Open carrier stopped in Dayton

BB62 · Feb 25, 2014

Thanks to TJW815 on OFCC for the initial find

http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-law/police-man-within-rights-carry-ak-47-public/ndXyZ/

Dayton police said a man walking around with an AK-47 rifle caused concern Friday, but he didn't violate any laws.

Officers responded shortly before 3 p.m. to North Gettysburg Avenue in the area of James H. McGee Boulevard on reports of a man carrying an assault rifle in public.

Police said the man had the rifle strapped across his back and did not point it at anyone or threaten others.

He was not arrested because he didn't break any laws, said Dayton Sgt. Mark Spiers.

"It's not illegal to possess and carry a firearm," he said. "As long as it's not concealed and he's not discharging it ... If he did point it in a menacing manner that would make it a crime."

Spiers said the man was not from the area and may have done this simply to draw police response and get attention.

Officers checked the man's background and found he was not restricted from owning a firearm.

Facebook, lots of positive comments: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...ment_id=104195124&offset=0&total_comments=233

OC for ME · Feb 26, 2014

BB62 said:
Thanks to TJW815 on OFCC for the initial find

http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-law/police-man-within-rights-carry-ak-47-public/ndXyZ/

Dayton police said a man walking around with an AK-47 rifle caused concern Friday, but he didn't violate any laws.

Officers responded shortly before 3 p.m. to North Gettysburg Avenue in the area of James H. McGee Boulevard on reports of a man carrying an assault rifle in public.

Police said the man had the rifle strapped across his back and did not point it at anyone or threaten others.

He was not arrested because he didn't break any laws, said Dayton Sgt. Mark Spiers.

"It's not illegal to possess and carry a firearm," he said. "As long as it's not concealed and he's not discharging it ... If he did point it in a menacing manner that would make it a crime."

Spiers said the man was not from the area and may have done this simply to draw police response and get attention.

Officers checked the man's background and found he was not restricted from owning a firearm.

Facebook, lots of positive comments: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...ment_id=104195124&offset=0&total_comments=233

Sue the cops. They made it easy.

solus · Feb 26, 2014

first your title is extremely misleading...
second, why do i give a rat's arse if some idiot in the gem city is carrying a long rifle
third, think, may have read that wrong, but discussions of long rifles is off limits here?

ipse

BB62 · Feb 26, 2014

solus said:
first your title is extremely misleading...
second, why do i give a rat's arse if some idiot in the gem city is carrying a long rifle
third, think, may have read that wrong, but discussions of long rifles is off limits here?

ipse

To answer your questions:

1) your title is extremely misleading: Not wanting to fail to credit the original poster or modify his title, I simply copied the title from the original posting: http://www.ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=78920&p=4257675#p4257675

2) why do i give a rat's arse if some idiot in the gem city is carrying a long rifle: I know it may be news to you, but I don't exist to interest or please you.

3) third, think, may have read that wrong, but discussions of long rifles is off limits here?: I actually didn't even think of that. The rules are well known -I simply put the link and story here in the Ohio forum for the enlightenment of Ohioans who dislike or don't know of OFCC and/or its forum. Any discussion desired would of course have to take place there or at Buckeye Firearms' forum.

No malice, deviousness, promotion or discussion was intended. The posting was done as an FYI. If the moderator or site owner(s) finds that my action is sanctionable, he/they will smite me, lock this thread, and place me in solitary confinement. I will accept my punishment with a smile.

Have a nice day.

OC for ME · Feb 26, 2014

BB62 said:
To answer your questions: <snip> No malice, deviousness, promotion or discussion was intended. The posting was done as an FYI. If the moderator or site owner(s) finds that my action is sanctionable, he/they will smite me, lock this thread, and place me in solitary confinement. I will accept my punishment with a smile.

Have a nice day.

Double secret probation for you.

color of law · Feb 26, 2014

The issue is not the carrying of a long gun, but stopping and harassing someone exercising their 2nd. Amendment right.

Brian D. · Feb 26, 2014

For what it's worth I'd like to add that as memory serves the neighborhood in question, relatively speaking, merits carry of firearms by law-abiding folk.

Tackleberry1 · Feb 26, 2014

solus said:
first your title is extremely misleading...
second, why do i give a rat's arse if some idiot in the gem city is carrying a long rifle
third, think, may have read that wrong, but discussions of long rifles is off limits here?

ipse

Dude?

An OC citizen was stopped, delayed, and ID'd. If thats not appropriate here because it happened to be a long gun then lots of OC folks may just look for a new forum.

Is there a particular disdain for OC of long guns that missed?

Tack

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 26, 2014

Tackleberry1 said:
Dude?

An OC citizen was stopped, delayed, and ID'd. If thats not appropriate here because it happened to be a long gun then lots of OC folks may just look for a new forum.

Is there a particular disdain for OC of long guns that missed?

Kinda making me wish we had upvotes there, Tack. This isn't a long gun v handgun issue, it's an issue of legal conduct being inspected without suspicion of illegality.

Tackleberry1 · Feb 27, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
Kinda making me wish we had upvotes there, Tack. This isn't a long gun v handgun issue, it's an issue of legal conduct being inspected without suspicion of illegality.

That's what I thought too. Gun type is irrelevant... It's the infringement that concerns me.

Perhaps Solus will explain his ire?

solus · Feb 27, 2014

ok, here we go...

Dayton police said a man walking around with an AK-47 rifle caused concern Friday, but he didn't violate any laws.

Officers responded shortly before 3 p.m. to North Gettysburg Avenue in the area of James H. McGee Boulevard on reports of a man carrying an assault rifle in public.

Police said the man had the rifle strapped across his back and did not point it at anyone or threaten others.

He was not arrested because he didn't break any laws, said Dayton Sgt. Mark Spiers.

"It's not illegal to possess and carry a firearm," he said. "As long as it's not concealed and he's not discharging it ... If he did point it in a menacing manner that would make it a crime."

Spiers said the man was not from the area and may have done this simply to draw police response and get attention.

Officers checked the man's background and found he was not restricted from owning a firearm.

- See more at: http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime...arry-ak-47-public/ndXyZ/#sthash.zizEVLmx.dpuf

my contention still stands...which centers on the same disdain for the other idiots at starbucks et al., and public places who go out of their way to carry provocative firearms just incite the local citizens to alert police who do an intervention then have the audacity to cry foul screaming 'the police are picking on me' verses john q public OC'g a handgun in their daily lives.

critical thinking says you also do not know the ethnic (ROM 60% black) social, or economic (ROM $~23K/household) status of the area where a young white idiot who is not from the area wanders with a AK-47 strapped to his back so he can have an adventure.!

what infringement occurred?

so wake me when you have an actual citizen who is not stirring up or purposely seeking trouble and confrontation with the locals and police like this idiot, but find me someone who gets into a hassle for OC'g his handgun in public i might exhibit some sympathy and join the crusade. otherwise...

ipse

Tackleberry1 · Feb 27, 2014

So... Handgun SMART... Long Gun DUMB.

Got it... Thanks for clearing that up.

Tack

solus said:
ok, here we go...

Dayton police said a man walking around with an AK-47 rifle caused concern Friday, but he didn't violate any laws.

Officers responded shortly before 3 p.m. to North Gettysburg Avenue in the area of James H. McGee Boulevard on reports of a man carrying an assault rifle in public.

Police said the man had the rifle strapped across his back and did not point it at anyone or threaten others.

He was not arrested because he didn't break any laws, said Dayton Sgt. Mark Spiers.

"It's not illegal to possess and carry a firearm," he said. "As long as it's not concealed and he's not discharging it ... If he did point it in a menacing manner that would make it a crime."

Spiers said the man was not from the area and may have done this simply to draw police response and get attention.

Officers checked the man's background and found he was not restricted from owning a firearm.

- See more at: http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime...arry-ak-47-public/ndXyZ/#sthash.zizEVLmx.dpuf

my contention still stands...which centers on the same disdain for the other idiots at starbucks et al., and public places who go out of their way to carry provocative firearms just incite the local citizens to alert police who do an intervention then have the audacity to cry foul screaming 'the police are picking on me' verses john q public OC'g a handgun in their daily lives.

critical thinking says you also do not know the ethnic (ROM 60% black) social, or economic (ROM $~23K/household) status of the area where a young white idiot who is not from the area wanders with a AK-47 strapped to his back so he can have an adventure.!

what infringement occurred?

so wake me when you have an actual citizen who is not stirring up or purposely seeking trouble and confrontation with the locals and police like this idiot, but find me someone who gets into a hassle for OC'g his handgun in public i might exhibit some sympathy and join the crusade. otherwise...

ipse

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 27, 2014

solus said:
what infringement occurred?

Officers checked the man's background and found he was not restricted from owning a firearm. - See more at: Whio.com

I'm sure the checking of his background was completely consensual, but we don't know one way or the other do we, Solus?
Do you have some proof it was?

Would they have "checked his background" had he been carrying another legal item, such as a cellphone?

Grapeshot · Feb 27, 2014

Long gun carry is off-topic when such is being "promoted." See Rule 14, Forum Rules
OCDO will not allow extended discussion about long guns - it does distract from our primary mission of defending and promoting the carry of OCd handguns as we go about our everyday lives.

In this case, I think the primary point that hasn't been made clear is how was the man "checked out" and were there any violations of law in doing so? Stay on that point and the thread will remain open.

And gentleman, I caution you on the personal insults - they will backfire on you.

publiuslocal · Feb 27, 2014

BB62 said:
Thanks to TJW815 on OFCC for the initial find

http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-law/police-man-within-rights-carry-ak-47-public/ndXyZ/

Dayton police said a man walking around with an AK-47 rifle caused concern Friday, but he didn't violate any laws.

Officers responded shortly before 3 p.m. to North Gettysburg Avenue in the area of James H. McGee Boulevard on reports of a man carrying an assault rifle in public.

Police said the man had the rifle strapped across his back and did not point it at anyone or threaten others.

He was not arrested because he didn't break any laws, said Dayton Sgt. Mark Spiers.

"It's not illegal to possess and carry a firearm," he said. "As long as it's not concealed and he's not discharging it ... If he did point it in a menacing manner that would make it a crime."

Spiers said the man was not from the area and may have done this simply to draw police response and get attention.

Officers checked the man's background and found he was not restricted from owning a firearm.

Facebook, lots of positive comments: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...ment_id=104195124&offset=0&total_comments=233

Thanks for the story **I** personally found it interesting ...The banter that ensued therein was even better.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Chuck! · Feb 27, 2014

BB62 said:
Ohioans who dislike or don't know of OFCC and/or its forum.

How could any self respecting Ohioan "dislike" OFCC?

That organization has done more for Open Carry than any other group, , , ,

OC for ME · Feb 27, 2014

Three uniforms that we can see, and a plain clothes, may be. Nope, nothing to see here. He was not arrested nor "detained" it seems. I wonder what the cops would have done if the citizen declined to be "checked."

Sue those cops, though, he consenting mitigates any redress of wrongs, which are clearly evident from the photo.

BB62 · Feb 27, 2014

Grapeshot said:
...In this case, I think the primary point that hasn't been made clear is how was the man "checked out" and were there any violations of law in doing so? Stay on that point and the thread will remain open...

I don't know what training Dayton officers receive regarding OC, but it would be instructive for someone from that area to do a records request and find that out, as well as asking for a copy of the report which was no doubt written. Was it a consensual stop, were there extenuating circumstances?

FYI - Dayton has a database for LEOs (at least) to enter information about people. I don't like it, but I'm not the king. Was an entry made in this case? Also FYI - entries can create physical or legal dangers to individuals, for example:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...member-RCall&p=2037417&viewfull=1#post2037417

The comment attributed to police, "... the man was not from the area and may have done this simply to draw police response and get attention..." (as reported in the always accurate media

) troubles me.

color of law · Feb 27, 2014

Chuck! said:
How could any self respecting Ohioan "dislike" OFCC?

That organization has done more for Open Carry than any other group, , , ,

Chuck, you are so amusing.....

solus · Feb 27, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
I'm sure the checking of his background was completely consensual, but we don't know one way or the other do we, Solus?
Do you have some proof it was?

Would they have "checked his background" had he been carrying another legal item, such as a cellphone?

no we don't know those tidbits do we we, Fallschirmjäger! neither of us have proof which could lead to an objective conjecture? so...your point?

so alas, your perspective is also hyperbole contrived based on a news article (loose choice of words for news article) of the young man (men since there was fotos taken of the encounter - nawlllll it wan't staged, nawlll) carrying his AR 47 into an impoverish and disadvantaged area he is not remotely associated with so they can have their 15m of fame and a war story to tell their friends.

So...you are telling me, if a young man (or two/.three since they are filming the young man's stroll) whom you unequivocally knew didn't belong in your neighbourhood w/an AK47 slung across their back is seen walking the streets - would you ignore them and let someone else intervene or walk up w/sidearm OC'd and say 'HOWDY' and engage them in conversation to discern their intent in your neighbourhood or notify the local polizei to allow them discern the groups intent?

let's take the firearm out of the equation and have the same young men wandering your neighbourhood who obviously do not belong...same questions.

i know the response i would make but do not wish to bias your response...

ipse

Open carrier stopped in Dayton

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Legendary Warrior

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member