From ssgmarkcr
Was wandering and came upon this court decision about open carry.
"Every
part of Shawn Northrup's midsummer evening walk with his wife,
daughter, grandson, and dog was legal -- including the holstered handgun
he openly carried on his hip. But that was not enough to keep Northrup
from being disarmed, handcuffed, and threatened with arrest by a police
officer. Fortunately, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to let the officer who illegally detained Northrup escape accountability, exemplifying the kind of judicial engagement that is needed to protect law-abiding citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-bernick/federal-appeals-court-to_b_7284562.html
One thing I found most interesting is that the officer tried to justify
his actions in detaining Mr. Northrup by using the logic often used by
the MOMs in their crusade to pressure businesses into banning all legal
carry in their venues. However, the judge wasn't buying,
"As
Judge Sutton pointedly observed, "While the dispatcher and [911 caller]
may not have known the details of Ohio's open-carry firearm law, the
police officer had no basis for such uncertainty." While Bright argued
that he faced a difficult decision -- "respond to the communities' fear
and the appearance of the gunman" or "do nothing ... and hope that he
was not about to start shooting" -- Sutton rejected this as a false
choice. Absent any actual evidence that Bright was "about to start
shooting," Sutton reasoned, "Bright's hope ... remains another word for the trust that Ohioans have placed in their State's approach to gun licensure and gun possession."