Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/6/2002 2:50:57 PM EDT
Anyone know?
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 2:53:38 PM EDT
I thought LEO'S were required to carry at all times?
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 2:57:54 PM EDT
Yes they do but it also depends on the department the officer works for.
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 3:02:42 PM EDT
Yes, but why do you ask? In general and with common sense out of state LEOs are ok too.
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 3:54:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
Yes, but why do you ask? In general and with common sense out of state LEOs are ok too.



Common sense would dictate that citizens carry also.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much sense in either our Legislature or our Governor.

Nice to see there are two classes, the unwashed masses and the blessed.



Link Posted: 4/7/2002 4:38:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Maynard:

Originally Posted By shotar:
Yes, but why do you ask? In general and with common sense out of state LEOs are ok too.



Common sense would dictate that citizens carry also.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much sense in either our Legislature or our Governor.

Nice to see there are two classes, the unwashed masses and the blessed.






Not so fast disgruntled citizens of the Buckeye State. The question is covered by Ohio Revised Code section 2923.12B. LEO'S in Ohio must be authorized to carry concealed weapons and acting within the scope of their duties to legally carry concealed weapons. What does it mean? You figure it out.
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 5:06:55 AM EDT
Hey all,
I am a LEO in Ohio.
I have worked for 4 different departments.
3 did not care if you did and one said if you were only in the same county.
The only city I know of that does not allow their officers to carry off duty is the city is Cleveland Heights.They really take that "acting in the scope of their duties" to an extreme.But they also require their cops to live in the city.Not to mention the fact that they still carry model 19 S&W .357's
they also don't have shotguns in the car nor can the guys carry pepper spray or a ASP.
I heard it is a liability issue by a very conservative chief.
I guess that eliminates a lot of options though.I think you are more likely to shoot when your only option is you gun.
Later,
GSX
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 5:13:13 AM EDT
Here's 2923.12b
This section does not apply to officers, agents, or employees of this or any other state or the United States, or to law enforcement officers, authorized to carry concealed weapons or dangerous ordnance, and acting within the scope of their duties.
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 5:22:56 AM EDT
I'm also a LEO & agree with gsx678. Additionally, many LEO's are actively supporting the average citizen's right to carry. Check ofcc.org.
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 5:35:54 AM EDT
The authorized part is simple, either you are or you're not. Anyone care to try to define the acting within the scope of his duties part? I've been a cop for 14 years and still can't figure out how being out on the town with you wife and carrying a concealed weapon is acting within the scope of your duties. And don't give me that "I'm a cop 24/7" crap either.
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 8:56:16 AM EDT
Our prosecutors interpretation was pretty simple. Any cop city county state fed is within the scope of their duties at all times while carrying a weapon so long as they are not otherwise doing anything illegal. He will simply not take a charge related to cops and firearms and cops. This in Cleveland was once extended to licensed security guards. I had one public intox and armed while not working. The prosecutors office took the public intox charge, but would not touch the weapons violation. Some years ago Atty General Lee Fischer ( shaker hts liberal dem) did post a statewide opinion on the matter. He determined that all cops from Wherever could carry off duty on duty concealed in Ohio. Does this still hold, don't know, as Sukube indicated there is wiggle room in the law. Would I ever arrest another cop for CCW with no other crime committed Quite simply no, based upon my understanding of our interpretations it is not illegal. Would I ever arrest a private citizen for CCW, well, simple answer is I can't arrest someone for a crime that I did not detect. What were the circumstances, was someone merely going armed, or were they perhaps dropping off the store receipts at the night drop. Were they a gun dealer carrying weapons and going to a show? Were they in fear and had documented threats on their life, or were they a low life dirtbag out to cause trouble. Discretion is a wonderful thing. If their circumstances are likely to meet the affirmative defense test, why should I waste my time.

Now the puzzling question, Could an inner city gang banger with no prohibiting convictions, but rival gangs threatening him and his turf fall under an affirmative defense as he could prudently fear for his life such that a reasonable person would go armed under 2923?
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 9:03:24 AM EDT
We don't arrest each other simply for CCW. My point is the law is incredibly vague on the question of LEO's. It's pretty vague all around. Way too much room for interpretation.
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 9:11:36 AM EDT
The vague part is certainly agreed. Way too much margin for error, but I believe that at the time it was written that was intentional. Remember that this law was written in the 1920s to deal with the gangsters of the day. They wanted to be able to charge criminals without bothering the good townsfolk. When written it probably never occurred to the authors that merely possesing and carrying firearms would become socially questionable under any circumstance. It was a normal part of their life. They never could have envisioned the rise of what we call liberalism, nor teenage gangs, nor the ( I was gonna say drug trade, but thats exactly why the law was enacted, Alcohol).

I truly believe that the last legislation to leave the house would in fact solve many of these vagaries.
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 9:35:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
The authorized part is simple, either you are or you're not. Anyone care to try to define the acting within the scope of his duties part? I've been a cop for 14 years and still can't figure out how being out on the town with you wife and carrying a concealed weapon is acting within the scope of your duties. And don't give me that "I'm a cop 24/7" crap either.



Your department doesn't have established guidelines regarding off duty CCW?

Given your line of work, I would expect you to be armed at all times.
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 9:55:40 AM EDT
The CCW situation in Ohio is totally screwed , I got so pissed I wrote a letter to the Columbus Dispatch . Sometimes I'm embarassed to say I came from there . also theres a thread that depending on what the court rules Ohio may end up with a Vermont style carry situation by default , wouldn't that serve Gov. Taft and his friends a smack upside the head . Sorry about the rant but this has gotten me burned up .
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 11:20:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Maynard:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
The authorized part is simple, either you are or you're not. Anyone care to try to define the acting within the scope of his duties part? I've been a cop for 14 years and still can't figure out how being out on the town with you wife and carrying a concealed weapon is acting within the scope of your duties. And don't give me that "I'm a cop 24/7" crap either.



Your department doesn't have established guidelines regarding off duty CCW?

Given your line of work, I would expect you to be armed at all times.



I am armed 99.999% of the time. I just don't like feeling that I may be breaking the law. No, my department does not have off duty carry guidelines. Many departments don't address the issue. Our rules and regs only cover what firearms we may use on duty. The question of off duty carry is not addressed at all. Maybe it's a liability issue. If you get yourself in a situation that may be questionable the city and department can claim they are not liable for your conduct if you use a weapon other than department issue. I rarely carry my duty weapon off duty, it's heavy, bulky and difficult to conceal. Thus, due to the vagueness of our CCW section I feel a little uncomfortable carrying off duty but I still do it. I'm just waiting for the time some A-hole State Trooper(who, I am told are by their rules and regs prohibited to carry off duty) pulls me over and asks if I'm armed then arrests me for it and some A-hole prosecutor wants me to explain how taking my family to Cedar Point is acting within the scope of my duties. I doubt a departmental rule requiring me to carry a firearm off duty(keeping in mind that departmental rules do not supercede state law) would satisfy LEO's like that. Believe me, those kind are out there, especially on the Highway Patrol.
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 12:47:53 PM EDT
My buddy is a cop in Pickerington, OH, and is required to carry at all times. I don't know if it's just his dept. though.
Link Posted: 4/7/2002 6:38:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

I am armed 99.999% of the time. I just don't like feeling that I may be breaking the law. No, my department does not have off duty carry guidelines. Many departments don't address the issue. Our rules and regs only cover what firearms we may use on duty. The question of off duty carry is not addressed at all. Maybe it's a liability issue. If you get yourself in a situation that may be questionable the city and department can claim they are not liable for your conduct if you use a weapon other than department issue. I rarely carry my duty weapon off duty, it's heavy, bulky and difficult to conceal. Thus, due to the vagueness of our CCW section I feel a little uncomfortable carrying off duty but I still do it. I'm just waiting for the time some A-hole State Trooper(who, I am told are by their rules and regs prohibited to carry off duty) pulls me over and asks if I'm armed then arrests me for it and some A-hole prosecutor wants me to explain how taking my family to Cedar Point is acting within the scope of my duties. I doubt a departmental rule requiring me to carry a firearm off duty(keeping in mind that departmental rules do not supercede state law) would satisfy LEO's like that. Believe me, those kind are out there, especially on the Highway Patrol.



Intriguing on a number of counts.

I'm unsure how to respond really. It's hard to believe any department would not make a policy either way. I guess it leaves the liability to the individual. Sad that most things come to that.

"What's our liability?"

It also shows how convoluted our legal system is when you being a LEO don't also truly understand the law.

I have been fortunate that I rarely come into contact with State Troopers. I was pulled over 3 years ago on the Fourth of July while trying to hustle to a trap shoot. I had guns onboard properly cased but I was still apprehensive. Complete professional who didn't bat any eye when I told him I was transporting firearms.

Link Posted: 4/7/2002 7:03:47 PM EDT
Do a search on The Ohio Revised Code. Look up section 2923.12. Read it and see if it makes sense to you. As for your experience with state troopers, you were transporting "propery cased" firearms. What do you think his reaction would have been if you had a loaded pistol on you belt? Do you think his reaction would be any different if you were a cop? Maybe, maybe not. Section 2923.12(b)leaves room for doubt.
Top Top