Can Officer Force ID....

[OC for ME]

<snip> When you are driving a vehicle you have a license plate and stickers that presume you have a license to drive. <snip>

Is the presumption that the observed driver is the owner, or authorized driver? The case is further strengthened that cops segregate a gun from any other licensed activity. A cop must have RAS to request ID else the presumption is that you do not have a license. Unequal application of the law(s).

 

[HEAD]

eye

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901.05
2a,b and 3 they use the word presumption and then describe an environment where innocence would be presumed. As in if you call the cops about a dead robber in your living room they will presume you are innocent. This was really all just to show how although there is a castle law exempting homicide there is additional self defense law to provide presumption of innocence. In the reference to license plates i am tryin to point out that an officer has a reason not to suspect you of violating license laws. When he sees the imprint of or part of your handgun there is nothing telling him you are legal.

Concealing a handgun is more like being a licensed driver but looking like a 12 year old. You're a licensed handgun carrier but look like a criminal.

As far as being detained and showing id. if you are detained for concealed carry and refuse to show id then as a cop i would cuff you , search you and get your id so same difference in result but not in practice. That's my fault for not being specific. 2921.29 requires you provide your name / address / dob if suspected of a crime http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29 So even after you eventually identify yourself as a valid concealed handgun license holder you can still be charged with 2921.29 for not identifying yourself when suspected/detained.

tricky shhhhtuffff.. thank god for open carry.

 

[eye95]

eye

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901.05
2a,b and 3 they use the word presumption and then describe an environment where innocence would be presumed. As in if you call the cops about a dead robber in your living room they will presume you are innocent. This was really all just to show how although there is a castle law exempting homicide there is additional self defense law to provide presumption of innocence. In the reference to license plates i am tryin to point out that an officer has a reason not to suspect you of violating license laws. When he sees the imprint of or part of your handgun there is nothing telling him you are legal.

Concealing a handgun is more like being a licensed driver but looking like a 12 year old. You're a licensed handgun carrier but look like a criminal.

As far as being detained and showing id. if you are detained for concealed carry and refuse to show id then as a cop i would cuff you , search you and get your id so same difference in result but not in practice. That's my fault for not being specific. 2921.29 requires you provide your name / address / dob if suspected of a crime http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29 So even after you eventually identify yourself as a valid concealed handgun license holder you can still be charged with 2921.29 for not identifying yourself when suspected/detained.

tricky shhhhtuffff.. thank god for open carry.

Sorry, I don't buy it. There is no workable analogy that says self-defense:murder::CHL:concealed-carry. Self-defense may be presumed to avoid being charged, but you still can be charged and self-defense would be an affirmative defense. The possession of a CHL is an exception to concealed carry being a crime. How is an exception treated by the courts? We really don't know yet. That is the question. We know how affirmative defenses work.

However we do agree that open carry solves the problem. Unfortunately, there are still times when OC requires a license. We should be fighting not for OC, but for UC, unlicensed carry.

 

[HEAD]

the presumption is only for certain places regarding self defense. If you drop someone in your home you are presumed exempt via self defense and castle law. If you drop someone in a mall you are exempt only after being investigated. An investigation can find you lawless after a presumption of innocence in the initial encounter. That is where the presumption takes place. Only the initial encounter. A question of RAS involves an initial encounter with law enforcement.

There is no presumption of innocence in regards to a concealed carry stop. You tell me ? A cop sees you concealing a gun.. should he assume you are licensed. It would be irresponsible of him/her to think that.

 

[eye95]

We are getting too far afield.

Folks here have read a lot of case law. Again, the primary question is whether the license is a defense to the crime or whether not having a license is an element of the crime. If it is a defense, and not an element, then knowledge of the lack of possession of the CHL is not needed for RAS. If it is an element, then the officer needs some reason to believe that the carrier does not have one before he stops him.

Werz posits that the assumption should probably be that he does not have one. I am not so sure because concealed carriers tend to be a lawful lot. I suspect that a greater percentage of CCers have a CHL than drivers have a DL, yet the presumption is that a driver has a DL, so IMO, the presumption should be that a CCer has a CHL unless the officer, before the stop, has some other reason to believe that the CCer does not have one.

So the question boils down to, does the exception that the CHL provides to the law against CCing amount to making the lack of a CHL an element of the crime (this is my opinion) or does it make the CHL a defense to the crime?

There is no workable analogy to self-defense/murder to help us answer this question as the exception language is not used in that law.

 

[HEAD]

This is why i don't like concealed carry and why i have the attitude about concealing looking like a crime. http://www.examiner.com/article/court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carrier

This is the exact case. it took me a while to find the article again but i finally found it.

 

[JustaShooter]

This is why i don't like concealed carry and why i have the attitude about concealing looking like a crime. http://www.examiner.com/article/court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carrier

You don't seriously think this would have gone down any differently had he been carrying openly, do you?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Concealing a handgun is more like being a licensed driver but looking like a 12 year old. You're a licensed handgun carrier but look like a criminal.

What does Ohio Code say?
Does it say that concealment is a crime and then give exceptions to the law, (such as a license or law enforcement)?
Or does the Code read like most driver's license codes and say one must have a license to conceal, much as one must have a license to drive?

The difference is that in the first the act of concealment itself is a crime, hence there is RAS of a crime when it's discovered. In the second example, properly, an officer must have RAS that a driver does not have a license, (presumptively by witnessing the driver violate a traffic ordinance.)

Which way does Ohio code read?

 

[eye95]

This is why i don't like concealed carry and why i have the attitude about concealing looking like a crime. http://www.examiner.com/article/court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carrier

This is the exact case. it took me a while to find the article again but i finally found it.

As opposed to what the article implies, there is no real legal link between the Georgia case (which is the one I was referencing earlier) and the Massachusetts case. In Georgia, the case swung on the fact that, at the time, in Georgia, the license is a defense to the crime, in contrast to not having the license being an element of the crime. The Massachusetts case probably had even more significant differences, which is why, when we cite cases here, the actual case, and not just an article about it, is linked.

I would be surprised if the case ended there, but even if it did, it likely would not today under Heller, MacDonald, and some other appeals court rulings that use those two.

 

[eye95]

What does Ohio Code say?
Does it say that concealment is a crime and then give exceptions to the law, (such as a license or law enforcement)?
Or does the Code read like most driver's license codes and say one must have a license to conceal, much as one must have a license to drive?

The difference is that in the first the act of concealment itself is a crime, hence there is RAS of a crime when it's discovered. In the second example, properly, an officer must have RAS that a driver does not have a license, (presumptively by witnessing the driver violate a traffic ordinance.)

Which way does Ohio code read?

Ohio law says that having the license is an exception. That does not necessarily mean it is a defense to the crime. If you know of case law where exception status keeps not having the license from being an element of a crime, please share it. I know of none. That is the whole reason for the question we are asking. We know how the courts deal with it if having the license is a defense. We know how the courts deal with it if not having the license is an element of the crime. We don't know how they deal with it if having the license is under the heading of exceptions.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Usually, if "carrying a weapon is a crime, but ...(exceptions)" then most jurisdictions would rule a reasonable suspicion of a crime has occurred if an officer witnesses someone "carrying a weapon..". This may not be true in all jurisdictions as we all know sometimes what the law says isn't what the law thinks the law says (witness the language about destructive devices and shotguns).
Laws that presume criminality from innocent conduct reduce our freedoms, and citizens should contact their representatives to change the law to a more fair standard more resembling the laws for driving (a presumed innocent activity.)

 

[eye95]

Usually, if "carrying a weapon is a crime, but ...(exceptions)" then most jurisdictions would rule a reasonable suspicion of a crime has occurred if an officer witnesses someone "carrying a weapon..". This may not be true in all jurisdictions as we all know sometimes what the law says isn't what the law thinks the law says (witness the language about destructive devices and shotguns).
Laws that presume criminality from innocent conduct reduce our freedoms, and citizens should contact their representatives to change the law to a more fair standard more resembling the laws for driving (a presumed innocent activity.)

I do not know for a fact, but would believe that it works just the opposite. In the Georgia case, the judge cited the reason for not having to have reason to believe that the carrier did not have a permit to have RAS of a crime was specifically that the carry with a license was still a crime, but that the license was a defense in court--meaning that even if the officer KNEW that the carrier had a permit, he could still arrest!

The way the exception is worded in Ohio, I don't believe an officer can arrest if he knows you have a CHL, like the officers in GA could (but can't now). Therefore, I believe (I admittedly don't know until case law settles it) that an officer must have RAS that a CCer does not have a license before stopping him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[HEAD]

There is no exception/exempt or presumption clause that i can find. Where are you getting this word from. The best it gives is in part c where they discuss the law not applying to law enforcement etc. I think it is clear that if an officer suspects you of violating 2923.12 that you must identify yourself and provide a permit..Not only under 2923.12 but 2921.29. Ordering your drivers license is not a lawful order.. Beyond that. Look at it from a law enforcement perspective and a practical application of law view point when in public. . To not cooperate would put you at grave risk as well as those around you including law enforcement. Also, lets be honest; the cop wouldn't even be stopping you if you had it concealed well in the first place. I prefer not to bet on case law but law. Why do you think cops hate open carry so much? There is nothing they can do about it. There is no control and cops like the C word . It keeps them alive. I am not for a UC law either. Criminals carry guns concealed. That's why its illegal in the first place. Its not all rights and laws out there. Its tactics and survivability. Having a gun in the open lets people size you up and gauge your body movement. it takes .8 seconds to fire an aimed shot untrained. It takes 2 seconds to draw and present untrained. Cops survive by tactics in the 2 second window. This is why they approach your car with their hand on thier weapon. They are aware of your tactical advantage. By concealing a weapon you can draw and present without tipping those around you and cut your time down to the .8 aim and fire time. A gun in the hand is worth 3 in the holster. This is why cops will get aggressive with you regarding id/concealed carry/cooperation. Partly they are pissed that you are risking both of your lives and the other is they want to maintain an aggressive tactical advantage against you in case of a 2 second scenario. common sense. show some id. don't get shot, tazed , beat, charged or embarrassed. you look like a criminal, burglar, robber, murderer or even someone in trouble. Im telling it the way it is here. remember its your fault for getting made as a carrier in the first place. your tactics are weak. No reason to try and be awesome riding your fail boat.

2923.12 Carrying concealed weapons.

(A) No person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed on the person's person or concealed ready at hand, any of the following:

(1) A deadly weapon other than a handgun;

(2) A handgun other than a dangerous ordnance;

(3) A dangerous ordnance.

(B) No person who has been issued a concealed handgun license shall do any of the following:

(1) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun, fail to promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the person after the person has been stopped that the person has been issued a concealed handgun license and that the person then is carrying a concealed handgun;

(2) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun, knowingly fail to keep the person's hands in plain sight at any time after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the person while stopped and before the law enforcement officer leaves, unless the failure is pursuant to and in accordance with directions given by a law enforcement officer;

(3) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose, if the person is carrying a concealed handgun, and if the person is approached by any law enforcement officer while stopped, knowingly remove or attempt to remove the loaded handgun from the holster, pocket, or other place in which the person is carrying it, knowingly grasp or hold the loaded handgun, or knowingly have contact with the loaded handgun by touching it with the person's hands or fingers at any time after the law enforcement officer begins approaching and before the law enforcement officer leaves, unless the person removes, attempts to remove, grasps, holds, or has contact with the loaded handgun pursuant to and in accordance with directions given by the law enforcement officer;

(4) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun, knowingly disregard or fail to comply with any lawful order of any law enforcement officer given while the person is stopped, including, but not limited to, a specific order to the person to keep the person's hands in plain sight.

 

[eye95]

A little farther down is the exception:

(2) Division (A)(2) of this section does not apply to any person who, at the time of the alleged carrying or possession of a handgun, is carrying a valid concealed handgun license, unless the person knowingly is in a place described in division (B) of section 2923.126 of the Revised Code.

Also, I found where an officer may not arrest for CCW if the person has a CHL. If he cannot arrest if the person has a CHL, then IMO, he must have RAS that the person does not have a CHL to stop him. JMO, though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[davidmcbeth]

(2) If a person being arrested for a violation of division (A)(2) of this section promptly produces a valid concealed handgun license, and if at the time of the violation the person was not knowingly in a place described in division (B) of section 2923.126 of the Revised Code, the officer shall not arrest the person for a violation of that division. If the person is not able to promptly produce any concealed handgun license and if the person is not in a place described in that section, the officer may arrest the person for a violation of that division, and the offender shall be punished as follows: ....


This section is not an exemption or exception ...

Almost all exemptions are affirmative defenses and many exceptions can be ...

 

[eye95]

Well, the legal expert in all 50 States has spoken. That settles everything.

Folks, listen to the tape where this thing makes a legal fool out of itself. It knows squat, but butts in in every State forum, telling the people who live there what their law is.

It is a troll. Give it no credit.

On edit, here is a link to a thread that informative about the troll. It includes a link to the audio I mentioned above: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-s-obsession&p=1998113&viewfull=1#post1998113

 

[SteveInCO]

.....

How on earth has someone like this never been banned?

 

[marshaul]

How on earth has someone like this never been banned?

Which one?

 

[Citizen]

How on earth has someone like this never been banned?

Because while he can be abrasive (like many of us), he does have valid points and does contribute to the forum overall.

Besides, there are not a lot of "ban-able" offenses.

Hold your own with sound arguments. Readers will "get" it.

 

[Reasonable]

They don't know the law. They know the mythology that they pass along to each other. I routinely listen to a certain retired police officer flat-out misrepresent the law, making it say what he wants it to say.

It's not just the Officers that so this. Let us be fair. Some on this forum can twist a tale or two way out of context.