Ohio: Man snagged by vehicle open-carry requirement

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AZRickD

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
1,684
We predicted it right here, didn't we?

http://www.ofcc.net/article2330.html
Below you will find a story of an individual from the Cleveland area who was arrested and charged originally with a 5th degree felony because his t-shirt accidentally covered his gun - violating the "plain sight" requirement - when he followed the instruction of the police officer during the traffic stop. The county prosecutor reduced the charge to a minor misdemeanor, but in reality should have completed dismissed all charges since the officer's request caused the violation. Hopefully, this conviction will be overturned on appeal since he entered an Alford plea. In addition, his gun and permit were NOT returned to him at the end of the traffic stop - a violation of state law.

Thirdly, the judge in this matter illegally ordered the gun seized.

State law needs to be changed NOW to have true concealed carry. Plain sight needs to be removed from the statute immediately. Ohio is the only state in the country that has such a ridiculous provision. The law also needs to be strengthened to prevent renegade police officers and judges to face penalties for failing to follow state law - felony theft charges.

I am fully in support of protecting our police officers. I am a member of the Fraternal Order of Police Associates. I do not disagree with officers being permitted to temporarily disarm a CCW permit holder, but there must be consequences for the officer for failing to follow Ohio law 2923.12 (H) in failing to return the gun immediately.

Finally, the statute needs to be revised to prohibit the release of any information regarding permit holders to protect their safety and well-being.



Sincerely,


Michael P Rolfes

QUOTED NEWS TEXT:


For several weeks, Ohioans For Concealed Carry has been following the case of a young CHL-holder whose has been abused not only by the terrible vehicle carry provisions in Ohio law, but by the system responsible for enforcing it.

On Thursday, August 5, the CHL-holder was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for a traffic violation by a Chagrin Falls police officer. The CHL-holder identified himself as a such to the officer, and announced that he was carrying.

Upon so doing, the officer moved to the passenger side of the car and ordered the CHL-holder to place his hands on the dash. When he did so, the CHL-holder's shirt came loose and lifted up over his gun, which was contained in an inside-the-waist-band holster.

The officer the accused the individual of not having his firearm in plain sight, and confiscated the firearm and license. He was not, however, charged or arrested at the time. This fact alone is cause for concern, since Ohio law specifically states that unless a person is charged or arrested, their firearm should be returned at the conclusion of the traffic stop:


ORC 2923.12.(H) If a law enforcement officer stops a person to question the person regarding a possible violation of this section, for a traffic stop, or for any other law enforcement purpose, if the person surrenders a firearm to the officer, either voluntarily or pursuant to a request or demand of the officer, and if the officer does not charge the person with a violation of this section or arrest the person for any offense, the person is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm, and the firearm is not contraband, the officer shall return the firearm to the person at the termination of the stop.
The defendant later voluntarily appeared at the police department, where he was booked on a fifth-degree felony "plain sight" violation, and released on bond.

The city prosecutor and defense counsel came to an agreement where the prosecutor dismissed the felony charge for violating the open sight provision. The prosecutor filed a new case of disorderly conduct (a minor misdemeanor) as part of the deal for the dismissal, and the defendant entered an Alford Guilty plea to the charge. A minor misdemeanor is like a traffic ticket - the penalty is a fine only, with no possible jail-time. Pleading "Alford Guilty" means, essentially, that the defendant isn't admitting guilt, but the deal is so good that it would be akin to committing legal suicide to pass it up.

On Monday, August 23, the case went before Bedford Municipal Court Judge Peter Junkin. Rather than signing off on this deal, as he had done all morning long in other cases, Judge Junkin immediately began grilling defendant and his counsel about why would he want to carry a gun in the municipality, since there is no violent crime. The judge peppered the defendant with rhetorical questions such as "If you see something you are going to jump out and start shooting?" The judge's line of questioning sought to make the defendant out to be a vigilante.

The judge then reviewed every police report, statement, etc., and was "visibly getting mad". He wrote one thing on the entry, then scribbled it out. Eventually, Junkin fined the defendant $150, ordered he pay court costs on the disorderly case and the dismissed felony case, and ordered seizure of the gun.

The prosecution never requested seizure of the gun, which was illegally seized in the first place (ORC 2923.12.(H)). The Judge has no authority to order seizure of the gun until the prosecution makes a motion (ORC 2933.43 (C)). The prosecution made no such motion, because the prosecutor knew that the gun should not have been seized by the officer at the traffic stop. There is already a Cuyahoga County Appeals Court case directly on point - State v. Cola 76 Ohio App.3d 840.

According to witnesses, defense counsel started to object, saying "Judge, I don't think you can do that," but Junkin immediately cut him off and said "Get the Court of Appeals to tell me I can't do that."

The defendant has decided that he will take Junkin's advice, and pursue the Cuyahoga Court of Appeals for relief from this illegal, activist ruling. It is believed the prosecutor will not contest the appeal.

A candidate needs to be identified to run against this judge, who lets his personal bias lead him into blatantly illegal acts from the bench.

Judge Peter Junkin
Bedford Municipal Court
165 Center St.
Bedford, OH 44146
Click to expand...
 
Absolutely atrocious. Does this mean I should start strapping my gun to the top of my thigh to make sure it's in plain sight? I'm sure all the people driving by me won't freak out and call the police about a lunatic with a gun.
 
I live in Michigan, and my family and I just returned from a trip to Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky. Of course, before we left for our journey, I researched the CCW laws for Kentucky and Ohio. I was puzzled to learn about the 'plain sight' requirement for Ohio, but of course, I complied. You can bet I didn't drive one mile per hour over the speed limit.
 
I advised Ohioans that the only safe ways of on-body-open-carry-in-a-vehicle would be an open fanny pack or a thigh holster.

Some took my advise.

Thanks to all who have taken or will have taken the time to write these boneheaded bureaucrats.

It burns me up something major that this clause in the law was placed there on the insistance of the Ohio Highway Patrol. This is the same way LEO lobbyists alter legislation on other laws as well from speed limits to drug laws. So, the next time you hear, "Hey, I don't make the laws, I just enforce 'em," you'll have reason to tell them to blow it out their ***.

Rick
 
So, the next time you hear, "Hey, I don't make the laws, I just enforce 'em," you'll have reason to tell them to blow it out their ***.
Click to expand...
Not quite.

If Taft had not said that he would base his stance on what a labor union and the head of a department he is supposed to lead opined, their opinion would have no more weight than anyone else's.

In any event, now comes the fun part. Caselaw. Get a court of appeals to tell me I can't? Yeah, ok. One reversal on appeal, coming right up.

Mike :rolleyes:
 
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I did drive by a Holiday Inn Express the other day, though....

I've also been on the fringes of local Law Enforcement for something like 37 years, carried a Commission from the City of Youngstown for about ten years, did the OPOTA school in 1968, and have a minor in Law Enforcement from YSU.

(Anybody got the other $0.50 so I can grab a cup of coffee before we continue?)

About the Chagrin Falls case on the OFCC web site.... Putting on my very pro-Police hat for a minute, it seems that there either was some serious "attitude" on the part of the young CHL holder, or the Officers involved exceeded their authority. If the latter, legal action might be worth considering, but bear in mind that "Officer Safety" and related issues of "cool down" might also be argued successfully.

It would appear that the Judge definitely exceeded his authority, and since none of the other "keep the gun for now" issues could be considered applicable, it might be time to go after him personally. The appeals court, assuming they're not rabid anti-gunners, should laugh him off the bench in short order. 'Course, this isn't a perfect world, and some Judges can get away with about anything.

However, none of the above negates the opinion that unless the CHL holder had a _serious_ attitude problem, the whole thing is a crock....

The whole Vehicular Carry thing is a poison pill, inserted into the law to force us to commit various crimes, and/or endanger ourselves, friends, and family, as well as induce panic. On the face of it, it's bad law, and should be stricken as quickly as possible.

Let's look at the Chagrin Falls case again.... The young man attempted to comply, but circumstances screwed him up. A law which you can't obey when inanimate objects (i.e., his shirt) fail to cooperate at the last minute, merely serves to make criminals out of decent people, and makes the legislature look silly.

As an alternative, he could have placed his weapon in the vehicle's glove compartment. Or could he? He would not really have control over it then. Since the vehicle operator (if I recall the story correctly) didn't have a CHL, that's probably a violation. Same for a "steal me" box, since the vehicle likely wouldn't have one.

About the only legal alternative seems to me to be to put the weapon in the trunk. But then you have to unload it _completely_, and may have to do this in full view of the public. To use the weapon, should it be necessary, then requires that you exit the vehicle, retrieve the weapon, unlock it as necessary, re-load, etc. You're long since already dead....

And, having complied with either the glove box or trunk storage, you're _handling_ the weapon. That, in itself, is a danger to yourself and others, although the exact amount of danger is relatively small when compared to the "hang on a bit while I get my gun out" you'll need to deal with the folks you're carrying that thing to avoid problems with....

OK - there is another alternative. Carry the weapon absolutely open.... That means one of those chest holsters, since nothing else will work if you need to wear a jacket as the weather gets colder. Having that held against your chest by the Federally mandated shoulder harness may not be the greatest idea, but you can bet that some blue haired type will be calling 911 about you. AND, don't forget that open carry is not allowed in some areas.... No signs, etc., either.... That's right - the "plain sight" rule _requires_ that you violate other laws in some areas....

Various IWB/OWB/Shoulder holsters may (MAY!) satisfy the "plain sight" rule, but as the weather turns (this law really began to take effect as people started leaving coats & such at home in the beginning of Spring), none of them will be legal. This makes actually carrying the weapon impossible.

I can think of several belt holster arrangements (you can't just tuck it into your seatbelt - the law says "on your person") that could be used, but they all involve putting the weapon between you and the seatbelt, guaranteeing "damage" should you be involved in an accident.

So, we've got a law that allows concealed carry that requires open carry (which is often illegal), or makes it impossible to wear the weapon at all, or forces you to place the weapon somewhere that's a danger to yourself in an accident. We also have a law that requires you to handle the weapon unnecessarily when trying to comply with it. Makes a lot of sense?

Then there's the "steal me" box or the glove compartment.... If I'm driving, I can't _reach_ the glove box in my car, nor is it big enough for the Commander clone I prefer to carry. And, if there's a passenger in the front seat, I really don't "control" the glove box, particularly if I leave a key in it for ready access. (The law says "locked", but doesn't specify where the key is....) If I get out of the car and don't retrieve the weapon, the weapon's not stored legally, and my passenger(s) may be committing felonies should they stay in the car. Hm.... The law forces my passengers to commit felonies, and/or to be endangered when I retrieve the weapon from it's storage container.... This is good?

If I try to use a "steal me" box (remember the "plain sight" thing), the situation is the same, except that I've put a large steel thing in the driver's or passenger's area of the front seat that will be a hazard in an accident. There may be Federal laws against that, but at the least I could be held liable if a passenger is injured by it. The law again forces me to endanger myself or my passengers....

The "open carry" and "steal me" boxes are also an invitation to thieves who need only stand outside my Church or Synagogue (for example) and see who's carrying.... Guaranteed goodies in some blue haired areas. (If your Church or Synagogue doesn't care - mine will get their membership back if anybody says anything - there are plenty of other places, like the local Police Department! Back in late May, when I went to the Columbiana County SO to do the final paperwork, as I got out of my car, there was a kid standing there in what had to be a "prisoner" uniform. He asked me if I was there for a CHL! Cameras & such, I suppose, but....)

What this all boils down to, I think, is that the vehicular carry part of the law, as written, is sufficiently goofy as to be unenforceable without being malicious and that compliance can be downright dangerous if not stupid.

Perhaps our legislators should be reminded that a lot of people are laughing at them right now....

:banghead:
 
Stu

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)
Click to expand...

:D :D

I posted my reply on the other site but will chime in here too.

I feel for the guy being a test case and do hope NRA and/or whoever gets some defense monies for him.

That said, I think this is a good start to getting this law amended and removing the silly "visual while driving" portion. I think everyone in Ohio knew it was only a matter of time before someone got nailed for this and in this circumstance he ended up with the perfect Judge. (read: bozo)
All in all an excellent test case to begin the process of getting this law changed for the better.

just my 2¢
 
Rich:

I've been thinking some more about this.

If I lock the weapon in my glove box (as a means of carry), and get out of the car at an Officer's order, is the weapon improperly stored?

(Matter of fact, if I get out of the car for any reason and leave the weapon in the glovebox....)

IAC, I hope that this case gets the legal help it needs. What worries some of us is _where_ these cases pop up. Some Judges are going to be a lot "better" than others.
 
Under Ohio's boneheaded statute --

If you leave the car with your gun in the glove box, does that create a legal liability to those who remain in your car who are not CCWed?

Rick
 
Rick:

I think it does....

There seems to be an exemption for University parking lots, but overall, OH"s "no CHL" carry rules are "unloaded and in a locked container in the trunk" or something close to that. Exceptions exist for pickup trucks & other vehicles without trunks.

The "spirit" of the law has always permitted "transport" of an unloaded weapon on a "best effort" basis. IOW, an unloaded weapon that the driver (and passengers) can't easily access was OK. (IANAL - that's what I was taught back in the lates 60's.)

I haven't been able to take the time to dig through the statute, but it appears that locked in the glovebox or in a "steal me" is valid only when the CHL is present in the vehicle. Naturally, if I get out of the car at a non-CPZ location, one would assume that I'd grab the gun, but what if I'm at the Post Office? And, stretching that, what if the wife's sitting in the car?

(She does that....)

The other issue is what happens if an Officer asks or orders you to get out of the car, but doesn't ask/order you to retrieve the weapon first? ("Ask" v.s. "Order" can carry some weight, too, but let's ignore that.) I think that may be a violation at some point, if not immediately. I would think that the CHL holder needs to be "in control" of the weapon in order to store it that way.

An Officer's order probably would cover you, but it's been said that the fellow in Chagrin Falls was asked to exit the vehicle, at which point his shirt, lawfully exposing the weapon in the vehicle, dropped over it. To my view, the whole case rests on whether the officer could see if the weapon was visible or not _before_ the guy was asked to leave the vehicle.

If the Officer couldn't see it, it's a "who's telling the truth" situation, and since it's an M5, the whole thing should have been ignored - all it would take to "prove" anything would be testimony from the driver. 'Course, we don't know what the driver saw, and there may be some serious attitude issues there.

(Definitions: A "CHL" is "our" term for "Concealed Handgun License." A "CPZ" is a "Criminal Protection Zone" - a "no carry" location, whether posted by the property owner - possible and enforceable in OH - or one of the defined "no carry" zones in the law, like a bar. I _think_ the Post Office postings may not actually apply to CHL's, but that's another thread.)

Definitely some bonehead stuff in this law. Most of them were intended to be poison pills, I'm sure.

My own view of the vehicular carry issue, which won't help if I get arrested, is the same one my former day job's lawyer expressed when I handed him a multi-page IBM contract twenty or so years ago. "Go ahead and sign it, it's unconscionable, and probably unenforceable too...." Unfortunately, there have to be test cases.

I guess the good news is that these things may be changeable either in the courts or the legislature, and it's better than what we have for a lot of people. The old "Affirmative Defense" was good enough for your average white businessman and others with clean records, although there were some serious problems in some areas, and the whole thing could randomly get you into deep stuff. The downside of the new law is that you can get killed before you can get an "emergency" license - it can take as long as three days and you can't sit at home and wait for it, and you can commit a felony if the kid needs to use the bathroom and the only one handy is a Federal building.... ALL of that needs to be changed, too. The "no carry" rules should require that a facility provide lockers, and be "sterile" - metal detectors & guards.

(I could go on....)

With all this kvetching, though, we do need to thank the guys who helped get even this much across, and those who voted for it. If you bother to get a CHL, which I think everybody who even _thinks_ he may need it should (I used to take alarm drops at the former day job, at 0330....), it's a chance to get some skills, too, and meet some interesting people. In my case, I'd not shot for more than 25 years. I forgot how much fun it was. I've blown more than a grand since then - a new gun, and enough ammo to sink the Bismarck. AND, assuming I don't screw up that bonehead vehicular carry thing, I can now legally tuck a weapon into my belt to visit clients in bad areas, go out to the drugstore at 0230, or whatever. I just can't go to the Post Office....
 
Let me get this straight in the state of ohio you must have your weapon in plain open view when riding in a car? Even if you have a pistol permit to carry the gun? Thats very lame in my opinion as well as dangerous to the permit holser. Also does the WHOLE gun have to be in plain view or do you need to have just the grip showing so they can see you have a gun?
 
If Taft had not said that he would base his stance on what a labor union and the head of a department he is supposed to lead opined, their opinion would have no more weight than anyone else's.
Click to expand...
Taft knew in advance what that opinion would be, so Taft does not deserve a pass, nor the labor union, nor his lapdogs at OHP. They were in cahoots from beginning.

Mega, fear not. Taft and the OHP et al knew this would happen, knew it was dangerous, knew it was unworkable and yet they pushed for it anyway. They did it on purpose.

As to the definition of open carry, that is left up to the Courts to decide and some poor guy who is the next test case. Even in Arizona, the clear open-carry language in statute has been modified repeatedly by Courts and will be under attack in the future.

Rick
 
Megatron:

The law's very unclear on what "plain sight" actually means.

But it does require that the weapon be visible.

The unofficial interpretation in use comes down to "in a holster, on your person", if you wish to carry the thing, or in a "steal me" box that's in plain sight, or locked in the glove box or console.

Which means, of course, that just the "handle" (technical term :) ) should be sufficient.

Nobody has really nailed down how visible "in plain sight" is. A "chest" holster would almost certainly be acceptable, as, we're told (but not officially) is about anything that an Officer approaching you during a traffic stop would be likely to see. But there are "see from where?" issues that have yet to be resolved.

If you read my longer rants, I think you can see why the law was written this way. You can probably also see why a certain Governor is not in good odor in RKBA circles in OH these days....

The good news is that a sensible Judge probably would toss that requirement when the right test case hits his bench. The bad news is that we may have trouble finding a sensible Judge (I know one here, but I'm not sure how he stands on 2A and CCW), and that somebody's going to have to pay some lawyers a bit of money to settle it. AND, if we get the wrong Judge....

Most of the sensible solutions - a holster under the dash or seat, for example, are ruled out. My car's got a great (but not lockable) glovebox in the driver's side door. Leaving the lid open would be "in plain sight", _I think_, but it's not "on my person". Locked in the glove box is too far away from me to be worth the effort, and has other issues should I get out of the vehicle without the weapon.

The State Patrol insisted on this as an Officer Safety measure. "Put the gun on the dashboard if stopped" would have been better, and probably safer, but they wanted a poison pill, and they got it.... :fire:
 
Winter is going to be loads of fun.

I'm almost looking forward to the day when I'm pulled over and my "concealed" .44 mag hogleg is strapped to my chest, pointing out the drivers side window. "Its for your safety officer...I have a CC permit and we wouldn't want a snubby tucked in the rear of my waistband... now would we?"

I'm beginning to believe that complete compliance with the law is what it will take to change this...kinda like the open carry demonstrations last year.

Perhaps a good chest holster (Bromag-bra) is needed.
 
Well, the good news is that one can hope the OSP guys will not want to get out of their cars in the winter for chicken-doo-doo stops, so just complying with the other laws might be sufficient until this comes together.

But you can't drive a car five feet without breaking some law if a Trooper's in a bad mood.

I'd love to get one of those chest holsters and stick my old S&W M19 in it, but even as big as I am, that's a lot to conceal when it's time to shift to "don't upset the sheeple" mode, and the logistics of swapping to something smaller (like a double-stack 1911) may not be a great idea.

I suppose the same double-stacker would be good enough, but my mom is 89, and it's bad enough (from her viewpoint) that there's a gun in the car at all.... She's not used to "just raise the shirt" yet....

(The sheeple reaction is another issue.... Check out the OFCC web site for a story about a woman in West Akron who was arrested for answering her front door with a gun in her hand....)

Probably the only legal way to carry in the car without risk is to keep it locked in the trunk. I've still not heard an opinion on the legality of getting out of the vehicle with a gun locked in the glovebox, particularly if there's a passenger. The trunk, of course, causes some interesting sheeple reaction, too. Imagine pulling up to the Mall, getting out of the car, and loading up that double-stacker (remember, the "trunk carry" is "empty").... I wonder how far I'd get - I'm kind of big, and while I don't look particularly "different", "big guy with blue shirt, glasses, and beard" probably would get somebody's attention pretty easily.

There's another issue - "plain sight" is not defined. Even a hawgleg in a belt holster (like the Sam Browne I have for the M19 but can't find - don't ask) may not qualify if it's not visible from the driver's side of the vehicle. Big enough to sell advertising space if the Troop's coming from the passenger side, but like I said, I'm _big_. He'd have to stick his head in the window to see it from the driver's side.... (He might see the shoulder strap first, if I could find that. The M19's not that heavy, but with all the other crap on my belt in those days, not having my pants desert my waistline was an advantage.)

Also, what if the weapon's black, and it's at night? Do we need a "gun light", like a "map light"? You should turn on your interior lights at night anyway, but....

Dirty trick leaving this up to the courts.... :cuss:

My own contention is that the vehicular carry requirements are impossible to comply with, and therefore void. Locked in the glovebox _may_ force you into committing a felony under trivial circumstances, and negates any of the self-defense reasons to have the weapon at all. All that handling endangers everybody. Removing the weapon from the trunk and making it ready could result in "inducing panic". AND, #1 with a bullet, Open Carry is illegal in some areas.... :banghead:

Not to mention the reaction of the BG's and those who would consider the whole thing provocative.... :what:
 
That said, I think this is a good start to getting this law amended and removing the silly "visual while driving" portion. I think everyone in Ohio knew it was only a matter of time before someone got nailed for this and in this circumstance he ended up with the perfect Judge. (read: bozo)
Click to expand...

Not only the judge. The entire case is a poster child example of what's wrong with the law.

Why is the open carry in vehicles clause in the law? Ostensibly, so the police can see and thus know if a person is carrying when they approach the vehicle. So in this case the kid complied, certainly long enough for the officer to know that he was armed. Once the kid's hands were on the dashboard, the officer already knew he was armed, and already knew where the gun was because he (or she?) had already seen it.

Leading to a resounding *** was the charge all about, and why wasn't it dismissed entirely? Having the judge then exacerbate the situation by piling on with yet a SECOND illegal seizure of the same weapon is just icing on the cake.
 
Is anyone else completely forgetting the larger issue here?

The officer the accused the individual of not having his firearm in plain sight, and confiscated the firearm and license. He was not, however, charged or arrested at the time.
Click to expand...

The 5th amendment of our Bill of Rights states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...
 
Hawkmoon:

AMEN....

I'm still inclined to believe that there was some kind of "attitude" issue during the original stop, although the Officers may not have understood the law (and the seizure provisions).

While pleading guilty to the citation may have been sensible ($150 and say goodbye to the Judge without further issues), the driver's "your honor, Fred's gun was visible when the Officer approached the vehicle" should have been a slam dunk in terms of getting the citation vacated if he wanted to fight it. I think I would have.... It really surprises me that a Judge would want to take a chance on a reversal on something this _visible_ [yech - bad pun] and this trivial.

However, it's possible that the guy was warned that this particular Judge would give him more grief than he could afford lawyers to handle if he went that way. (This is nominally Cleveland after all....) But he's still going to either pay a lawyer more than the gun's worth to get it back or give it up. Really should get the OFCC and NRA involved in this one....

(For the guys who don't know OH, Cuyahoga County - Cleveland - fought against the CHL, and their Sheriff was a roadblock in getting licenses. Chagrin Falls may not be in that county - I'm too lazy to look it up, but it's essentially a residential suburb of Cleveland. If memory serves, Bedford, where the court appears to be, is at least as "Cleveland"....)
 
Proglock:

They can take the weapon for "safekeeping" on an "Officer Safety" decision. I don't think (IANAL) that constitutes an actual deprivation of property, although there could be some interesting complications if you got mugged on the way to the PD to recover it....

Not returning the weapon when the guy went to the PD probably does fall under the Fifth Amendement provision, but one could stretch that to say that the matter was still under Judicial review. (I still think there may have been "attitude" issues not presented in the materials I've seen.)

Not returning the weapon after the Court visit most definitely, IMHO, is a Fifth Amendement issue, if not outright theft.

We really need to find out how to get rid of that Judge....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
more good news from the Ohio courts
Replies
0
Views
448
Aikibiker
A
E
  • Locked
OH CCW gathers another court ruling
Replies
5
Views
711
Greg L
G
A
  • Locked
Duty to inform? (Texas)
Replies
11
Views
3K
4thPointOfContact
4
D
  • Locked
Judge: Man isn't violating gun laws
Replies
12
Views
2K
gunsmith
G
F
  • Locked
Videotaping Police = Felony?
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Colonel
C
Back
Top