Posted on 03/30/2008 12:35:05 PM PDT by buccaneer81
Openly carrying gun not a crime Sunday, March 30, 2008 3:43 AM By Bill Bush THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
In the political tussle over Ohio's concealed-carry gun law, one fact seems to have been overlooked by many: You never needed a permit to carry a gun in public, and you still don't --- you just can't conceal it.
As long as you haven't been convicted of a felony, if you want to wear a pistol on your belt or walk around town carrying a shotgun, Ohio has no law against it.
But if you do, don't be surprised if you get some unwanted attention from police officers.
Philip Turner, 30, discovered that in July when he walked from his Hilliard apartment to his parked truck wearing a gun on his belt. At the time, Turner worked protecting banks' ATMs as they were serviced and delivering diamonds to jewelry stores.
An undercover agent with the Ohio Investigative Unit -- the police agency that enforces the state's alcohol, tobacco and food-stamp laws -- saw the gun and quickly ordered him against his truck with his hands on his head.
"He came up and treated me like a felon for absolutely no reason at all," Turner said. "There wasn't even a suspicious action on my part to warrant him taking this action against me. Had I been out waving a gun around the parking lot, (then) yeah."
After being detained for about 30 minutes, and after Hilliard police arrived at the agent's request, Turner was released without charges. An internal investigation that concluded this week found that neither Agent Timothy Gales, who had stopped Turner, nor his partner, Betty Ford, did anything wrong.
However, it also revealed that Gales did not know it was legal for Turner to carry a gun openly, said Lindsay Komlanc, spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety. As a result, more than 100 agents in the unit are to attend a mandatory refresher course on Ohio's gun laws over the next couple of months, she said.
They might be surprised at what's legal.
The investigation report said that, weeks before Turner was stopped, agents stopped a 13- or 14-year-old boy who was carrying a rifle in public. They called his mother, who retrieved the gun. Then they called a supervisor to figure out what charge to file against the boy.
The answer: nothing. The supervisor advised them that "it was their right to carry a gun openly and they were allowed to do this," according to the report.
Ohio law says you can't sell a gun to people younger than 18 or provide them with one, except for "hunting, sporting or educational purposes," said Lt. Shawn Davis of the State Highway Patrol. A child must take a gun-safety course before going hunting, Davis added.
It's not illegal "that we see" for a juvenile of any age to carry a gun in public, said Jennifer Brindisi, a spokeswoman for the Ohio attorney general's office.
Turner, who has a license to carry a concealed gun, said he was carrying his gun openly "because it's my right. I choose to exercise my right to protect myself." He doesn't know whether the two agents pulled their guns; he was instructed not to face them. The agents told investigators they didn't.
But it wouldn't be unreasonable for officers to draw their guns until they know what the situation is, said Sgt. Rich Weiner of the Columbus Police Division.
"The first thing we need to address: This man has a gun," Weiner said. "We're going to pull our guns.
"As a police officer, we also have the right to protect ourselves and protect the public, so we do have the right to disarm him momentarily. Now everybody is a little bit more at ease. We don't have a potential weapon being used against an officer or anybody else."
If your open display of a firearm is causing panic, you could be charged with inducing panic, Weiner said. If you carry it onto private property, you could be charged with trespassing, he said.
Komlanc of Public Safety wouldn't say why the agents and a police dive team were at Turner's apartment complex last July because the case is continuing.
bbush@dispatch.com
The result of a PC/Liberal society ......
I'm glad you take the rights of the citizens of Ohio so lightly while at the same time you sanctify public officials who are ignorant of the laws they are supposed to uphold. Are you Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
I’d be more worried that the kid doesn’t have what it takes to prevent a thug from taking it from him and killing him with it.
NOw imagine how things could’ve turned out for you if his supervisor WASN’T a good friend of your’s.
Two hundred years ago, I would have challenged you to a duel. But since we live in such unenlightened, PC times, I’ll just have to write you off as a complete idiot.
I don’t blame you for slinking away since you can’t keep kabuki dancing around your OP forever!
See ya!
“Though I like the extra advantage that comes from having a concealed weapon as well. Why advertise?”
KJCI posted:
“Read the OP’s comments in the first post.”
I read them. They do not appear to be bashing to me.
It appears that you are taking on the role of the critic.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
He is right. You are wrong.
It is the police officer’s job to know the law. It is his duty NOT to violate others rights.
Do a search of this site on New Hampshire and Open Carry. You will find that there are LOTS of cops who don’t have the slightest idea that open carry is legal. In this case, more than one officer detained a citizen without cause. When they were criticized for having done so, you copped (pun intended) an attitude.
I suggest that your “us against them” attitude does not speak favorably of police officers in general. My own experience has been that there are many great cops and far too many megalomaniacs who should not have badges.
In Mendocino County, also in California, we have a population of around 90,000 and we also have around 1200 CCW holders.
We elected a solid pro 2nd Amendment sheriff in 1999-2000, with a DA who felt the same at the same time. Sheriff Craver retired for health reasons, but his replacement also will issue to anyone who meets the legal and proficiency requirements. Next election? Who knows.
Things are different when you get away from the liberal cesspool cities but, it's still California, isn't it.
Michael Frazier
Well, I think that is one of the concerns. It is one of several legitimate concerns. I’m not saying the hypothetical teen is necessarily going to turn the local food court into a kill zone. I would be more inclined to draw a drivers license analogy. Some contraptions of great social utility are a bit much for a youngster to handle in some circumstances.
This just seems logical to me. And I believe in the First, Second, Third...Amendments as fervently as any person I know.
The problem is that you are changing the situation.
It was daytime. The pistol was holstered, not in his hands. He was not making any threatening moves.
Certainly not a threat and not warranting felony stop type actions.
--->A stranger walks toward you...
Please check your English grammar.
Additionally, the list of places somebody can openly carry is diminished every day.
When I open-carry in the places where it is legal, the soccer moms put their hands over their mouths and eyes and hustle their children away.
Nothing elicits more hysteria than a handgun holstered in open sight except a lit cigarette (sometimes I do both at the same time).
I don’t know about that. “Toward,” to me, invokes diffidence, a happenstance, a mere direction, not necessarily threatening. “At” is more confrontational.
I don’t see a grammatical issue here; I see a “how is the dude acting” issue.
What does that have to do with your cowardly ill-mannered attack on robertpaulsen behind his back?
LOL! I wore my "FRY MUMIA" t-shirt on the Ohio State campus a few years ago. You should have seen the reaction.
You must not know paulsen.
He’ll probably be here soon and a preemptive strike is absolutely necessary.
When I open-carry in the places where it is legal, the soccer moms put their hands over their mouths and eyes and hustle their children away.
Nothing elicits more hysteria than a handgun holstered in open sight except a lit cigarette (sometimes I do both at the same time).”
But, then, I do not smoke.
I think smokers are treated as the new outcasts.
I am optimistic that open carry is making a comeback. When it does, it will be because of people like me and you, and the fellow in this story.
Open carry is not illegal here, although if on somebody’s private property or quasi-private such as a mall you may be asked to leave and come back without. Still, we kind of restrict our open carry to unpopulated areas to avoid freaking those who freak at the sight of a firearm, and there could be some somewhere even if not commonly encountered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.