Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Why does open carry without a permit stop at the automobile?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Makarov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    226

    Why does open carry without a permit stop at the automobile?

    I just thought I would start this interesting post. Open carry is the natural right. In my perspective, no license should be required period; the State of Ohio affirms this along with it being an individual right. On the other hand, some judge ruled that Concealed Carry was a privilege. Because it is, it requires a license. So one could conclude that it is illegal to deny the right of open carry without a permit in an automobile, because to open carry does not require a license and the right donít stop at the car door. Does that sound like a good defense?

  2. #2
    Regular Member parker64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    19
    Operating a vehicle is a privilage, not a right. Unlike walking, and being in a public place is a right. Therefore the Liberal Web gets tangled very quickly as far as vehicles are concerned, even if you are a passenger in said vehicle. But I do agree with your point.

    Mike

  3. #3
    Regular Member Stryker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Some states have ruled that placing a firearm into an vehicle obscures the firearm from view from outside the vehicle and is, therefore, an act of concealment that requires a license.
    Continuing their line of logic, I am impressed that they do not require a license to carry in the stalls of public restrooms. Plenty of potential mayhem there.
    "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem" Ė Ronald Reagan 20 January 1981

    "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Ė George Washington

  4. #4
    Regular Member usamarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    252
    Yea, if you have a car, a drivers license, and insurance you should be able to OC in your vehicle...drinking and driving is more dangerous to a cop than someone legally OCing. I've already writting my congressman about it. Hopefully he'll look into it for us.

    Quote Originally Posted by parker64 View Post
    Operating a vehicle is a privilage, not a right. Unlike walking, and being in a public place is a right. Therefore the Liberal Web gets tangled very quickly as far as vehicles are concerned, even if you are a passenger in said vehicle. But I do agree with your point.

    Mike

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    Under Law, Operating a Motor Vehicle is a Privilege.

    This Act, to Operate a Motor Vehicle, Requires a Drivers License, Insurance, a Tag (which is a State Imposed Taxation upon such Privilege), and Normally, a Certificate of Title as a Foramlity to Prove Ones Ownership of said Vehicle.

    Under Ohio Law, Openly Carrying a Handgun, or any other Firearm, is a Right, under Ohio Revised Code 9.68.

    Ohio Law only Enumerates Concealed Carry as a Crime, under Ohio Revised Code 2923.12.

    Since Open Carry is a Right, under Ohio Revised Code 9.68, then, The Ohio Legislature cannot have it both ways to Prohibit Open Carry then Prohibit Concealed Carry as well.

    *** Of Note, MANY Northern States, North of The Ohio River, Prohibit Carrying a Firearm, or at least a Pistol, in a Motor Vehicle, unless; such Person is so Licensed to do so. With The Exception of Kentucky, EVERY State that Ohio Shares a Border has such Prohibition. ***
    Last edited by aadvark; 05-03-2011 at 10:24 AM.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Even if driving a vehicles on public roads is considered a privilege it has no bearing on one's inherent right to protect him/herself in any way. By driving a car one does not expect to lose the protection of one's right to peacably assemble, or speak one's mind, or to pray to one's god. Because Ohio has existing Ohio Supreme Court decisions which underpin the idea that open carry is a right, I believe that the restrictions on unlicensed open carry in cars and in restaurants serving alcohol could fall under the right court challenge. Even if you wanted to apply the US Supreme Court's "sensitive places" potential for restrictions into the case I don't think either of these qualify as places that are "sensitive places".

    * I started the response before aardvark 's response, but it looks like we're thinking along similar lines.
    Last edited by jmelvin; 05-03-2011 at 10:39 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Makarov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    226

    Cool The Bill of Rights applies to all who ride in automobiles, thats a privileged act.

    Privilege Verses Rights Analogy; a perspective.

    The nature right should never be excluded when performing an act of a privilege; if you can open carrying walking on public sidewalk why not in an automobile. Walking on a public sidewalk can be considered privileged act, itís surely isnít a right. No License needed to open carry there.

    For instance, the mere act of sitting in the vehicle doesnít make you an operator requiring a license unless the key is in the ignition. So if you sit in the driverís seat of an automobile parked on the side of the street, with no keys in the ignition, and open carry a fire arm, then you need a CCW. Youíre not driving the car, just sitting. Where is the sanity!

    The Bill of Rights is considered branded to my body. Anywhere I go, it goes. So why is my right regulated differently because of where I go? The intent always remains the same for the action, but the back drop changes for the license.

  8. #8
    Regular Member parker64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Makarov View Post
    Privilege Verses Rights Analogy; a perspective.

    The nature right should never be excluded when performing an act of a privilege; if you can open carrying walking on public sidewalk why not in an automobile. Walking on a public sidewalk can be considered privileged act, itís surely isnít a right. No License needed to open carry there.

    For instance, the mere act of sitting in the vehicle doesnít make you an operator requiring a license unless the key is in the ignition. So if you sit in the driverís seat of an automobile parked on the side of the street, with no keys in the ignition, and open carry a fire arm, then you need a CCW. Youíre not driving the car, just sitting. Where is the sanity!

    The Bill of Rights is considered branded to my body. Anywhere I go, it goes. So why is my right regulated differently because of where I go? The intent always remains the same for the action, but the back drop changes for the license.
    Agree 100%!!!

Posting Permissions

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