Monday, November 04, 2013

New Changes to Ohio Open Carry Issues.

As Ohio Gun Lawyers our office is always up to date on the most recent changes in the law. This article is meant to address just a few changes. Representative Terry Johnson (R) of Ohio House District 90 sponsored House Bill 203, a bill that has received significant news coverage because it changes Ohio’s self defense law to eliminate the duty to retreat. The ‘stand your ground’ provision, while important, is only a single aspect of a bill that will address a number of important issues facing firearm owners across the state. This post will address two of the other provisions of HB 203, specifically those that help protect private citizens who are lawfully carrying firearms from harassment and arrest. In Ohio, individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from owning firearms may lawfully carry a firearm openly in public. The principle applies to all manner of legal firearms, including sporting rifles and shotguns. As long as the location does not prohibit the carrying of firearms, either by law or by the posting of signs, an individual does not violate the law by carrying a firearm. The lawfulness of open carry finds its origins within the Second Amendment; if individuals have the right to bear arms, and the law restricts their ability to carry arms concealed, then the Constitution must protect their right to carry arms openly. While there is arguably a tactical disadvantage to carrying a firearm openly, many proponents of open carry do so both to have a firearm for self-defense and to make a political statement. Unfortunately, open carriers may find themselves the target of police officers who either do not know or do not care that such conduct is entirely lawful. Two of the most common crimes with which open carriers are improperly charged are Disorderly Conduct (Revised Code 2917.11) and Inducing Panic (Revised Code 2917.31). Our office has handled numerous cases on behalf of open carriers wrongfully arrested for lawfully carrying a firearm. No individual should ever have to experience the humiliation, inconvenience, and cost of fighting an unjust arrest while lawfully exercising a constitutional right. HB 203 changes both the Disorderly Conduct and Inducing Panic statutes to include the language that “[t]he exercise of a constitutional or statutory right is not, in itself, a violation of this section and does not constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.” The proposed section accomplishes two very important things. First, it unequivocally states that exercising a constitutional right (e.g. open carrying) cannot be the basis for a Disorderly Conduct or Inducing Panic conviction. Second, it restricts the ability of police officers to ‘seize’ an individual, as that term is used in the Fourth Amendment, for exercising a constitutional right. Under the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, law enforcement may not seize an individual without reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the individual has committed a crime. HB 203 explicitly renders the open carrying of a firearm insufficient on its own to justify the seizure of an individual. If HB 203 is passed, the police could still stop and question an individual openly carrying a firearm, but they would not be able to detain that individual or prevent them from going on their way without some other evidence that the individual committed a crime. Until HB 203 is passed, we will continue to fight to vindicate the rights of citizens lawfully openly carrying their firearms in public. As gun lawyers, we believe in the right of individuals to openly carry firearms in public, and believe that all individuals who obey the law should be able to go about their business without harassment or persecution by over-zealous police officers.