Can Officer Force ID....

[OC for ME]

I believe there is a reasonably good likelihood that Ohio courts will operate from a presumption of unlawfulness for concealed carry. It is consistent with Ohio legal history, where concealed carry was generally unlawful and no licenses were available until 2004; it is consistent with the designated limitations on the Second Amendment set forth in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-638 (2008); and it is consistent with the fact that less than 5% of the general population of Ohio (I'm throwing in law enforcement and other government agents) is authorized to carry a concealed handgun. It is also worthy of note that you are required to carry your concealed handgun license if you are carrying a concealed handgun; that you may be arrested if you are found to be in possession of concealed handgun without the license in your possession; and even if you produce a valid license within ten days, you are still guilty of a minor misdemeanor for failing to carry it with you. R.C. 2923.126(A), 2923.12(F)(2)(a). "Issues surrounding articulable suspicion, let alone probable cause, have not yet been fleshed out in Ohio since the passage of recent laws concerning the carrying of firearms." State v. Young, 2011-Ohio-4875, at ¶42 (2nd Dist.) If you wish to carry in a manner which is authorized only by licensure or other exceptions, and if you wish to refuse identification when confronted, you do so at your own peril.

You solicited a legal opinion, presumably from someone who is familiar with the rationale applied by Ohio courts. I gave you that. If you want idealism, there are plenty of others here who will gladly write you a treatise.

What? The above does not address my point that your premise was invalid as a result of the stats you used. Essentially you compared apples to flamingos. I may be wrong in presuming that a statement that I make above a quote is in anyway not relevant to the statement I make below a quote. Anyway, I provided a more accurate way to make your point and you ignored it or did not understand it. Either way the result is the same.

 

[Werz]

What? The above does not address my point that your premise was invalid as a result of the stats you used. Essentially you compared apples to flamingos. I may be wrong in presuming that a statement that I make above a quote is in anyway not relevant to the statement I make below a quote. Anyway, I provided a more accurate way to make your point and you ignored it or did not understand it. Either way the result is the same.

The original query in this thread was a legal one. I responded from a legal perspective. Your post was quoted solely for context. You may choose to pontificate on liberty and other ethereal concepts, but I do not intend to engage in ideological debates.

 

[Ohio Patriot]

IANAL, but I do not see how an LEO can lawfully detain me if my CCW happens to be exposed for a few seconds. "I am detaining you because I want to verify you have a license" is not lawful.

If an LEO sees me driving in my car, is he allowed to pull me over to check if I have a license to drive? "I am detaining you because I want to verify you have a license" is not lawful.

If an LEO is allowed to detain me if my CCW is exposed for a few seconds in order to conduct a "license check," then an LEO must also be allowed to pull me over to check if I have a driver's license, which is clearly not the case.

 

[eye95]

IANAL, but I do not see how an LEO can lawfully detain me if my CCW happens to be exposed for a few seconds. "I am detaining you because I want to verify you have a license" is not lawful.

If an LEO sees me driving in my car, is he allowed to pull me over to check if I have a license to drive? "I am detaining you because I want to verify you have a license" is not lawful.

If an LEO is allowed to detain me if my CCW is exposed for a few seconds in order to conduct a "license check," then an LEO must also be allowed to pull me over to check if I have a driver's license, which is clearly not the case.

Werz addressed the distinction. However, I am not sure the courts would come to that same conclusion. As I pointed out in another post (without actual numbers, just based on persona experience), any particular individual driving is less likely to have a DL than some other particular person carrying having a CHL. Carriers tend to be the more scrupulous about following the law. Thugs, of course, would break both laws with abandon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

CC in Ohio is legal with a CCW permit. Driving in Ohio is legal with a permit.

There is no reason for a cop to default to "permit no" when he sees a CCed pistol, just as there is no reason for the cop to default to "permit yes." Though, the cop should default to permit yes absent any inkling of criminal behavior just as he does for a driver.

A future court case could address this legal question. If driving in Ohio without a permit is a misdemeanor offense, just as it appears CCing without a permit is, then unequal application of the law clearly exists. If cops default to permit no for CC they must be compelled to default to license no for drivers. Unless of course it easier to check a CCer for a permit, then the cops asking is nothing but harassment because it is easier due to the limited number of CCers vs. the number of drivers. Far more revenue could be generated for the state by checking drivers vs. checking CCers.

Either way, if a cop requests ID, provide the ID as required by law. If he don't request ID keep on keeping on.

 

[Ohio Patriot]

Sorry for the nitpick, but it's a license, not a permit.

 

[JustaShooter]

And for further clarification, it isn't a CCW permit (or license for that matter), in Ohio you cannot carry a concealed weapon of any kind other than a handgun with the license, it is specifically a Concealed Handgun License (often abbreviated as a CHL for obvious reasons).

 

[marshaul]

Sorry for the nitpick, but it's a license, not a permit.

And what do you imagine the difference is?

 

[JustaShooter]

And what do you imagine the difference is?

Having asked that question myself in the past and having received less than satisfying answers from a number of otherwise capable and intelligent individuals, I eagerly anticipate the responses.

 

[OC for ME]

Sorry for the nitpick, but it's a license, not a permit.

OK. Nitpick away, no big deal. Permit has fewer letters and I am lazy.

...an official document, card, etc., that gives you permission to do, use, or have something

...an official document giving someone authorization to do something.

Which one of the above does Ohio issue?

 

[eye95]

Notice how the poster's idea is denigrated by the word "imagine." Typical.

May I ask the more adult question: What do you believe is the difference between a permit and a license? Are the words synonyms, or is there a legal significance in the difference between the two words? I have struggled with that question myself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

OK. Nitpick away, no big deal. Permit has fewer letters and I am lazy.


Which one of the above does Ohio issue?

Ohio believes it is issuing a license. The official name is a Concealed Handgun License (formerly a License to Carry a Concealed Handgun; it seems they got lazy too).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[HEAD]

concealing a handgun is a crime. If an officer sees you in the act of concealing a handgun or carrying concealed, you are a suspect. Suspected of concealing a handgun he can now detain you with R.A.S. while he continues his investigation.

 

[Chuck!]

Simple English, Chuck style:

A "permit" is permission, given at whim by the "permitter" with or without regard to what the "permitee" may do to earn or deserve it.
A license issued in a "may issue" state falls into this category, as does the hunting permission slips I have landowners sign for me

A "license", OTOH, is legal authorization to conduct certain behavior, and will be issued to any and all who meet the qualifications, be it a business, drive a motor vehicle, or carry a gun concealed.

That is the difference in a nutshell,,,,

 

[eye95]

concealing a handgun is a crime. If an officer sees you in the act of concealing a handgun or carrying concealed, you are a suspect. Suspected of concealing a handgun he can now detain you with R.A.S. while he continues his investigation.

That is the question: Is concealing a handgun a crime? Or is concealing without a license the crime? If it is the former, then simply flashing creates RAS. If it is the latter, then the officer also need RAS that you do not have a license. This distinction became clear in a Georgia case some years ago. The way the law was written, merely having the gun on the train was a crime (the license would be a defense), therefore the officer had RAS to stop a person he knew had the gun. The law has since been rewritten. Now, the crime is carrying on a train without a license. Now, the officer needs to have RAS of no license to stop someone he knows is carrying.

The way Ohio law is written means this point is up in the air. In Ohio, concealment is a crime, but the license provides an exception. Is that exception a defense, or does it make the carry not a crime? I don't know. Do you?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

Simple English, Chuck style:

A "permit" is permission, given at whim by the "permitter" with or without regard to what the "permitee" may do to earn or deserve it.
A license issued in a "may issue" state falls into this category, as does the hunting permission slips I have landowners sign for me

A "license", OTOH, is legal authorization to conduct certain behavior, and will be issued to any and all who meet the qualifications, be it a business, drive a motor vehicle, or carry a gun concealed.

That is the difference in a nutshell,,,,

That would be a great explanation were not the reality of the words that various States use to get in the way. Some States issue permits that, under your definition, would be licenses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Chuck!]

Just because government uses words wrongly doesn't change their meaning, no matter how much they want to claim other wise

Is the "Affordable Care Act" really "affordable"?


A license and a permit are both as I described them,,,,

 

[OC for ME]

Mo constitution clearly does not allow for CC by the words "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." OC is the default form of carry, CC can be regulated.

Does the OH constitution make such a distinction? I am too lazy to do my own research.

 

[HEAD]

Its like the castle law eye. Homicide is illegal but the castle law exempts you from the charge. You would still be presumed guilty if not for 2901.05 Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense. When you are driving a vehicle you have a license plate and stickers that presume you have a license to drive. While concealing a firearm there is nothing written in law or visually obvious to make a cop think you presumably licensed.

its because of this that i prefer open carry in most instances then concealed. While concealing a gun there are a ton of liabilities in regards to law enforcement , including detainment. I think it was written this way intentionally. Current concealed carry laws are a dead end road to a lack of gun rights. You already hear people saying that you should have a permit to carry openly...They think this is the case.

Concealed carry is a weak law. id like to see people fighting for the non licensed transportation of firearms based on the current self defense and castle codes.

So without a presumption clause or license numbers on our backs...In the question of a cop being able to demand id? You are most certainly detained and need to show some id and permit.

 

[eye95]

If you are detained there is no requirement to show ID. Any such law would be immediately ruled unconstitutional.

I have posted many times how I will handle a detention. I will proceed as though the detention is lawful, even if it is not. The police will, as was the case in Montgomery, be required to deal with me afterward.

How is the self-defense law worded? I would bet it is listed as a defense to the charge and not an exception to the law. If it is worded that way, the analogy is not apt.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>