The law requiring notification is a violation of one's rights to begin with. So, if a person decides they would rather not comply with a law they feel violates their rights, they become a criminal, and the rights that protect criminals come into play. The only reasonable suspicion (if the officer cannot see the gun) that a person has violated the notification law is if they ask the subject if they have the gun. That's when the 5th Amendment comes into play because if the subject admits to having a gun, they are also admitting to violating the notification law.
I notified and was complimented
- Thread starter Harleywood
- Start date
The law requiring notification is a violation of one's rights to begin with. So, if a person decides they would rather not comply with a law they feel violates their rights, they become a criminal, and the rights that protect criminals come into play. The only reasonable suspicion (if the officer cannot see the gun) that a person has violated the notification law is if they ask the subject if they have the gun. That's when the 5th Amendment comes into play because if the subject admits to having a gun, they are also admitting to violating the notification law.
How so? Nothing in the 2A says anything about carrying concealed. I think it is a highly unlikely that any block of justices on the supreme court, past, present, or future, is going to hold that the right to bear arms for self defense includes the right to carry concealed. That will always be a prerogative of the States.
You can't possible be that dumb and also know how to get on the internet. Who is operating that computer for you.
It has nothing to do with bearing arms. The Ohio Constitution:
Link Removed
The notification law presents a government intrusion upon the person's right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety because it makes it a criminal action to not inform that government that the person is engaging is those exact activities - which they have already obtained the government's express permission and license to do so in the specific manner of carrying a concealed firearm. How can it possibly be Constitutional for a person to commit a criminal act by simply not informing an agent of the government that they are engaging in an activity which they have a license issued by that exact same government to do? What interest of public safety does the notification law serve? Absolutely none.
Axeanda45
Banned
ANOTHER RANT BY ONE OF THE MOST CLUELESS....
One question mrs einstein... Where does the 2nd amendment mention OPEN carry?
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
You are by far the dumbest most ignorant person I have ever encounter when it comes to the constitution. You should take the "5th" on all matters concerning the constitution to keep from "incriminating" yourself.
Hey, you are correct - the 2A doesn't say anything about open carry or concealed carry - guess that means you can't do either under the 2A. Get it now dimwit? Probably not.
Nope. Not necessary to carry concealed to do any of that. None of those rights are inhibited by a prohibition on carrying concealed or a requirement that you notify an LEO of concealed carry.
You can't just make up crap and then throw it against the wall and hope it sticks.
Axeanda45
Banned
Axeanda45
Banned
So says the frigging idiot that brought up the "2nd doesnt mention" chit in the first place... what a clueless idjit.
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
Axeanda45
Banned
Your idiocy is showing.... ESPECIALLY when you claim something exactly opposite in a later post... (as referenced in post #29 above)
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
Must be hard on you going through life with an IQ below 100.
Axeanda45
Banned
I point out that you contradicted yourself, and l am the stupid one? At least l have enough brains to comprehend irony when l see it...
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
mtnsniper
Coastie
My nephew's one, He's in NE Washington state! In fact the majority of LEOs in my area are good, honest and hardworking.
This is a non-sequitor.
A person illegally doing a concealed carry isn't going to incriminate themselves, since they ALREADY KNOW THAT THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
To think that a gangbanger or other miscreant is going to be socially and legally responsible to inform a law enforcement officer, "hey man, I'm breaking the law by carrying concealed..." is perhaps one the more stupid concepts I've heard uttered here.
Almost any gun control law other than making it illegal to use a gun to commit a crime with will do nothing more than put up an additional hurdle to overcome for those potential victims who would want to use a gun to defend themselves with against a criminal. Most gun control laws enable criminals to get away with more crimes because the laws disarm the victims, not the criminals.
Of course the other portion of this, letting the LEO know you are licensed and are carrying is likely to produce a much different reaction than the LEO discovering you are carrying when you inadvertently display your pistol, or while he is searching you.
Can you spell Freak-out?
Being armed does not make you safer or more able to react to a threat. A weapon is only a tool that magnifies the effect of your action.
I am dangerous, not because I have a tool, but because I am prepared and willing to act appropriately in my defense.
I am never unarmed.
I am dangerous, not because I have a tool, but because I am prepared and willing to act appropriately in my defense.
I am never unarmed.
Notification should be voluntary, not a legal requirement - and if the person notifies, there should be no legal authority for the officer to disarm the person. I was speeding while looking for a park in a town I was not familiar with where a reunion was being held. Got stopped. Wife, my daughter and her friend were in the car with me. Officer takes my documents, walks back to his car, comes back to my window and asks me to step out of the vehicle. He doesn't give me much time to respond before he starts walking back toward the space between his vehicle and mine. I am open carrying a SS Taurus .45 in a belt holster. Can't leave it in the car loaded because nobody else in the car had a CPL (required in WA for loaded handgun in a vehicle). I didn't want to take the gun out of the holster and unload it to leave it in the car. Oh well. I exited the vehicle, kept my hands in plain sight, pistol in plain sight in holster on my belt. Approach the officer as requested earlier. He hands me back my documents and says, "I didn't want to lecture you in front of family, but you really need to slow down and I am going to let you go with a verbal warning." Exchanged pleasant good byes and that was it. No mention of the gun by either or me. Having been stopped several times due to my inability to lift my foot from the accelerator I have been stopped several times in the past 20 years. Never a word about a concealed pistol license or a gun by any officer or myself.
Axeanda45
Banned
Bull.... l bet he has in the past, and will continue to arrest and otherwise hassle anyone that does anything the constitution says the govt cannot make any laws about but has...
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.