It was also codified a few years ago in Ohio Revised Code 9.68.
It was also codified a few years ago in Ohio Revised Code 9.68.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
I hate Cleveland. Not so much as Chicago, but it sure tries hard.
Cleveland politics. Mike White started most of the anti-gun stuff there, coinciding with the AWB, and following administrations have just kept rolling.
CPD politics is another story.
CPD needs to let the Secret Service worry about OC in the Q and concentrate on how they're going to coordinate the collection of out of town LE.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
This dickwad needs to be fired ASAP.
"We are going to be looking very, very hard at anyone who has an open carry," he said. "An AR-15, a shotgun, multiple handguns. It's irresponsible of those folks -- especially right now -- to be coming downtown with open carry AR's or anything else. I couldn't care less if it's legal or not. We are constitutional law enforcement, we love the Constitution, support it and defend it, but you can't go into a crowded theater and scream fire. And that's exactly what they're doing by bringing those guns down there."
Why would he be fired? He's an incompetent retard in a position of power, he fits right in.
Semper Gumby, Always Flexible
The all-purpose pundits I have seen on television addressing the right to bear arms issue in the context of large groups of folks parading around ostentatiously displaying weapons do not appear to be asking the correct question.
They should be asking whether the acts of groups of people carrying arms for purposes of display in some sort of parade or protest are included in the protected "bearing" arms.
I am not inclined to spend any material time looking to Ohio law. My point is they are asking the incorrect question, not to provide the Ohio answer. I can, however, without any material effort identify longstanding corresponding authority of a more national scope.
The right to "bear" arms does not refer "to their use in bravado and affray". Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the law of Statutory Crimes (1873) (quoted in Johnson et al., Firearms Law and the Second Amendment 319 (2012). The Johnson et al. casebook at 81-82 notes that Blackstone's commentaries similarly distinguished between those "who go armed to terrify the King's subjects" (prohibited conduct), vs. other bearing of arms in self defense.
The Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), held that an Illinois statute that required persons to get a license to parade with arms did not violate the Second Amendment. The Court states, "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Now that statement may not be controlling (dicta, if you will), because the court also reaches the outcome, conventional for the time (but no longer applicable after McDonald v. Chicago), that Bill of Rights does not restrict actions by States. But it is consistent with the prior view that the protection for the right to bear arms does not extend to large groups of people parading armed.
As noted, it's not worth my time to search Ohio law. I can note, however, the Ohio Supreme Court stated in 1900:
"Going armed with unusual and dangerous weapons, to the error of the people, is an offense at common law. A man may carry a gun for any lawful purpose, for business or amusement, but he cannot go about with that or any other dangerous weapon to terrify and alarm a peaceful people."
State v. Hogan, 58 N.E. 572, 575 (Ohio 1900). (I expect that case does not remain good law in full, because it addresses a statute that does not allow "tramps" to bear arms.)
Obviously, even if neither Federal nor State constitutions protects the activity, it could only be the subject of an arrest were it covered by some Ohio criminal statute. I'm not inclined to spend time to search that.
Originally Posted by Kingsfield
If the new standard is that someone might be frightened, than you might as well completely torch the Bill of Rights.
There is a difference between brandishing and OC (which I don't practice). There's a difference between falsely yelling 'Fire!' in a theater and expressing an opinion that others might find 'objectionable'.
This conversation just goes to show that 'Constitutional Rights' are meaningless paper unless you defend them when you think they are unpleasant.
In WWII, we had mass interments based on race.
Newt just said:
That is a religious test and clearly unconstitutional. You can believe any crazy thing you want as long as you don't break the law and harm people. I have no use for many religion's specific beliefs. But you can believe them.Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in Sharia they should be deported," Gingrich told Fox News' Sean Hannity.
From history:
I note that in genocides, expulsion of the hated group is first proposed. When that doesn't work, genocide follows.On Dec. 17, 1862, Grant issued the order that read: “The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from this department within 24 hours from the receipt of this order.” While this mandate conformed to Grant’s pattern of associating Jews with illicit business activities, the exact reasons for his action are anything but clear. What is clear is that on Jan. 4, 1863, one week from the day (Dec. 28, 1862) on which Paducah’s Jews were actually expelled, President Abraham Lincoln ordered Grant to revoke the controversial edict.
Now, I think open carry is quite stupid. However, for a representative that supposedly speaks for members of the legitimate armed personnel of the state to ignore legality and constitutionality, demonstrates that a 'moral panic' will lead some to void God Given Rights or Natural Rights (or whatever you think rights are).
The carrying of arms by black activists is a similar issue - there is a clear history of armed black resistance to governmental tyranny in the civil rights movements. I've cited some of the scholarly books before. While you may disagree (and violence is not justified), activists feel and have felt in the past that the carrying of firearms by blacks at demonstrations protects them against racists and the state sponsors of discrimination. Note, such displays in CA led to bans on various types of carry - and the bans were supported by 'conservatives'.
The Second Amendment exists as a unique piece of law to establish a reservoir of force against the tyranny of the state - and that is not found elsewhere in the world. State is usually defended as the sole entity possessing the right to use force (except in the specifics of self-defense). The USA added that special twist on who legitimately has the ability to use force to protect the state (even against itself).
George Bush called for an amendment against flag burning. If you move away from the insult of such actions, it clearly is protected political protest. Would a person who burned the flag in Nazi Germany to protest Hitler be as unpatriotic and should that person be imprisoned.
As an aside, in Turkey there is no death penalty. However, after the failed coup - the mob and their increasingly dictatorial president is looking to reinstate it.
Germany in 1913 was a quite civilized country. By 1936, due to circumstance, it became one of the greatest monstrosities that the world has ever seen.
It is standing for principle and our rights in times of adversity that is the true test of one's beliefs in the concept of 'rights'. Otherwise, they are just an exercise on paper.
I'm just posting this for the sake of discussion...
At what point does an openly armed group of "protestors" turn into an armed insurrection? I put protestors in quotes because these will be liberal people showing up at a conservative convention. Not sure what they are protesting about, it seems more like they are simply disruptors.
If there are 10 or so armed with rifles in a group of 1000, then I get the symbolic nature of what they are trying to accomplish, even if I disagree with it. But if 1000 people show up with rifles with clear intent to disrupt the political system here in our country, doesn't that change the dynamic?
And if not 1000, then 10,000? Where is the line drawn?
I'm a cop. People ask me cop questions all the time and usually my answer is "it depends". I imagine that is the answer here as well.
I'm not mad at the chief of police though. At the Dallas terrorist attack, it caused more confusion to have the shooting among armed protestors, and that confusion had to have helped the terrorist. If I were him, maybe try to get that message out to the people. Maybe in light of that line of thinking a significant number of those open carriers would reconsider.
I'm curious as to where I should be deported to, as I was born here. He also may consider finding out what Sharia actually is before he makes that his pass/fail. Anyone who follows any religion at all should realize that all adherents don't believe in one interpretation. Christians have multiple denominations, Muslims have multiple schools. Asking "Do you believe in Sharia?" to a Sufi Muslim is asking "Do you believe God has set a path for us?" Yes. That doesn't mean I'm cool with stoning people to death, overthrowing secular governments, forced conversions, etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...sharia_1.shtml does a reasonable job of explaining it. In the spirit of proof of disagreement, though, I'll disagree with the author. Mohammed never claimed to be the final prophet. That belief was tacked on after his death. The view is the more popular one, but is not universal. There is disagreement on if Buddha was a prophet or not. Depending on which school you follow, because he wasn't promoting the God of Abraham, he can't be a true prophet...or God is too infinite to be contained to simply the Abrahamic God and Buddha pioneered a different, but valid, interpretation of that infinity and thus is a prophet.
So asking "Do you believe in Sharia" is not only a religious test, it's the wrong question to begin with if your goal is to identify dangerous extremists.
Reply With Quote