BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Yesterday, 10/2/13, I was in Columbus at the Statehouse to take part in a counter-protest (organized on Facebook by Princess Amira Kuevor) to some people protesting passage of HB203 - part of which would remove the duty to retreat from Ohio’s use of force laws. I fully expected to be on the lawn & walkway during the counter-protest. While on the Statehouse grounds I had an “interesting” conversation with two state troopers, their superior, and the Executive Director of the Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board regarding my carrying of two holstered pistols...
I walked up to two state troopers near the steps on the west side (front) of the Capitol and asked to speak to their commanding officer about what I heard was an attempt to make the lawn off-limits to people carrying firearms.
One of the two troopers advised me that a) I wasn’t supposed to be there, b) that the best thing for me to do was to get off the property, c) that he was “Trying not to arrest me”, and d) when I stated my desire to be arrested (if that’s what it took), he said “There’s always one” – before he finally radioed for his superior.
When his superior arrived (a Lieutenant) and I repeated my question he stated that “Legally, being that it’s outside, we wouldn’t have any problem with it (carry on the grounds), but we have to go with what they (motioning to the CSRaAB people) say”.
After the Lt. approached the Director, the Director then approached me, I got his card, and he repeated the fact that it was legal, and added two additional pieces of information: 1) the garage is part of the building and is off-limits, and b) a “couple of years ago” the Attorney General “ruled” that the grounds were not off-limits.
I thanked the Director and left. Upon returning to the group of open-carrying activists at the northeast corner of the Statehouse property, Princess told me that earlier that day she had been informed that carry on the grounds was prohibited.
Oh, did I forget to mention that the entire conversation is on audiotape? :dude:
So…
QUESTIONS
1) If the Lt. knew that carry was legal, why did he defer to the CSRaAB to get an opinion?
2) If the Executive Director has known for at least a couple of years that carry was legal, why didn’t the Lt. and his officers know?
3) Who/why was Princess Amira Kuevor, who organized the counter-protest to the anti-Stand Your Ground people, told that carry on the lawn was illegal?
4) If the Executive Director has known for at least a couple of years that carry was legal, why does rule 10 still exist in Chapter 128-04-02 in the Ohio Administrative Code? http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/128-4-02
5) Is carry in the Statehouse garage legal or not?
6) Bottom line: Why was I threatened with arrest for doing something known to be legal??
CONCLUSION
If this doesn’t make the case for preemption with REAL (not baby) TEETH, then nothing does. Multiple parties in positions of authority and influence, RIGHT UNDER THE LEGLISLATOR’S NOSES, knew that something was legal, but 1) took no steps to change the administrative code, and 2) allowed their underlings to threaten a law-abiding citizen with arrest.
It is LOOOONG past time that ALL Ohio political subdivisions remove laws/rules/codes, etc. that conflict with 9.68 (and 2923.126), and the baby teeth I see in HB203 are simply not enough to make it happen. For guidance, I would suggest that Ohio adopt a hybrid of KY’s law (KRS 65.870) http://tinyurl.com/mwflmkk or FL’s law (790.33) http://tinyurl.com/kc5kaja
Although I have plenty of ideas for how to proceed for maximum effect and benefit (for us & HB203) I will entertain all suggestions.
I walked up to two state troopers near the steps on the west side (front) of the Capitol and asked to speak to their commanding officer about what I heard was an attempt to make the lawn off-limits to people carrying firearms.
One of the two troopers advised me that a) I wasn’t supposed to be there, b) that the best thing for me to do was to get off the property, c) that he was “Trying not to arrest me”, and d) when I stated my desire to be arrested (if that’s what it took), he said “There’s always one” – before he finally radioed for his superior.
When his superior arrived (a Lieutenant) and I repeated my question he stated that “Legally, being that it’s outside, we wouldn’t have any problem with it (carry on the grounds), but we have to go with what they (motioning to the CSRaAB people) say”.
After the Lt. approached the Director, the Director then approached me, I got his card, and he repeated the fact that it was legal, and added two additional pieces of information: 1) the garage is part of the building and is off-limits, and b) a “couple of years ago” the Attorney General “ruled” that the grounds were not off-limits.
I thanked the Director and left. Upon returning to the group of open-carrying activists at the northeast corner of the Statehouse property, Princess told me that earlier that day she had been informed that carry on the grounds was prohibited.
Oh, did I forget to mention that the entire conversation is on audiotape? :dude:
So…
QUESTIONS
1) If the Lt. knew that carry was legal, why did he defer to the CSRaAB to get an opinion?
2) If the Executive Director has known for at least a couple of years that carry was legal, why didn’t the Lt. and his officers know?
3) Who/why was Princess Amira Kuevor, who organized the counter-protest to the anti-Stand Your Ground people, told that carry on the lawn was illegal?
4) If the Executive Director has known for at least a couple of years that carry was legal, why does rule 10 still exist in Chapter 128-04-02 in the Ohio Administrative Code? http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/128-4-02
5) Is carry in the Statehouse garage legal or not?
6) Bottom line: Why was I threatened with arrest for doing something known to be legal??
CONCLUSION
If this doesn’t make the case for preemption with REAL (not baby) TEETH, then nothing does. Multiple parties in positions of authority and influence, RIGHT UNDER THE LEGLISLATOR’S NOSES, knew that something was legal, but 1) took no steps to change the administrative code, and 2) allowed their underlings to threaten a law-abiding citizen with arrest.
It is LOOOONG past time that ALL Ohio political subdivisions remove laws/rules/codes, etc. that conflict with 9.68 (and 2923.126), and the baby teeth I see in HB203 are simply not enough to make it happen. For guidance, I would suggest that Ohio adopt a hybrid of KY’s law (KRS 65.870) http://tinyurl.com/mwflmkk or FL’s law (790.33) http://tinyurl.com/kc5kaja
Although I have plenty of ideas for how to proceed for maximum effect and benefit (for us & HB203) I will entertain all suggestions.
Last edited: