Court ruling; Past drug minor misdemeanor drug convictions takes away right to carry

[SIXTO]

I found this very interesting not just from a law enforcement perspective, but more from a 2A perspective. I have not researched this yet, this is the first I've heard about it.

CINCINNATI --
A new court ruling could force some police officers off the force.

The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled that an people with past drug convictions have to give up their right to carry a gun.

The ruling in February said that an officer with a minor or misdemeanor drug possession conviction would result in a disability for the officer to carry a gun.

It started after a Hamilton County case went to the appellate court.

The appellate court heard the case and tried to get the Supreme Court to make a ruling. The Supreme Court turned it down. That meant the appellate order stands.

It actually affects every citizen, but since officers need guns to work, it affects them more immediately.

A number of Cincinnati police officers have already been suspended due to the ruling.

The department said it had no choice but to take them off the street.

"They were notified at noon Friday. The union is helping to point officers in the right direction and help clear up questions, but the city or union cannot help with representation. Officers are told to hire private representation. A unknown number of officers are currently suspended. Still a new issue, as it just came out friday, so they're still trying to assess the impact," Fraternal Order of Police President Kathy Harrell said.

In a memo sent from Chief Tom Streicher, the top cop told his officers that everyone's criminal history will be scrutinized.

"So it's up to each officer to take steps to safeguard their jobs. Obviously, you can't be a police officer very long without the ability to carry a weapon," attorney Jay Clark said.

Clark and a number of other attorneys said they have already been contacted by officers.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/24382924/detail.html

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[msgt/ret]

The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled that an people with past drug convictions have to give up their right to carry a gun.

The ruling in February said that an officer with a minor or misdemeanor drug possession conviction would result in a disability for the officer to carry a gun.

This just wrong on so many levels, rather than interpreting and enforcing the laws they are changing them to suit their own interpretation.

[Bark'n]

A lot of people have done some silly and stupid things in their younger days... Myself included. Whether I was just lucky or smart, I never accumulated a police record for anything. Never been arrested, booked or spent a night in jail. I can't say the same for a lot of my friends who happen to now be police officers. Oh yeah, I've had some close calls with the law in my day. Been stopped and questioned about things before, but never so much as a trip down town or being detained.

I think this particular thing is a little over the top. Seems they will look for any excuse no matter how trivial to snatch someone's ability to own a gun. But on the other side of the coin, I also look at it as, hey, I've managed to stay out of trouble and lead a clean and productive life, why can't everyone else. If you used drugs in the past, even on a small experimental and peer pressure level, but were stupid and reckless enough to get caught... well, then things have a tendency to come back and bite you later on in life.

My father was always on top of things. Anything serious I started to get involved in, I always got caught by my dad before I got into any serious trouble. It's like he was always one step ahead of the cops. He always impressed on me, a police record will follow you around and get you hung up when you least expect it. What you do when you are are 16, 17, & 18 can and will affect you when you are 40 and have outgrown the transgressions of your youth.

I was lucky to get involved with a Fire Service Explorer post when I was 15 and a Police Explorer post when I was 16. I still did some foolish things in those years, but it was always a struggle to not go overboard and it kept me on the right track and gave me a career path and direction early on in life. I was always worried about my image with the Explorer post if I got arrested for something stupid. It didn't take me long to grow out of all that stupid stuff you get sucked into via peer pressure, curiosity and youthful exuberance.

Maybe I was lucky, but I know a lot of people who really screwed the pooch in their youth and are paying for it now.

[press1280]

They will have to clarify a time period in which the officer/applicant needs to be clean. Obviously, if the person were picked up on a minor pot infraction LAST WEEK, that's a problem. But 20 years ago, please.
I think many of the CCWs time frame is roughly 5 years or so.

[goldshellback]

This is one of those 'little rulings' that'll reach out well beyond that of LEO's who had a minor infraction 20 years back............................

Wonder what'd turn up if we delved into some of thier (judges, politictions, etc.) past records.......doubt that ruling would stand then.

[buckeye .45]

Seems like they should clarify it some, or add a time frame on it (like past 5-7 years), or make it so that if it was disclosed to your department when you were hired, it doesn't affect you. I know a whole lot of Marines that did lots of stupid stuff before they joined. They got waviers for it when they went to boot camp, and now they are the ones on the front lines. I guess the court thinks they shouldn't have guns either (that's out of the reach of the state/local courts though).

Guess if this sticks there will be a lot of LEO jobs opening up in Ohio.

[SIXTO]

It goes well beyond the LEO thing. This applies to everyone. I know of a lot of permit holders with minor criminal history.

[DaveH]

Tough law.

Maybe your local grass-roots RKBA group can get an amendment to the law passed.

FWIIW, here in Virginia unless currently addicted we have time limits on the prohibition:

7.An individual who has been convicted of two or more misdemeanors within the five-year period immediately preceding the application, if one of the misdemeanors was a Class 1 misdemeanor, but the judge shall have the discretion to deny a permit for two or more misdemeanors that are not Class 1. Traffic infractions or reckless driving shall not be considered for purposes of this disqualification.

8.An individual who is addicted to, or is an unlawful user or distributor of, marijuana or any controlled substance.

9.An individual who has been convicted of a violation of § 18.2-266 or a substantially similar local ordinance, or of public drunkenness, or of a substantially similar offense under the laws of any other state, the District of Columbia, the United States, or its territories within the three-year period immediately preceding the application, or who is a habitual drunkard as determined pursuant to § 4.1-33.

Hopefully you can get something along these lines passed out there.

Good luck!

[Hopyard]

Just curious, what does the underlying law, not the court ruling, actually state? It seems that many laws outlawing possession based on misdemeanors might go down eventually, given the wording the supremes have used specifying the reasonableness of restrictions on felons. OTOH, our legislatures may just redefine many misdemeanors as minor felonies.

I'm torn on an issue like this.

[SIXTO]

As of right now, the only infractions of a misdemeanor level that will take away gun rights are ones of violence. Domestic violence is the big one. Also, a active protection order will do the same.
As far as getting a permit, it is mostly up to the Sheriff's review of your criminal record. If you got several weed tickets last month and a DUI last week, more than likely you will get turned down. But, if you got a weed ticket in 1982 and a DUI in 1978 but nothing since, you should be good to go. I've seen permit holders with 10 year old robbery convictions. Hopefully, the Sheriff new they straightened themselves out and were fine citizens now. This ruling seeming takes away that discretion.
Obviously, if an LEO had a minor misdemeanor conviction in his past had has since became an LEO, he has done a lot to right himself since. Getting hired as an LEO (in Ohio in particular) is no easy task.

[morintp]

As someone that has never been in trouble with the law, I think its a great idea for two reasons.

First, I'm getting a little tired of the wishy washy attitude against drugs. "Drugs are bad M'Kay, but it's Ok if the President did them." Either they are illegal, or they are not. How can a person hold any position of authority after they have broken the law?

Second, if they strip away the 2A rights of everyone that has ever been convicted of a drug offense not only will there be a ton of cheap guns for sale, it will cause a major uproar that will end up with a true clarification on the drug issue. I believe the drug war is a failure, and made more so by allowing double standards and inconsistent enforcement to muddy the waters. Prohibition was an abject failure causing major crime, and the drug war did the same thing but much worse because it has gone on so long.

[SIXTO]

As someone that has never been in trouble with the law, I think its a great idea for two reasons.

First, I'm getting a little tired of the wishy washy attitude against drugs. "Drugs are bad M'Kay, but it's Ok if the President did them." Either they are illegal, or they are not. How can a person hold any position of authority after they have broken the law?

Second, if they strip away the 2A rights of everyone that has ever been convicted of a drug offense not only will there be a ton of cheap guns for sale, it will cause a major uproar that will end up with a true clarification on the drug issue. I believe the drug war is a failure, and made more so by allowing double standards and inconsistent enforcement to muddy the waters. Prohibition was an abject failure causing major crime, and the drug war did the same thing but much worse because it has gone on so long.

Agreed 100%. However, what scares me is the fact that a minor infraction years ago will take away a right.

[OldVet]

I'd be curious to read exactly what the Ohio law says as far as being disqualifying reasons for carrying a gun. In most states it's a felony conviction or a domestic. But a bust for a joint when you're 18? What's next? No-can-carry for a speeding ticket? This will only lead to lying and cover-ups.

[SIXTO]

I'd be curious to read exactly what the Ohio law says as far as being disqualifying reasons for carrying a gun. In most states it's a felony conviction or a domestic. But a bust for a joint when you're 18? What's next? No-can-carry for a speeding ticket? This will only lead to lying and cover-ups.

Here is an outline of what current Ohio law says;

Ohio Concealed Carry
Qualifying/Disqualifying Factors
Age: 21 years or older
Residency: Legal Resident of United States & Ohio resident for 45 days in county of application or
adjoining county for 30 days
Training: Completion of 12 hour certified firearm program UNLESS waived because of law
enforcement employment or military service (Within past SIX years).
DISQUALIFYING Criminal History/Legal Background:
PENDING Indictment or Criminal charges for:
• Any FELONY offense
• Any DRUG offense (Felony OR Misdemeanor)
• Any Misdemeanor of Violence (Assault, Aggravated Menacing, Menacing by Stalking, Menacing,
Inciting Violence, Riot, Inducing Panic, Domestic Violence, Intimidation)
• Negligent Assault or Falsifying Concealed Carry application/having revoked CCW license
CONVICTIONS/JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS (no time limit - ANYTIME in the past):
• Any FELONY offense
• Any DRUG offense
• Assault on Police Officer
CONVICTIONS/JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS (within past THREE years):
• Misdemeanor of VIOLENCE except RESISTING ARREST or ASSAULT ON POLICE OFFICER
(See above and below for these offenses)
• Falsifying Concealed Carry application/having revoked CCW license
CONVICTIONS/JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS (within past FIVE years):
• TWO or more CONVICTIONS/ADJUDICATIONS for Assault or Negligent Assault
CONVICTIONS/JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS (within past TEN years):
• Resisting Arrest
ACTIVE Civil Protection Orders, Temporary Protection Order (TPO), or Protection Order from ANY State.
UNDER DISABILITY (ORC 2923.13)
- Fugitive From Justice
- Drug Dependent
- Adjudicated Mental Incompetence
- Chronic Alcoholic
“BRADY” Disqualification - ANY prior conviction for DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (from any State)

Whats new in this ruling is the discretion the issuing agency had. The court is saying there is none. Up until now, most of the county sheriffs took it on a case by case basis. That weed ticket you got in the 80's typically would not be a problem as long as you have been fine since.

[retsupt99]

Well, I don't have a problem with that ruling if it would also effect the the judges and politicians......but it never does, does it?