Stopped by cops for Open carry on Campus-Video. What do you think?

This is a discussion on Stopped by cops for Open carry on Campus-Video. What do you think? within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; ^Spoken from a Utah LEO ;) When do I get to tag along to see what you do? :)...

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 138

Thread: Stopped by cops for Open carry on Campus-Video. What do you think?

  1. #46
    Member Array SAMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    217
    ^Spoken from a Utah LEO ;)

    When do I get to tag along to see what you do? :)
    Forget 'Twitter', i'm on the CB...
    Cruiser Outfitters
    Utah Firearm
    Expedition Utah

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    i need to go to school in Utah :P
    S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
    S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
    proud www.georgiacarry.org member
    Second Amendment Foundation Life member

  4. #48
    Senior Member Array ep1953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kodak TN
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by CLASS3NH View Post
    I also agree with the above. The officer has given the student every avenue, but he 9the student) is pushing the fact he wants to O/C i don't have any problem with the O/C but the student has been asked (in a VERY respectful manner) to just conceal the handgun for the time being, until a later date. The student is pushing his point and he's being asked to not O/C or he's going to get cited. Personally, if he has a CCW permit, just hide it and not get cited for it. Why bust the officers eggs at this point. Live to fight it another day, and not become a problem to the officers.
    The officer says he wants to search your car. Why bust the officer's eggs? Let him search your car. Just let it go and you can refuse to let the officer search your car another day. The fourth amendment isn't that important.

  5. #49
    Distinguished Member Array jarhead79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Stansbury Park, UT
    Posts
    1,409
    I could say everything he said, recorded and no one could tell me from him. I swear I was listening to myself. He has MY voice. Weird.
    www.ubgholsters.com short wait times. Use 'defensivecarry' as a coupon code for a discount to your order.

  6. #50
    LLT
    LLT is offline
    Member Array LLT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    53
    Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's smart. I have zero respect for this kid.

    I get so sick and tired of one step forward, two steps back because of these people who think it's their responsibility to educate and force their views upon others... it does nothing to further "the cause."

    The LEO was doing this self-proclaimed hero a favor by telling him it's not a good idea. He could have just latched him for disorderly conduct, put him through the system and made him have a bad day or three. Maybe it wouldn't have stuck, but it would have ran up some legal expenses and caused the cocky kid some trouble.

    If the school doesn't want OC, why force it? If it's truly for self-defense... conceal it and call it a day.

    My eyes, they roll.

  7. #51
    Ex Member Array Treo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,098
    Originally posted by LLT If the school doesn't want OC, why force it? If it's truly for self-defense... conceal it and call it a day.
    Apparently the school can't legally prohibit OC.

    I'm really not sure how I would have responded. The cop wasn't a jerk to the kid. The kid wouldn't have had any of his rights infringed ( The Constitution says bear arms not BARE arms). I very likely would have said ok and covered it up.

    Now at the point where the police chief replied to his email I would have gone OC.org on him (which is what I suspect is about to happen)

  8. #52
    Member Array CplVargas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by LLT View Post
    Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's smart. I have zero respect for this kid.

    I get so sick and tired of one step forward, two steps back because of these people who think it's their responsibility to educate and force their views upon others... it does nothing to further "the cause."

    The LEO was doing this self-proclaimed hero a favor by telling him it's not a good idea. He could have just latched him for disorderly conduct, put him through the system and made him have a bad day or three. Maybe it wouldn't have stuck, but it would have ran up some legal expenses and caused the cocky kid some trouble.

    If the school doesn't want OC, why force it? If it's truly for self-defense... conceal it and call it a day.

    My eyes, they roll.
    I don't think you get the point, mister. OC'ing on Utah college campuses is just as legal as marrying outside your race. Am I going to not walk down the street with my wife because an ignorant LEO says "it's legal but you shouldn't be doing it"?

  9. #53
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,686
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Yeah, there is, and its a lot in public order crimes. If no alarm was raised, then no, no offense. One person is not enough. It specifically states two or more. One example that I have used often as a patrol officer is this;
    A person is upset and screaming/yelling obscenities on the street. There has to be two or more people present (not including me and the suspect) within ear shot before I could make a disorderly case.
    You're saying that the justification for claiming someone is disorderly is that two or more others claim it's true? That guilt is established by the fear of a person, and NOT by the actions of that person? That guilt is cemented the moment a second person stands up and foully spews the same illegitimate claim against a person?

    I'm assuming this varies a bit with state statute, but would you mind presenting the specific statutes in question for the state of your residence, supporting this? (Or, those of Utah, since that's what this thread is about.)
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  10. #54
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,747
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    You're saying that the justification for claiming someone is disorderly is that two or more others claim it's true? That guilt is established by the fear of a person, and NOT by the actions of that person? That guilt is cemented the moment a second person stands up and foully spews the same illegitimate claim against a person?

    I'm assuming this varies a bit with state statute, but would you mind presenting the specific statutes in question for the state of your residence, supporting this? (Or, those of Utah, since that's what this thread is about.)
    No is the answer to all your questions in your first paragraph.

    And sure;

    2917.11 section B1.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  11. #55
    Member Array Ssmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southwest MO
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Rotorblade View Post
    This is likely not a going to be a popular opinion but here goes:
    Obviously this is one of the few campuses that permits concealed carry. Even in very pro-gun states permitting firearms on campus is not widely accepted. The folks that go to this school should feel fortunate that they have the option to be armed even if it means the firearm must remain concealed. I agree with the cop, there is a very good chance that running around campus with an exposed firearm is all the reason the other side needs to band together and make the possession of any firearm, in any manner illegal, on the campus.

    If I was a student there and quietly carried concealed every day I would be upset with this guy for putting my ability to protect myself at risk.
    I just want to protect myself and family, I'm not interested in changing anyone's opinion about guns or making a statement.
    If it is a public secondary school it follows STATE LAW not there own law.

  12. #56
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by CplVargas View Post
    I don't think you get the point, mister. OC'ing on Utah college campuses is just as legal as marrying outside your race. Am I going to not walk down the street with my wife because an ignorant LEO says "it's legal but you shouldn't be doing it"?


    Great analogy!

    Or to carry the point a bit further, just because someone doesn't want to do "it" (what ever "it" is), doesn't make it wrong or dumb.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  13. #57
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,686
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    You're saying that the justification for claiming someone is disorderly is that two or more others claim it's true? That guilt is established by the fear of a person, and NOT by the actions of that person? That guilt is cemented the moment a second person stands up and foully spews the same illegitimate claim against a person?

    I'm assuming this varies a bit with state statute, but would you mind presenting the specific statutes in question for the state of your residence, supporting this? (Or, those of Utah, since that's what this thread is about.)
    No is the answer to all your questions in your first paragraph.

    And sure;

    2917.11 section B1.

    I still don't see how the actions of the person were disorderly, nor how such a claim of "disorderly conduct" could apply merely based on claims unsupported by such action.

    Let's assume for a moment the person carried a firearm legally at a legal venue much like in the Utah scenario described, except that the situation occurred in Ohio and Ohio's RC 2917.11 statutes applied.


    Ohio RC 2917.11 section B1 states:

    2917.11 Disorderly conduct.

    (B) No person, while voluntarily intoxicated, shall do either of the following:

    (1) In a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if the offender were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have that effect on others;

    (2) Engage in conduct or create a condition that presents a risk of physical harm to the offender or another, or to the property of another.

    ...

    Unless a person is intoxicated, this wouldn't have applied (were the OP's scenario occurring in Ohio).


    2917.11(A)(5) seems a bit closer, though the actions still don't seem to qualify:

    2917.11 Disorderly conduct.

    (A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

    (1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

    (2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

    (3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

    (4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

    (5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

    ...

    However, even in 2917.11(A), which describes "physically offensive" conditions created by someone, it shouldn't apply if that person is not creating a phyisical offense. The sight of something is easily ignored by not staring at it, particularly something simply and discreetly carried. Whereas, something like a horrible stench or loud noise cannot be easily escaped. Beyond which, carrying a firearm for defensive purposes certainly is a "lawful and reasonable purpose."

    This seems a clear "anti-gun" bias, if disorderliness were to be upheld simply because of claims.


    SIXTO, assuming the situation occurred in Ohio, are you saying that Ohio RS 2917.11(B) could still be applied to the OP's original (Utah) situation simply because of the claims, irrespective of the fact that no such qualifying action had been made by the person carrying the firearm? It seems to me that unwarranted fearfulness, or bias on the part of the LEO, isn't sufficient, that some actual offensive and otherwise illegal action on the part of a person is required that goes well and truly beyond merely carrying a firearm. The mere carrying of firearms is, after all, legal in that situation.

    Using the analogy of a married couple described above, "Am I going to not walk down the street with my wife because an ignorant LEO says 'it's legal but you shouldn't be doing it'?"
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #58
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,747
    Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that it should be, I'm simply saying that it could be.

    The whole two or more thing was a side bar about the nuances of laws on the books. I used that as an example of being able to make a solid case out of nothing if one was so inclined.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  15. #59
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Fear the ordinary sensibilities of a reasonable person??

    Ohio's "persons of ordinary sensibilities" and our "reasonable person" standard looks good from the mountains of SWVA.

    However, when applied in an anti-RKBA State it could mean big trouble -- especially in light of all the anti-feel-safe comments showing up in the thread http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...le-w-guns.html.

    The future of the RKBA could be more in the hands of the press and movie industry than I was willing to admit.

    The fear-mongers need not worry about changing the law. They can gain power, influence and funding by spreading fear in the general population.

    The RKBA will die, if they can spread enough fear and distrust to the bulk of the population and thereby redefine the views of "persons of ordinary sensibilities" and the expectations of the common "reasonable person" -- regardless what the Law or Constitution says.

    It worked in GB, Australia, etc.

    Last edited by DaveH; March 10th, 2010 at 10:40 AM. Reason: cleaned up syntax
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  16. #60
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    assuming the situation occurred in Ohio
    Its a moot point. You can NOT carry a gun on a University campus in Ohio. Concealed or not it is against Ohio law.
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. University president opposes open carry law on campus
    By cyberdogg in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 11th, 2011, 11:29 PM
  2. Interesting article regarding TX open carry and campus carry
    By arawn in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2009, 09:01 PM
  3. A short video on why Open Carry should be legal
    By SubNine in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: February 26th, 2007, 08:57 PM

Search tags for this page

2917.11b ohio ccw
,
can i open carry on university property in ohio
,
can you get a ccw in ohio with a disorderly conduct
,
can you open carry on campus
,
college campus ohio open carry
,

is it legal to openly carry on ohio university campuses

,
ohio open carry college campus
,
ohio open carry on a college campus
,
open carry college campus
,
open carry college videos
,

open carry not prohibited on ohio's campuses

,
open carry ohio restrictions for college campuses
,

open carry on campus

,

open carry on campus ohio

,
open carry videos
Click on a term to search for related topics.