sgt agreed but the Lt said because the law was still on the books in order to get the law repealed they may have to charge someone (arrest).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.

imported post

Great job! Still makes me mad to be challenged for legally carrying. And in my own "backyard" too! :banghead: 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.

imported post

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

imported post

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

imported post

I-O

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.

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.

imported post

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

-ljp

imported post

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

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.

imported post

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

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.

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.

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.

imported post

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

-ljp

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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 pussy. 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?) :banghead:

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 "pussy" though.

-ljp

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.

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 pissing 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 prick like the people who have visited this misery upon me.

-ljp