Testified in an Ohio House Committee hearing yesterday about our CCW law

[mmc45414]

And here is the problem. I do not believe there has ever been an “interacting officially” wording. I think the wording in the law has always been the same. It’s the INTERPRETATION that means different things to different people. And the requirement is not just for traffic stops. There are 2 different sections of the law. One for traffic stops and one for other stops of a “law enforcement purpose”.

Yeah, and then maybe factor in that the other wild card is the guidelines pamphlet published by the AG. This one seems to focus on traffic stops, but I sure have some solid memory of the interaction thing, though I am getting to be of a certain age where recollection is not as solid golden as it maybe once was...

Anyway, good on ya for making a statement, and I think your eloquence reflected well on our viewpoints. The notification idea is not that big a deal, making it a big crime makes it a big deal.

[olstyn]

The notification idea is not that big a deal, making it a big crime makes it a big deal.

Agreed. Legal repercussions for something people might forget to do simply because they're nervous due to interacting with LE being something they don't do regularly seems...problematic...

[willie]

24 years ago when Texans began getting chl's, a trooper arrested a friend when he forgot to disclose the chl during a traffic stop. Further she chastised him for having the license. This lecture which she admitted giving got the whole ball of wax dismissed. Eventually cultural change in Texas will bring about a less friendly attitude toward legally carrying handguns. Then I would be concerned about disclosure requirements.

[HCM]

24 years ago when Texans began getting chl's, a trooper arrested a friend when he forgot to disclose the chl during a traffic stop. Further she chastised him for having the license. This lecture which she admitted giving got the whole ball of wax dismissed. Eventually cultural change in Texas will bring about a less friendly attitude toward legally carrying handguns. Then I would be concerned about disclosure requirements.

It’s 411.025 of the Government code - TLDR version if you are carrying your firearm you must hand over your LTC along with your ID or DL when a peace officer or magistrate asked you for ID. If you’re not carrying your firearm or they don’t ask you for ID then you do not have to do anything.

By making it conditional on the peace officers request for ID it eliminates the confusion Lon talked about with the Ohio statute of what does “promptly” mean.

Off body carry that is “readily accessible “counts as carry.

If you’re not an LTC holder and have a firearm in your vehicle per 46 PC you are not required to disclose it. That strikes me as kind of a double standard against people with an LTC. I think the other way around would be more reasonable. The people with LTC are vetted and their LTC comes up on a records check, I think it is the non-LTC people that should have to disclose not the other way around.

[Alpha Sierra]

This has caused me to go review, and it seems like it is all related to traffic stops now, but when I got the CHL (early on, 2004 or 2005) IIRC there was even a requirement that you would notify when "interacting officially", and that seemed nebulous. Like if you are chatting in the mini mart while you are both pouring coffee, if you are chatting about the Bengals no need to notify, but if you mention some suspicious activity you may be aware of, then you would be officially interacting? But now it all sounds to be related to the traffic stop?

ETA:
Just finished listening to the testimony.

As far as public speaking and testimony and such, you were very credible.

I'm not a lawyer. But I've learned over the years that statutes have to be read using a certain kind of logic to understand them. One of those bits of legal logic is that offenses have elements and generally all the elements must be met for an offense to take place.

When it comes to notification in Ohio, my reading of the statute lead me to believe there are three elements for the requirement to notify:

1. You have to be legally armed
2. You have to be stopped by police
3. The stop has to be for a law enforcement purpose

If only one of the elements is missing, there's no obligation to notify.

You approaching officers (while you're legally armed) to tell them of suspicious activity meets only one of the three elements.

@Lon is that your understanding as well?

[Trooper224]

In my opinion, much of this is based around the traffic stop because that's the most routine, often only, contact the average citizen will have with law enforcement. Shocking I know. But, most people will never have any other reason to interact with the police. Regardless of your local, if you're reading your law to mean your're required to inform an LEO of your weapon upon *any* contact, ie. vicariously running into one at the coffee shop, then you're really over thinking the issue and losing the tree in the forest.

[CleverNickname]

If you’re not an LTC holder and have a firearm in your vehicle per 46 PC you are not required to disclose it. That strikes me as kind of a double standard against people with an LTC. I think the other way around would be more reasonable. The people with LTC are vetted and their LTC comes up on a records check, I think it is the non-LTC people that should have to disclose not the other way around.

As of a couple years ago, there's no longer a penalty for a licensee not declaring. The law still requires declaration though.

[HCM]

As of a couple years ago, there's no longer a penalty for a licensee not declaring. The law still requires declaration though.

Yeah, I didn’t see a criminal penalty but I would think they could suspend or revoke an LTC if there was an issue.

[TheNewbie]

Yeah, I didn’t see a criminal penalty but I would think they could suspend or revoke an LTC if there was an issue.

That's what I am guessing. It would be an admin issue.

[mmc45414]

Regardless of your local, if you're reading your law to mean your're required to inform an LEO of your weapon upon *any* contact, ie. vicariously running into one at the coffee shop, then you're really over thinking the issue and losing the tree in the forest.

It seems to me that Lon's point was this is a funky provision that is not clear cut. My coffee shop concern is from my recollections of my training, training that was administered by a OPOTA certified range instructor Deputy utilizing the materials provide by the AG. But this was more than fifteen years ago and the law has been adjusted a couple times since then. But now there are two consecutive paragraphs that say the same thing, only the second one doesn't specify motor vehicle. A year ago my wife was involved in a hit and run, and when I showed up I informed the investigating Deputy that I was armed as I walked up to him. I guess I wasn't required to, but...

Anyway, Lon started this in the LE sub-forum, maybe we should start another thread someplace else. The more I review this the more I appreciate Lon providing his testimony.