Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Few threads ever get past three pages without becoming a waste of bandwidth. Some, not past two.
Art
Art
"Do you have firearms in the vehicle?"
- Thread starter Molon Labe
- Start date
- Status
Molon Labe
Member
gopguy:
Pardon my skepticism here, but the law in Ohio is completely defined in the ORC. The ODNR cannot make law; it can only enforce it. And the ORC says nothing about loaded magazines. It would be completely improper for some bureaucrat to arbitrarily declare "unloaded firearm + loaded magazine = loaded firearm." It doesn't matter what the ODNR's "attitude" is; the law is defined in the ORC. And if the law doesn't say you can't have a loaded magazine in your vehicle, then you can.
Can you cite a case where someone has been arrested for having an unloaded firearm + loaded magazine in a vehicle?
Last edited:
Michael, as you and I both know bureucrats do things all the time they are not supposed to. The fact I can't find it spelled out exactly either does not mean that is not the policy... As I mentioned before in this thread about 3 game wardens back, down here in Clinton Co., they nailed a member of my gun club for having loaded magazines in his range bag when he arrived on the range. The member did not contest this citation and paid the fine. The game warden explained to us that we could not have loaded magazine for our long guns in our vehicles and he would bust any of us he saw doing this. I have adhered to that advice since.
Not without researching it.
Now if you really want to know what will happen call your local sheriff, OSHP and your local ODNR and see what they say..They are the ultimate authority who will or will not cite. Then let us know here what they tell you.
Not without researching it.
Now if you really want to know what will happen call your local sheriff, OSHP and your local ODNR and see what they say..They are the ultimate authority who will or will not cite. Then let us know here what they tell you.
WOW...
I can't believe it...
Since when did the LEO become the Bad Guy? (yes, we all know there are a few rotten apples out there, but they are the exception, not the rule)...
Since when did doing the Right Thing become so unpopular?
Is this the example you want to set for your children and grandchildren when it comes to making wise and honorable decisions?
You WONDER why LEOs Might be a Little Wary out there on the street?
With attitudes and responses like some represented in this thread, I think you have Answered Your Own Question!
I can't believe it...
- I can't believe I read the whole thing...
- I can't believe there are so many 'law-abiding citizens' out there who advocate deception as a preferred method of communication...
- I can't believe there are so many people on the RKBA bandwagon, who refuse to accept the responsibility that goes along with the exercising of these rights...
- I can't believe there are so many folks out there willing to do the right thing ONLY when it is convenient or personally expedient to do so...
Since when did the LEO become the Bad Guy? (yes, we all know there are a few rotten apples out there, but they are the exception, not the rule)...
Since when did doing the Right Thing become so unpopular?
Is this the example you want to set for your children and grandchildren when it comes to making wise and honorable decisions?
You WONDER why LEOs Might be a Little Wary out there on the street?
With attitudes and responses like some represented in this thread, I think you have Answered Your Own Question!
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
TC-TX,
Seriously, what planet are you living on?
Oh, Texas.
Some of us here are talking about California. It's not the same. In a nutshell:
Because The Right [Legal] Thing will often get your guns taken and you thrown in jail.
Seriously, what planet are you living on?
Oh, Texas.
Some of us here are talking about California. It's not the same. In a nutshell:
Because The Right [Legal] Thing will often get your guns taken and you thrown in jail.
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
AJAX22 said:
"magazine or clip thereof attached to the firearm"
I'll give you that if you have a loaded mag in one pocket and are also carrying a firearm while you walk down the street, it is considered loaded. Otherwise, a loaded mag isn't--according to the law.
I also suggest you consult CalGuns.net before believing anything the Cal DOJ tells you. Not to mention the "58 DAs" boilerplate they often put on any response.
An important point is, in California, there is a clear distinction between what the law says and what the government forces upon you. What I'm arguing here is what the law says.
Michael Courtney
Member
Repeat after me:
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
Michael Courtney
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."
Michael Courtney
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. TC-TX, I think I know.
When the leo asks if you have any "weapons" he became the bad guy.
Do you think if you answer in the affirmative that he will want to go to the range with you? Talk guns? Reloading info? You think he'll say, "Fine, move along." Sheesh.
All of us here know that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right. That's why we're here. Yes, many states like Ohio and CA have dreamed up some stupid laws which alienate that right and then along comes leo to ask if you have any.
Does that make him a good guy? Or an enforcer?
Heh, last summer I got pulled over on my scoot by a cop that hangs around at the local scooter shop and a new, young cop I'd never seen before. The young guy rushes up to me and immediately asks "Have you been drinking or using any drugs?" to which I replied "Just a fifth of Beam and a little acid".
The young guy got that 'Amos and Andy' look and the older cop I knew busted out laughing.
It was a Kodak moment.
Biker
The young guy got that 'Amos and Andy' look and the older cop I knew busted out laughing.
It was a Kodak moment.
Biker
Creeping Incrementalism,
Doing the Right Thing is Always Right... Doing the Wrong Thing is Always Wrong. Whether it is You or Them...
Wrong behavior on another's part does not give license for the same on yours.
If you have issues with your local laws or enforcement tactics, then get them changed. Or perhaps consider a change of scenery.
I understand (some of) the folks out west (and other places) can be very unforgiving to RKBA and other personal liberties. But remember - it is that way ONLY because the residents of your Great State ALLOW it to be so.
Good luck out there...
Doing the Right Thing is Always Right... Doing the Wrong Thing is Always Wrong. Whether it is You or Them...
Wrong behavior on another's part does not give license for the same on yours.
If you have issues with your local laws or enforcement tactics, then get them changed. Or perhaps consider a change of scenery.
I understand (some of) the folks out west (and other places) can be very unforgiving to RKBA and other personal liberties. But remember - it is that way ONLY because the residents of your Great State ALLOW it to be so.
Good luck out there...
cropcirclewalker,
You can not be Serious here, Can you?:
You are DEAD WRONG! That LEO has EVERY RIGHT and a RESPONSIBILITY to ask that question of anyone he has stopped, detained, retained, etc., in order to completely assess the situation at hand.
And BTW - YES -
What most of the folks commenting here within this thread tend to forget is that the LEO is the one at the disadvantage here - Always coming into an engagement (DOZENS of times in a Single Shift) not knowing what is on your mind nor what is in your pockets nor what is about to take place. The VERY NATURE of his/her job is TO BE CAUTIOUS (with LOTS of conditional variables to consider, stop after stop, no two ever the same) and PROTECTIVE (of You, of themselves and of the other people and property in the immediate area).
May I suggest you put yourself in their place for a moment BEFORE deciding what to say or how to respond to a simple question. If you had a Real Need To know, how would YOU want the other person to respond to you?
Like them or not, LEOs put their lives on the line Every Day - MANY TIMES A DAY - for the Safety and Well Being of You and Your Family. YES I KNOW - this is a Chosen Field - No one forced them to make this career choice. But MOST choose this career field in order to Serve Others.
That makes them All GOOD GUYs / GALs in my book. They all deserve the benefit of the doubt, until they individually prove otherwise.
I prefer to be Part of the Solution, NOT part of the problem.
Good luck out there...
You can not be Serious here, Can you?:
You are DEAD WRONG! That LEO has EVERY RIGHT and a RESPONSIBILITY to ask that question of anyone he has stopped, detained, retained, etc., in order to completely assess the situation at hand.
And BTW - YES -
When LEOs are treated in an appropriate manner, most will respond in-kind. Most of the time, NOTHING at all happens - you have just provided one point of information to help the LEO in his assessment. The rest of the time, it DOES spark up a conversation about CCW, weapons, carry choices and other related topics.
What most of the folks commenting here within this thread tend to forget is that the LEO is the one at the disadvantage here - Always coming into an engagement (DOZENS of times in a Single Shift) not knowing what is on your mind nor what is in your pockets nor what is about to take place. The VERY NATURE of his/her job is TO BE CAUTIOUS (with LOTS of conditional variables to consider, stop after stop, no two ever the same) and PROTECTIVE (of You, of themselves and of the other people and property in the immediate area).
May I suggest you put yourself in their place for a moment BEFORE deciding what to say or how to respond to a simple question. If you had a Real Need To know, how would YOU want the other person to respond to you?
Like them or not, LEOs put their lives on the line Every Day - MANY TIMES A DAY - for the Safety and Well Being of You and Your Family. YES I KNOW - this is a Chosen Field - No one forced them to make this career choice. But MOST choose this career field in order to Serve Others.
That makes them All GOOD GUYs / GALs in my book. They all deserve the benefit of the doubt, until they individually prove otherwise.
I prefer to be Part of the Solution, NOT part of the problem.
Good luck out there...
And, BTW... A Question
Since When does the RKBA negate the Responsibilities that go along with the Right itself? You retain the Rights afforded to All citizens as long as you assume and properly address the responsibilities as well. If you are willing to accept - and Fight For - these rights, you need to be equally prepared to accept the responsibilities that accompany them.
This includes Being truthful when questioned in a lawful manner...
This includes Abiding by the laws you live under...
This includes Choosing Right over Wrong when faced with the choice.
This also includes being willing to accept responsibility for your actions when you break the law... regardless of what the law is or whether you agree with it or not.
YES - The RKBA is afforded to All Citizens in the 2nd Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. However - You as a Citizen have a Duty to Abide by the law... Failure to do so can result in the loss of rights.
YMMV... Good luck out there...
Since When does the RKBA negate the Responsibilities that go along with the Right itself? You retain the Rights afforded to All citizens as long as you assume and properly address the responsibilities as well. If you are willing to accept - and Fight For - these rights, you need to be equally prepared to accept the responsibilities that accompany them.
This includes Being truthful when questioned in a lawful manner...
This includes Abiding by the laws you live under...
This includes Choosing Right over Wrong when faced with the choice.
This also includes being willing to accept responsibility for your actions when you break the law... regardless of what the law is or whether you agree with it or not.
YES - The RKBA is afforded to All Citizens in the 2nd Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. However - You as a Citizen have a Duty to Abide by the law... Failure to do so can result in the loss of rights.
YMMV... Good luck out there...
cropcirclewalker
member
You may be right there. The only time I was asked if I had any "weapons" by a leo I responded politely and honestly. And yes, as I sat chained to a bench for 2 hours, the cop at the table filling out the forms of my arrest report did strike up a conversation about my piece. He even tried to buy it from me.
I have no idea and am probably wrong but maybe you just got out of the academy or are trying to be unnaturally obtuse.
Shall not be questioned. Hum, I wonder what that means.
I hope you don't mind a little constitution lingo.
I know you are from Texas, maybe their constitution says that it is the responsibility of every leo to find out if you are armed.
Hey, have a good weekend.
I think its a matter of privacy. Would you think its wrong for an officer to ask you if you have any condoms in your walmart bag or pornography in the blockbuster bag? Declining to answer such a question about firearms has a decent chance of making the situation more lengthy and interrogative. But as was said earlier I can't imagine this is a question thats asked all that often either.
Soybomb - ALL LEOs have the right to ASK anything they - in their assessment of the situation at hand - deem necessary.
If the answer to the theoretical question you pose here:
However I seriously doubt that condoms or pornography would lend an element of Unknown Danger to the encounter... I believe you are comparing apples to manhole covers at this point.
YMMV... Good luck out there...
If the answer to the theoretical question you pose here:
puts the interaction between you and the officer at risk, then NO - it is NOT WRONG if the question is germain to the situation. He/She has Every Right to ask the question. Whether you Answer or not is within your right to decide... remembering that All decisions have consequences.
However I seriously doubt that condoms or pornography would lend an element of Unknown Danger to the encounter... I believe you are comparing apples to manhole covers at this point.
YMMV... Good luck out there...
unnaturally obtuse?
cropcirclewalker:
1) The obscure notion that I HAVE RKBA RIGHTS (but no responsibilities when it comes to exercising these rights) and
2) The notion that one can Act in a criminal manner (Lying to a LEO, improper carrying of a weapon, etc.) and then raise Holy Noise when they are Treated like a criminal after the fact.
No One is Questioning NOR Infringing upon your Right to KBA... You totally misinterpret the language in this statute.
A LEO asking the question is merely looking to be informed of the condition at hand... Whether you like it or not, The LEO has a Responsibility to do so...
Good luck out there...
cropcirclewalker:
- I don't think so. I am merely pointing out the obscure notion some people have when it comes to Right and Wrong...
1) The obscure notion that I HAVE RKBA RIGHTS (but no responsibilities when it comes to exercising these rights) and
2) The notion that one can Act in a criminal manner (Lying to a LEO, improper carrying of a weapon, etc.) and then raise Holy Noise when they are Treated like a criminal after the fact.
No One is Questioning NOR Infringing upon your Right to KBA... You totally misinterpret the language in this statute.
A LEO asking the question is merely looking to be informed of the condition at hand... Whether you like it or not, The LEO has a Responsibility to do so...
Good luck out there...
Otherguy Overby
member
Rights?
Uh, in this case they are powers, not rights. Asking someone a question where the answer may affect that person's freedom is POWER.
Am I free to go?
Uh, in this case they are powers, not rights. Asking someone a question where the answer may affect that person's freedom is POWER.
Am I free to go?
Otherguy Overby - it is incumbant upon the LEO (read: DUTY) to ask...
It is OPTIONAL as to whether you answer or not.
While Honest Answers are not compulsary, they are always the right thing to do.
If you are engaged in some behavior where an Honest Answer puts your liberties at risk, maybe you should reassess your priorities and actions. It is in this case your Actions and not your Answers that put you at risk.
Good luck out there...
The problem seems to be that the law itself is so convoluted that it is impossible for the average man to have a full and complete understanding of it. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, and there is a good chance that despite the best of intentions you may be breaking a law that you did not know was in existance.
Its up to the discression of the officer at the scene to determine if there is probable cause that you are breaking the law, and it is within the purview of the individual officer as to what stringency they use to enforce the law. Unfortunately guns in many places at best have a negative connotation and make some people uncomfortable, and at worst open you up to the adgenda of the individual or community that you are traveling through.
If you do comply fully with the law to the best of your knowledge and abilitys, a misinterpritation by the enforcing officer, or an error on your part could wind up costing you your freedom, your guns, or in a good scenario, simply a large amount of money in legal fees.
It is my opinion that it is best to do all that you can to limit your exposure to those kinds of scenarios. For that reason, and only for that reason, it is my opinion that "NO" is the most correct answer. It tears at me inside that it is necicary, but as the only other situation which would allow me to answer factually "NO" involves my discontinued use and posession of firearms, which I consider necicary to the preservation of freedom and the safety of my family, I feel that "NO", while it does constitute a distastefull untruth, is the answer which best serves.
I can understand the motivation for the officers to ask the question, but as I do not seek to do harm in any way shape or form to the officer, whether it be with my hands, words, or other impliments, In this case The spirit of the question, I feel, is answered.
I would like to be a moral absolutist in this case, but I fear that this situation falls under a grey area.
This is just my opinion, I understand if others differ.
Its up to the discression of the officer at the scene to determine if there is probable cause that you are breaking the law, and it is within the purview of the individual officer as to what stringency they use to enforce the law. Unfortunately guns in many places at best have a negative connotation and make some people uncomfortable, and at worst open you up to the adgenda of the individual or community that you are traveling through.
If you do comply fully with the law to the best of your knowledge and abilitys, a misinterpritation by the enforcing officer, or an error on your part could wind up costing you your freedom, your guns, or in a good scenario, simply a large amount of money in legal fees.
It is my opinion that it is best to do all that you can to limit your exposure to those kinds of scenarios. For that reason, and only for that reason, it is my opinion that "NO" is the most correct answer. It tears at me inside that it is necicary, but as the only other situation which would allow me to answer factually "NO" involves my discontinued use and posession of firearms, which I consider necicary to the preservation of freedom and the safety of my family, I feel that "NO", while it does constitute a distastefull untruth, is the answer which best serves.
I can understand the motivation for the officers to ask the question, but as I do not seek to do harm in any way shape or form to the officer, whether it be with my hands, words, or other impliments, In this case The spirit of the question, I feel, is answered.
I would like to be a moral absolutist in this case, but I fear that this situation falls under a grey area.
This is just my opinion, I understand if others differ.
But don't you see AJAX22 - it is people like you - with thought processes that lean toward deception FIRST - that create the confusion to begin with!
The LEO is not asking the question (specifically) to see if you are breaking the law - He/She is asking the question to assess the situation and to know how to best respond to all conditions going forward.
It is NOT the Known that causes confusion and chaos at the scene - it is the UNKNOWN. Intentionally giving false information to a LEO in the assessment of a situation is WRONG.
- It puts you in the position of a person Willing to put the safety and security of a LEO and others at risk.
- It is Criminal Behavior.
- Criminal Behavior voids all rights to KBA.
Would you condone this behavior if it put one of Your Family Members or one of Your Loved Ones at risk?
The LEO is not asking the question (specifically) to see if you are breaking the law - He/She is asking the question to assess the situation and to know how to best respond to all conditions going forward.
It is NOT the Known that causes confusion and chaos at the scene - it is the UNKNOWN. Intentionally giving false information to a LEO in the assessment of a situation is WRONG.
- It puts you in the position of a person Willing to put the safety and security of a LEO and others at risk.
- It is Criminal Behavior.
- Criminal Behavior voids all rights to KBA.
Would you condone this behavior if it put one of Your Family Members or one of Your Loved Ones at risk?
cropcirclewalker
member
The policeman is not your friend.
As much as some leos like to think that they are serving the people, in actuality they are mostly serving the state.
When I say state, I mean the political subdivision that employs the leo.
The mission of leo is to catch bgs doing crimes. By definition "Law Enforcement Officer" means a person who enforces the law. How much simpler can it get?
So here is me, a law abiding citizen, minding my own business, driving down the road. The last speeding ticket I got was in 1989. That's seventeen years ago.
I have been pulled over or stopped many times since then. No, I have not been stopped because of a light out. Usually for soberiety checks or driving while poor.
When leo pulls me over for whatever reason, since I don't speed, he is trying to determine if I have committed a crime. If he finds that I have infracted some rule of the state, then he gets to think that he has succeeded. He has done his job.
It is folly to suggest that leo will pull me over to ask me to go shooting with him at the range. Folly.
He will engage me in conversation in an attempt to determine which rule I have infracted. He will ask me if I am armed, like Mr. TX-TC suggests, to assess the situation should he also have determined that I am an infractor.
They justify that by shouting "Officer Safety".
If leo finds that I am armed, there is a chance that I am in noncompliance with some stupid unconstitutional law dreamed up by some anti 2a statist to stifle our freedoms. He will, therefore, investigate my situation to insure that I have dotted the ts and crossed the Is.
All of this investigation is in an attempt to find some infraction for which I can be charged.
Although there is a legitimate need for them, like directing traffic around accidents and getting kittens out of trees,
The policeman is not your friend.
As much as some leos like to think that they are serving the people, in actuality they are mostly serving the state.
When I say state, I mean the political subdivision that employs the leo.
The mission of leo is to catch bgs doing crimes. By definition "Law Enforcement Officer" means a person who enforces the law. How much simpler can it get?
So here is me, a law abiding citizen, minding my own business, driving down the road. The last speeding ticket I got was in 1989. That's seventeen years ago.
I have been pulled over or stopped many times since then. No, I have not been stopped because of a light out. Usually for soberiety checks or driving while poor.
When leo pulls me over for whatever reason, since I don't speed, he is trying to determine if I have committed a crime. If he finds that I have infracted some rule of the state, then he gets to think that he has succeeded. He has done his job.
It is folly to suggest that leo will pull me over to ask me to go shooting with him at the range. Folly.
He will engage me in conversation in an attempt to determine which rule I have infracted. He will ask me if I am armed, like Mr. TX-TC suggests, to assess the situation should he also have determined that I am an infractor.
They justify that by shouting "Officer Safety".
If leo finds that I am armed, there is a chance that I am in noncompliance with some stupid unconstitutional law dreamed up by some anti 2a statist to stifle our freedoms. He will, therefore, investigate my situation to insure that I have dotted the ts and crossed the Is.
All of this investigation is in an attempt to find some infraction for which I can be charged.
Although there is a legitimate need for them, like directing traffic around accidents and getting kittens out of trees,
The policeman is not your friend.
TallPine
Member
Somehow I just don't think that when a cop pulls over for a traffic violation a guy who just held up a store, that the guy is going to be totally honest about whether he has a gun or not ...
cropcirclewalker,
You are certainly entitled to your personal opinions of LEOs, but I truly feel sorry for anyone who carries around such a jaded view of individuals who have accepted the responsibility to serve and protect you and your family and your community... Honorable Professionals who have taken an oath to protect the likes of individuals like you, obviously out to make their job increasingly more difficult.
To suggest that LEOs are 'not your friend' is juvenile and paranoid.
It is sad that you would have the gall to paint all of law enforcement with that broad brush.
I prefer to look at the glass as Half-Full. You might try it some time, it will improve your outlook on life immensly.
Good luck out there...
You are certainly entitled to your personal opinions of LEOs, but I truly feel sorry for anyone who carries around such a jaded view of individuals who have accepted the responsibility to serve and protect you and your family and your community... Honorable Professionals who have taken an oath to protect the likes of individuals like you, obviously out to make their job increasingly more difficult.
- Who in this thread EVER suggested such a thing? Maybe you should go back and re-read what you mis-read before.
To suggest that LEOs are 'not your friend' is juvenile and paranoid.
It is sad that you would have the gall to paint all of law enforcement with that broad brush.
I prefer to look at the glass as Half-Full. You might try it some time, it will improve your outlook on life immensly.
Good luck out there...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked