JustaShooter
Regular Member
Werz, I have a lot of respect for you and your very reasoned approach, but I cannot find in the ORC where this is the case. Can you point me to that portion of Ohio law, whether in the ORC or case law, that supports that?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Hello All OC'rs, a quick intro and a few questions!
- Thread starter MountainDEWDjv
- Start date
Werz, I have a lot of respect for you and your very reasoned approach, but I cannot find in the ORC where this is the case. Can you point me to that portion of Ohio law, whether in the ORC or case law, that supports that?
Think he may be referring to:
2923.16 Improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.16
I am not familiar enough with that statute to offer a valid interpretation. Perhaps others will do so.
JustaShooter
Regular Member
That is exactly the statute I've been reading that appears to allow a holstered firearm, because of the bolded, red portions below:
As long as it is unloaded, in plain sight and in a holster (holder made for the purpose) it would appear to me to comply. Yet others who I respect interpret it differently. So if there is a portion of the law I'm missing, or case law to support the opposing view, I'd like to read it. I'm not unreasonable, and if provided with evidence to the contrary I have even been known to change my view and position on topics.
MyWifeSaidYes
Regular Member
I think the disconnect here is that Werz is correct, you WILL be charged with Improper Handling AND CCW. That's just how things seen to happen in some parts of this state. Remember, cops can CHARGE you with jaywalking, even if you are sitting in the back seat of a car.
However, I cannot see fault in Justa's interpretation. It would be an interesting defense to the aforementioned charges. Whether it would be an effective defense depends on the judge or jury.
However, I cannot see fault in Justa's interpretation. It would be an interesting defense to the aforementioned charges. Whether it would be an effective defense depends on the judge or jury.
eye95
Well-known member
I see a HUGE fault in it. Absent a court ruling agreeing with his interpretation (and it is only and interpretation), he is putting any newbies who might take his advice at risk. Until he has been cuffed and stuffed for taking his own advice, been tried, and acquitted on the grounds he cites, he should stop putting others at legal risk with his interpretation.
Folks, DO NOT carry your firearm in a holster in your car unless you have your CHL!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
JustaShooter
Regular Member
First, you are not a moderator, I am not violating forum rules as far as I am aware, so I would ask you to stop telling me what I should and should not post unless you can show that what I am saying violates one of the forum rules. This is not the only topic where you have done so and I would ask you to stop.
Second, I would submit that the standard for being able to voice an opinion on a controversial aspect of the law is *not* that one has personally prevailed in a court of law on that particular point of law.
Third, I am not advising anyone to do so, much less advocating that anyone do so, so please stop misrepresenting what I have said. I have made it abundantly clear that this is my interpretation of how the law reads and my interpretation only. I have also made it clear that doing so puts you at risk of being the test case for that interpretation of the law and that I personally am not at risk of becoming that test case because I have my Ohio CHL and that the prudent thing to do is to obtain an Ohio CHL and avoid the issue entirely. Feel free to reinforce that as much as you want (and seem to do even though as I recall you have "moved on"), as I will.
Finally, as I have said on more than one occasion, I welcome any cite of ORC or case law that will settle the matter, and until then it remains one of the grey areas in Ohio law. As with many of these areas, you *may* beat the rap, but if what Werz and others say is correct, you won't beat the ride.
SteveInCO
Regular Member
...and this is why I sometimes get impatient with people who, when I ask them about the situation in a certain place, simply point me to a site where the law is printed. I generally already have that--but I don't know what is enforced in practice and I also don't know if there is something two chapters later in the lawbook that also has a bearing on the issue (e.g., and just to make something up, some funky counter-intuitive or just peculiar definition of "container")
It certainly looks as though, if the law were actually followed, Werz's interpretation would be how it is actually handled. "Gun in holster in car? No Permit--you are in real trouble, buddy... oh wait, it's unloaded. Nevermind. Have a nice day." But the situation is more than just the black-and-white letter of the law; if the cops are enforcing something different from what it says in print, and the courts have thus far upheld them, then just telling someone to read the paragraph is doing them a disservice.
This is a perfect example of a disconnect between the letter of the law, and what it is in practice. I think most people who ask questions want to know what it is in practice; few want to be test cases.
It does seem to me that Werz has adequately caveated what he has said here.
It certainly looks as though, if the law were actually followed, Werz's interpretation would be how it is actually handled. "Gun in holster in car? No Permit--you are in real trouble, buddy... oh wait, it's unloaded. Nevermind. Have a nice day." But the situation is more than just the black-and-white letter of the law; if the cops are enforcing something different from what it says in print, and the courts have thus far upheld them, then just telling someone to read the paragraph is doing them a disservice.
This is a perfect example of a disconnect between the letter of the law, and what it is in practice. I think most people who ask questions want to know what it is in practice; few want to be test cases.
It does seem to me that Werz has adequately caveated what he has said here.
eye95
Well-known member
No. I see what you are doing as dangerous to the legal health of folks reading these posts. I want them to know how dangerous your interpretation is.
So, every time you post it, I will rebut it--strongly.
Irony: Who is asking whom to stop posting what?
Not moving on.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
JustaShooter
Regular Member
So, if I post my interpretation again, you will rebut it again, each time? Over and over again, in spite of having moved on before? Nice to know I have such power over you, eye95. But rather than turning it into an entertaining game, I'll refrain.
And I knew as I wrote it that you would respond exactly as you did, yet I still posted it. Does that negate the irony, or intensify it? I was never good at literary devices...
eye95
Well-known member
pirateguy191
Regular Member
Somebody is living rent free somewhere.
I'm going to have to side with Just on here. His interpretation is sound. Of course whether or not it is upheld in court is another question, but I have to agree with the way he is reading it.
Eye, I've never had much of a problem with you, but I'm noticing you picking fights with more and more people. Sometimes I'm in agreement with you, but in this case I think you are acting ridiculous. Just explained that he interprets it in one way. You can disagree with it, but there is no reason to be saying that he is putting anyone in danger by stating how he understands it.
For someone who always says "Don't listen to anyone, read the ORC yourself to be sure", you're sure telling newbies to listen to you & not even read the ORC. Your interpretation is correct & that's that. If you disagree, you tell everyone they shouldn't listen to the other person.
This is why I'm barely on here anymore. Every thread is drama, and more often than not, Eye is involved.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Eye, I've never had much of a problem with you, but I'm noticing you picking fights with more and more people. Sometimes I'm in agreement with you, but in this case I think you are acting ridiculous. Just explained that he interprets it in one way. You can disagree with it, but there is no reason to be saying that he is putting anyone in danger by stating how he understands it.
For someone who always says "Don't listen to anyone, read the ORC yourself to be sure", you're sure telling newbies to listen to you & not even read the ORC. Your interpretation is correct & that's that. If you disagree, you tell everyone they shouldn't listen to the other person.
This is why I'm barely on here anymore. Every thread is drama, and more often than not, Eye is involved.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
eye95
Well-known member
If a newbie comes to this site and acts on this, he could be arrested and jailed. I don't tolerate it when MacBeth does it. None of us should do it.
There is a huge difference between saying, "This is how I do it based on how I read the law...," or, "If I have to go to court on this, this is how I would argue that the law should be interpreted...," and, "To me [such and such] satisfies [some legal requirement]." We should always bear in mind that folks who have not looked into the law to the extent that we do might just take interpretations we give and run with them.
It is irresponsible to phrase things the way that JaS did in his first post in this thread. It is responsible to point out the potential legal danger such unqualified opinions present.
Sorry if you think that is being argumentative, but some things are more important than being agreeable.
Werz
Regular Member
Actually, no. It's trickier than that. When the Ohio General Assembly enacted concealed carry legislation, they put all the references to vehicle carry under Improperly Handling of Firearms in a Motor Vehicle [R.C. 2923.16] and specifically excluded that issue from Carrying Concealed Weapons [R.C. 2923.12] ... almost. You need to read closely to catch this one:
That's how an unlicensed person can still be convicted of Carrying Concealed Weapons for carrying an unloaded firearm in a motor vehicle. Since it's unloaded, it's only a first degree misdemeanor, but that could still get you six months in the county jail.
JustaShooter
Regular Member
Thank you for that, Werz.
Certainly refreshing to have someone reply with a reasoned response and the ability to back it up.
MountainDEWDjv
Regular Member
x
Last edited:
MyWifeSaidYes
Regular Member
MountainDEWDjv said:
Then why did you ask the question here? :lol:
For edification/information that can be digested and passed on to an attorney.
No lawyer is so good as to not benefit from some help. Let's not forget that in every case, there is a lawyer that loses - espouses the wrong information.
MyWifeSaidYes
Regular Member
It just sounded funny. That's why the laffy face.
Understood that completely.
My response was to make the general point that nobody has the perfect answer all of the time.