Ohioians for Concealed Carry article on interaction with law enforcement

[MyWifeSaidYes]

...Ohio requires that paper for me to carry in the extension of my castle known as my car. That violates our RKBA and needs to be changed.

We only VERY recently got acknowlegement that our car IS such an extension (regarding self-defense). Now we have to work on what we're allowed to DO there.

:banghead:

 

[eye95]

We only VERY recently got acknowlegement that our car IS such an extension (regarding self-defense). Now we have to work on what we're allowed to DO there.

:banghead:

What happens in the back seat of a car between consenting adults is no.....

Sorry, wrong convo there.

 

[RT48]

They seem to be FOR open carry, but refuse to allow the public to view the open carry discussion forum without first registering.

BFA's forum has the same requirement.

 

[eye95]

BFA's forum has the same requirement.

I noticed that--and immediately dismissed the site as irrelevant to me as a result.

 

[color of law]

BFA's forum has the same requirement.

Monkey see, monkey do?????

 

[Werz]

Like any group of like-minded individuals, there will always be SOME topic that won't be agreed upon by everyone in that group.

OFCC seems to be FOR concealed carry (Duh!). They seem to be FOR open carry, but refuse to allow the public to view the open carry discussion forum without first registering.

Of course, they can read posts to their heart's content on OCDO. But they can't ask questions or comment without first registering.

Just sayin' ...

 

[JmE]

Of course, they can read posts to their heart's content on OCDO. But they can't ask questions or comment without first registering.

Just sayin' ...

But why aren't all of the boards blocked from public view on OFCC? I mean, is the open carry section somehow different? Registering before commenting is very common on most forums but locking a section from being viewed by the public, without good and specific reason, is not.

Is OFCC ashamed of open carry? Are they worried that what some people post there might hurt their image? I haven't been able to guess at a good reason for it. Perhaps it's posted somewhere on OFCC and I haven't seen it yet. If that's the case, I'd click a link and happily read it if someone knows.

 

[RT48]

Are they worried that what some people post there might hurt their image?

That would be my guess for both OFCC and BFA. It might also keep that forum out of the search engines.

 

[cabledawg]

You are not a lawyer. Answering questions because they pertain to the stop is not guarantee that you will not inadvertently incriminate yourself. The law seems to be quite clear on what you must say and when you must say it. Do what the law requires and no more until a lawyer is present. I would even go so far as to argue that, if you do not know whether you are required to identify yourself, you should be able to demand counsel before even doing that!

I am confident in my ability to know when I must identify myself under Alabama law. I hope to soon have that confidence under Ohio law. The laws seem to be quite similar.

I ID myself for the same reason you posted below. I dont know what the cop knows. By IDing myself, I'm making a good faith assumtion he/she has reason to stop me. In regards to answering questions, truth be told that I have never been blindsided with some off the wall question that wasnt part of the stop. I've been stopped for headlight/taillight out, presumed speeding and in one case I was already stopped on the side of the road and the LEO was simply checking on me. Simply put, I've never incriminated myself of a crime I wasnt already guilty of doing. If I got pulled over for a taillight out, guess what, I had a taillight out.

The downside to this approach is that you will likely cause the officer to physically stop you--in ways that you will find painful and objectionable. There might even be some permanent damage, both physical and legal. Remember, there may be circumstances of the stop of which you are unaware and which may make every action of the officer absolutely justified. A 911 caller lying about your actions comes to mind. The officer has no way of knowing that you did not threaten someone and will justifiably act with RAS. Since you have no way of knowing about the fraudulent call, you don't know that the officer is acting reasonably and lawfully. So ask! "Am I free to go?" "No." "Why are you detaining me?" If he provides a lawful reason to stop you, tell him the identifying information required by law. If he does not, keep asking if you are free to go. If that does not work, ask for a supervisor.

If, after asking if you are free to go, the officer refuses to answer and takes no overt action to stop you, then the reasonable assumption is that you are indeed free to go. Shrug and go. Of course, have a recorder running always.

But why aren't all of the boards blocked from public view on OFCC? I mean, is the open carry section somehow different? Registering before commenting is very common on most forums but locking a section from being viewed by the public, without good and specific reason, is not.

Is OFCC ashamed of open carry? Are they worried that what some people post there might hurt their image? I haven't been able to guess at a good reason for it. Perhaps it's posted somewhere on OFCC and I haven't seen it yet. If that's the case, I'd click a link and happily read it if someone knows.

My guess is that its a Concealed Carry forum. I frequent a GM forum and oddly enough, they dont have alot of Ford stuff being discussed. Take a look at OCDO, there isnt too much talk about CC. In fact, there isnt even a CC section here. It isnt to say that CC talk is banned or discouraged, but if someone wants to learn about OC, why have CC talk out in the open. OFCC isnt any different; OC isnt their target audience.

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

...I've never incriminated myself of a crime I wasnt already guilty of doing. If I got pulled over for a taillight out, guess what, I had a taillight out...

My taillights ALWAYS work when I get in my car. I never admit to ANYTHING until my lawyer tells me to.

My guess is that its a Concealed Carry forum. I frequent a GM forum and oddly enough, they dont have alot of Ford stuff being discussed. Take a look at OCDO, there isnt too much talk about CC. In fact, there isnt even a CC section here. It isnt to say that CC talk is banned or discouraged, but if someone wants to learn about OC, why have CC talk out in the open. OFCC isnt any different; OC isnt their target audience.

BFA is about firearms rights, not OC or CC specific. Why block the OC section?

OCDO is obviously pro OC, but try discussing the OC of long guns and it's a TOS violation.

It's possible that those other boards are trying to block search engines, but why? OC is legal.

 

[eye95]

Of course, they can read posts to their heart's content on OCDO. But they can't ask questions or comment without first registering.

Just sayin' ...

Totally misses addressing the point of the post. I tried to just read, not comment on, the posts on OFCC on open carry. I was stopped from even reading them unless I register. That, to say the least, is suspicious and off-putting. That you would deflect as you did in this post compounds the apparent secrecy.

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

OFCC actually locks the public out of many of their forums, such as the guns for sale area. It's their forum and I'm okay with them limiting access.

At BFA, the public has access to the "Tinfoil Hat Club" forum. I think THAT one should be hidden.

My only question to OFCC and BFA is "Why limit access to the OC forum?"

 

[OC for ME]

I'm a "kick the tires" kind of guy. I don't call for pricing, and I don't frequent sites that require permission to just read something. You (OFCC) want new "customers" then open up all of the threads for viewing. Until then I'll pass on OFCC and place them on my mental "do not visit" list.

 

[cabledawg]

My taillights ALWAYS work when I get in my car. I never admit to ANYTHING until my lawyer tells me to.




BFA is about firearms rights, not OC or CC specific. Why block the OC section?

OCDO is obviously pro OC, but try discussing the OC of long guns and it's a TOS violation.

It's possible that those other boards are trying to block search engines, but why? OC is legal.

If I'm at home, I have spares to fix lights. It's hard to carry sealed beam headlights in the jockey box. And the taillights, meh, sometimes they just burn out. I've been stopped for taillights three times in twenty years of driving. Not a bad record. I just used that as an example of something that is proven beyond a resonable doubt and not the perception of a LEO (eg speeding but LEO wasnt using radar, he/she just saw you going faster than everyone else). But this kinda got off topic, or at least I think it did.

As for the OC/CC forum thing; I dont know what BFA is. I was replying to the issue brought up about OFCC blocking the OC section.

 

[eye95]

OFCC actually locks the public out of many of their forums, such as the guns for sale area. It's their forum and I'm okay with them limiting access.

At BFA, the public has access to the "Tinfoil Hat Club" forum. I think THAT one should be hidden.

My only question to OFCC and BFA is "Why limit access to the OC forum?"

I don't dispute the right of the owners to run the site any way they choose. The way they choose kinda guarantees that I will be providing them zero support in their efforts.

What I really object to is the use of titles like "Ohioans for Concealed Carry," as though the site is an official part of some grassroots movement when it is in fact reflecting the views (enforced top-down) of an "owner" or set of "owners." True grassroots efforts don't need to rely on secretive tactics and this-is-my-site-and-I'll-run-it-as-I-see-fit attitudes.

However, I'd love to see the answer to the question you pose.

 

[JmE]

My guess is that its a Concealed Carry forum. I frequent a GM forum and oddly enough, they dont have alot of Ford stuff being discussed. Take a look at OCDO, there isnt too much talk about CC. In fact, there isnt even a CC section here. It isnt to say that CC talk is banned or discouraged, but if someone wants to learn about OC, why have CC talk out in the open. OFCC isnt any different; OC isnt their target audience.

But the licensed privilege of concealed carry is based upon the unlicensed right of open carry in Ohio. As such, the license becomes worthless without the force of the right. So, the GM and Ford analogy falls apart in this circumstance.

As to them hiding open carry from public view on the forum... it still doesn't answer the question. WHY are they blocking it from view? Open carry is crucial to their target audience of concealed carry so it can't be an audience issue. Open carry doesn't hinge upon concealed carry so this forum upon which we are exchanging ideas doesn't need a specific CC section. If it had one, would it be hidden? If it was then I'd be asking the same question.

Here are some disturbing thoughts that keep rolling through my head...
1) OFCC/people is/are afraid that if open carry is too public then it will negatively affect concealed carry. My answer is (**to anyone that might think that; you means a person that believes as such and not you personally, cabledawg**), "Tough! Your licensed privilege doesn't supersede anyone's legal and natural right. If you believe that it does then you're on the wrong side as you desire permission slips from the government to do that which you already possess the natural and constitutional right to do. You are not fighting for rights, you are begging for special treatment... Brady, Schumer, Pelosi, and the rest are over there and have a seat saved for you."
2) OFCC /people is/are more concerned about keeping their concealed carry cartel going in Ohio and fear that the unlicensed masses might make a concealed carry license less special.
3) They want to keep the public in the dark about open carry rights so that concealed carry holds its special allure. If enough Ohioans realized that we could have constitutional concealed carry then groups like OFCC would become almost unnecessary.

 

[JmE]

What I really object to is the use of titles like "Ohioans for Concealed Carry," as though the site is an official part of some grassroots movement when it is in fact reflecting the views (enforced top-down) of an "owner" or set of "owners." True grassroots efforts don't need to rely on secretive tactics and this-is-my-site-and-I'll-run-it-as-I-see-fit attitudes.

Often times, eye95, you get to the very heart of the matter. Well stated.

 

[Werz]

Often times, eye95, you get to the very heart of the matter. Well stated.

And yet, it seems a rather cynical notion when many of these opinions arise from people who don't live in Ohio, or even a contiguous state, and really ain't got a dog in this fight. Just sayin' ...

 

[eye95]

And yet, it seems a rather cynical notion when many of these opinions arise from people who don't live in Ohio, or even a contiguous state, and really ain't got a dog in this fight. Just sayin' ...

As of a week from Friday, I will live in Ohio. My son currently lives in Ohio. His future wife lives in Ohio. My grandchildren will live in Ohio. My son and I are both open carriers. I am researching the laws in Ohio and the political climate regarding firearms. Based upon what I have read here and the little I was able to learn from a brief visit to OFCC, I have decided not to use OFCC and will not support its advocacy.

Call that cynical, but I call it a rational reaction to my observations.

Is that really how you want to be perceived by newcomers? Or will you take this opportunity to visit OFCC through your own front door, as though you were a visitor, evaluate the impression you leave, and make some much-needed adjustments?

I recommend the latter. Your site, as it stands now, and your treatment of newcomers through this forum are quite off-putting. Not wise.

 

[BB62]

...However, to say that OFCC doesn't support open carry is absurd. We spearheaded this effort with the help of numerous volunteers who did the manual mailing:

http://www.ohioccw.org/files/oc-letter_merged.pdf ...

(my bolding)

Apparently you have a different definition of spearheading than I do, Jeff.


Reaching Law Enforcement for Education (20 pages) Note: all bolding and underlining of text below was done by me for emphasis
http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=41508

The names of the posters below are for reference ONLY.


theqbn, April 6, 2010: “We open carriers are constantly frustrated with the lack of education about OC on the part of our beloved law enforcement officers. We would love to see the Ohio AG do something about this, but in the absence of that, what can we as residents of the state do?...”

Chuck, second poster, offers his help.

jgarvas, third poster, says that doing it under an established organization would have more impact, and that depending on the cost, OFCC might be able to get the letters printed. As best as I can tell, OFCC never prints anything.

jgarvas, April 7, 2010 – last post until Feb 1, 2011

July 15, 2010 Chuck says that the grassroots are waiting on an official OFCC letter

Aug 26, 2010 page 11 Chuck says in response to a question about whether a letter is still in the works: “I think it’s been forgotten”

Sept 19, 2010 says theqbn (initiator of the project) “he hasn’t heard from jgarvas”

Sept 26, 2010 jamie9mm says “So I guess we need to draft our own letter.”

Similar thoughts are posted for the remainder of the year.


Feb 1, 2011 Chuck writes his own letter, from an “informal group of gun owners”, since evidently no response from jgarvas has been forthcoming

Feb 1, 2011, later in the day, Chuck writes “Originally, OFCC said they would have an attorney draw up a letter that I certainly thought was going to be from the organization, and we were going to do the grunt work of printing it out, stuffing envelopes, and mailing them. By all appearances, that plan no longer exists, so if anything is going to be done, it will have to be unofficial.”

Feb 1, 2011, jgarvas finally reappears on the thread. He says “The forums are not an official means of communicating with OFCC in any fashion, so by posting something here you can't assume I'm reading it.”

Feb 1, 2011, Chuck, in obvious frustration, responds “That's interesting.

We only tried to communicate with you using the same method you used to communicate with us. Nearly a year ago you asked us to make this database on this very forum, telling us how you wanted it to look, using google documents, etc. And so we did. We had LOTS of people from all over the state work on this and put it all together and IMO it was only right and natural for us to expect you to come back and at least check on it, and give us some feedback. I don't think anyone is expecting you to read "everything on the forum", but it isn't unreasonable to think if this project meant anything to you that you'd check our progress once in a while.

Further, I don't know about the other guys, but I HAVE tried communicating with you via email, using the little drop down menu to select your name and the little tiny window to type the text in, twice. The first time being when I first joined OFCC and was volunteering to do anything, and the second was when I wanted to donate a photobooth for last year's PITP. Neither of those generated any response from you, and frankly, I thought that whole drop-down-menu-email-system didn't work.”

Feb 25, 2011, NavyChief seems to take over for jgarvas

Feb 26, 2011, jamie9mm, apparently in frustration, posts that he’s reached out to another gun organization to get the letter circulated

Feb, 26, 2011, NavyChief posts to jamie9mm: “I've taken the liberty of deactivating your account for you”

March 5, 2011, NavyChief posts the letter for the first time

March 6, 2011, Chuck starts a new thread (Reaching Law Enforcement for Education, Phase 2 http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=50844&start=0 ) and posts the “To Whom It May Concern” letter, letters start going out

March 8, 2011, jgarvas says “The good news is if we know we've sent a letter to an agency and they have an incident we do a public records request to prove they received the letter and any discussion that took place internally...”