Open carry in ohio, is carrying a loaded handgun in ohio legal for open carry

Magickallife said:

On another note I was Curious on the Ohio laws of Self Identifying, for the sake of being stopped while legally open carrying. In Ohio is this one of the states that you have to give personal information?>?? And the video/audio surveillance of police interactions?

Click to expand...

I was Curious on the Ohio laws of Self Identifying, for the sake of being stopped while legally open carrying. In Ohio is this one of the states that you have to give personal information? My interpretation is you do not without them(police) having resonably suspicion or probable cause that u have or wil commit a crime>? Is this correct? And the video/audio surveillance of police interactions?

here is what ive found on both
Was wondering if you could interpret your opinion for me...


For Self Identify if stopped:
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.


(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, 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





For Audio Video Recording Police Encounters

RECORDING POLICE ENCOUNTERS IN OHIO:

the law is clear in Ohio: It is perfectly legal to record the police,
as long as you don't "physically" interfere with them.
You may be unfairly harassed, illegally questioned, or even falsely arrested,
but it is highly unlikely you will be charged, much less convicted for any recording
to protect your civil rights, Under the First Ammendment which supersedes ALL State
and Local laws, You have the freedom of speech\press and recording encounters
generally helps all people involved (police' and citizens') in check...

Case law for open carriers to know

If I lawfully open carry can the police...?

While I support lawful open carry it seems that the police in some jurisdictions do not.
but if you choose to Open Carry here is some information and
case law you should know.


Does lawfully carrying a gun constitute 'reasonable suspicion'?

No, lawfully carrying a firearm alone does not constitute 'reasonable suspicion'.

"Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable
cause to arrest, it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish
reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop."
-- John M. Collins, Esq, General Counsel Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association
(The Police Chief Magazine, Feb 2011 ref Florida v J. L.)


Can a police officer stop someone and demand ID?
No, a police officer must have 'probable cause' to demand ID.

"a person who is stopped on less than probable cause cannot be punished for failing to
identify himself."
-- Lawson v. Kolender, Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
(later affirmed by the U. S. Supreme Court)


Can the police sieze your firearm to check its serial number?

"Warrants only issue upon a showing of probable cause; thus, probable cause to believe
an item in plain view is contraband or evidence of criminal activity must be required,"
--Arizona v Hicks, U. S. Supreme Court

If you are lawfully exercising your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bare arms doing so
does not grant the police the right to stop, detain, arrest, demand ID, or seize your
property without probable cause or your consent. To do so is unlawful and a violation
of your civil rights.

Open Carry

Problem is the Police don't know that.

NavyLCDR said:

joe sparky,
I believe you might have missed the parts bold and underline above?

It is perfectly legal for an 18 to 20 year old to possess and open carry a handgun in Ohio. The question becomes, how did they legally obtain the handgun? There are ways: the 18-20 year old acquired the handgun legally while residing in another state and then moved to Ohio, bringing their legally owned and possessed handgun with them. OR they are a member of the military and while ordered to permanent duty in another state legally acquired the handgun and then brought it back to them upon return to Ohio. However, if the 18 to 20 year old has always been a resident of Ohio, and is not a cop, then it is virtually impossible for that person to have legally obtained a handgun to carry.

Click to expand...

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!! Finally someone who is knowledgeable! This is exactly right, and as a Florida resident 18-20 years old who received their handgun through a private sale (legal 18+ in FL) I can OC all I want in Ohio. I'll be in Ohio all summer.

Recording police officers is found legal

FALSE charges not upheld in court:

• Disorderly conduct = no
• Impeding investigation = no (if you are not "physically" in their way)
• Inducing panic = no
• Wiretapping=no
• Consent=not needed when in public place and not "physically" in the way of police, and not concealing or trying to conceal the recording\s.


RECORDING POLICE ENCOUNTERS IN OHIO:

The law is clear in Ohio: It is perfectly legal to record the police,
As long as you don't "physically" interfere with them.
(i.e.: get in there way, or put camera directly in there faces, etc)

You may be unfairly harassed, illegally questioned, or even falsely arrested,
but it is highly unlikely you will be charged, much less convicted for any recording
to protect your civil rights, Under the First Amendment which supersedes ALL State
and Local laws, You have the freedom of speech\press
and recording encounters generally helps all people involved (police’ and citizens')
to be held accountable for their actions...

**Public property gives up the right to privacy
(no privacy in public areas)**

Courtesy of an attorney in Ohio

****************************************
Further CASE LAW on recording police encounters in public areas
hwy/mall/street/sidewalk/etc...


The US First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that affirmed, stronger than ever,
the rights of individuals to openly record the actions of police officers.

The ACLU took up Glik’s cause and the courts threw out the charges against him.
Since then, the Police Department has been instructing personnel that the state’s
wiretapping law does not apply to people making unconcealed audio or video recordings
in public. But Glik and the ACLU have pressed on, suing the PD and the individual
officers for violating his First Amendment rights.

The officers moved to have the suit dismissed, saying they were just enforcing an
interpretation of the law that was handed down to them by their superiors.
But on Friday, the federal court disagreed.

Judge Kermit Lipez writing for the unanimous panel, wrote,
“Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be
disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and
promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.’”

That means that Glik’s suit against the officers may now go forward; they could be found
liable for Simon Glik’s legal costs, among other damages. And while, theoretically, this
kind of thing doesn’t go on in Boston anymore, ACLU attorney Sarah Wunsch says the court’s
ruling has broader significance.

“It’s going to be very useful in cases around the country where police officers, whether
they use wiretap statutes or disorderly conduct or other kinds of laws,” Wunsch said.
“They’ve been using those to arrest people who have done nothing other than what Simon
Glick did, which is to hold up a cellphone and record what the police are doing.”

**That’s exactly what the circuit court established as a civil right, enjoyed by everyone.
Not just those of us in the media.

**In other words, if you openly film a police officer and you don’t get in the way or
cause a problem, you are within your rights, according to the U.S. First Circuit Court
of Appeals.

For your own protection, we recommend you audio record all of your public activities and, where possible, videotape. It is your right to do this. It creates an indisputable
Record of what you did and didn’t do. It also discourages people from assaulting you on
the street.

If an officer tells you to stop recording, reply, “Officer, I will comply with your demand under duress, if there is a law or regulation, pertaining to this situation, which I am violating".

The US first circuit court of appeals (Federal Supersedes any state or local law)
(U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Glik v. Cuniff et al, No. 10-1764, Aug. 26, 2011) Gives the OK to record Police

Jake8x7 said:

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!! Finally someone who is knowledgeable! This is exactly right, and as a Florida resident 18-20 years old who received their handgun through a private sale (legal 18+ in FL) I can OC all I want in Ohio. I'll be in Ohio all summer.

Click to expand...

2923.21
No person shall...

"(3) Furnish any firearm to a person who is under eighteen years of age or, subject to division (B) of this section, furnish any handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age, except for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes, including, but not limited to, instruction in firearms or handgun safety, care, handling, or marksmanship under the supervision or control of a responsible adult;" (emphasis added)

My first visit/comment. It seems clear to me from reading the above citation from Ohio Revised Code that a person could quite easily furnish a handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age or a long gun to a person under eighteen years of age if the purpose is for "lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes". It is less clear whether such firearm must be "under the supervision of a responsible adult" at all times or only for some period of time. Having been legally "furnished" such firearm (as my parents did for me some fifty-one years ago) it would appear that the recipient person accrues the right to legally own said firearm. The status of a minor person who is at all times under the supervision and control of his/her parents or guardians is also a gray area. In either case, I disagree with the statement that there is virtually no way a minor can legally own/possess a firearm/handgun.

Jake8x7 said:

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!! Finally someone who is knowledgeable! This is exactly right, and as a Florida resident 18-20 years old who received their handgun through a private sale (legal 18+ in FL) I can OC all I want in Ohio. I'll be in Ohio all summer.

Click to expand...

Nice video of a law student schooling a police officer on just this issue.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=271078519691519&set=vb.267449210054450&type=2&theater