Off-duty Pennsylvania cop arrested

Man drinks at Milan Road bar while carrying gun
Courtney Astolfi
Mar 22, 2014
An off-duty Pennsylvania police officer was arrested Friday after he carried his gun into a Milan Road bar while he’d been drinking, police said.

Lee Bartolicius, 21, of Butler, Pa., was arrested for using weapons while intoxicated just after midnight Friday.

Bartolicius and his relatives were at Kalahari Resorts to celebrate his cousin’s 21st birthday Thursday evening, and they decided to head to Cheers in the Sandusky Mall later that night, according to a Perkins police report.

At Cheers, Bartolicius went into anaphylactic shock, likely triggered by dairy in one of his drinks. He called Perkins Township paramedics and asked for a police officer, knowing he had a loaded, holstered Glock on his hip, the report said.

Officers seized the weapon when they arrived at the mall, and informed him it was illegal to carry a gun in Ohio while drinking, the report said.

An apologetic Bartolicius told officers the act is not illegal in his home state, and he’d brought the gun with him because he was in an unfamiliar area.

His blood-alcohol content registered 0.077 percent, the report said.

Bartolicius was treated at Firelands Regional Medical Center, then taken to the Erie County jail.

He was later released on about $3,000 bond.


Good 2 B Me

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is exaclty what they would tell you and I if we did that!


I don't know for absolute certainty but I'm about 99% sure that on all the doors of the mall there's stickers stating what you can or can't bring in (ie. animals, handguns, etc.) I mean I know it's possible to overlook things like that when you're just walking in but if I remember right these stickers are fairly good sized circles on the doors and someone would have noticed a gun with a restriction circle wrapped around it and you would think someone in his party would have mentioned it to him. I don't know that while suffering from anaphylaxis is the proper time to charge him with carrying a gun inside a bar though. That could have severely jeopardized his life, wait till he's in a more stable condition and then take care of business.


The mall isn't posted but cheers had a large no gun sign. Obviously they should fire the sign


I was 99% sure that Cheers has at least two signs, and one on the door, hard to miss, but I didn't want to post that last night because I wasn't 100% sure.




The REAL issue is why anyone feels the need to have a gun with them in an everyday situation, like going to the grocery store.

People like that are usually making up for some shortcoming or other inadequacy. Do you REALLY feel safer knowing that the person in the checkout line next to you has a gun?

Tru Grit

Mr Smith, you may call me whatever you want. We're all servants in a way unless you don't have to work. Hopefully you don't ever need a police officer.

WinstonSmith's picture

Why don't you get a real job and quit victimizing people.
Oh, I've been 'helped' by your peculiar brand of protection in the past, no thanks... I pass.

I have a question for all you self righteous, slave catching donut grazers...

When you were a kid and dreaming of becoming a policeman and helping people did you ever think you'd be putting human beings in cages over illegal nature and other victim-less infractions?
Wanna know the difference between the SS and SPD? SPD don't tuck their pant legs into their boots.


So if you are so anti you have a drivers license? Do you have car insurance? Do you drive the speed limit? Do you drive on the right side of the road? Do stop at red lights? I mean if you are such the anarchist why follow any rules/laws? You clearly have no respect for officers or any law. I sincerely hope that if you are ever in need of help you NEVER actually dial 911 or call the cops.

WinstonSmith's picture

I have none of those things because I didn't sign that contract.
The ability to use the public roads unmolested is a right not a privilege... I don't need your or anyone else's permission to peruse life liberty and/or property. I have no respect for any thug, badge or no badge and even less respect for a thug that hides behind the state pretending that their use of force is somehow morally different than anyone else's use of force.


So you run red lights and do not drive on the right side of the road? And if you hit my car you have NO insurance? AWESOME! You really are a complete moron. The more you talk, the more you just sound ridiculous.

WinstonSmith's picture

Anarchy means 'no rulers', not 'no rules'... Turn off Honey-Boo-Boo, pick up a book and educate yourself.
You can get your panties bunched up AFTER I hit your car... Until then... STFU.


I didn't say anything about anarchy. Called you an "anarchist". The definition I found states: "a person who promotes disorder against any established law". Seems to fit you just fine. So again. If you do not have a drivers license or insurance you are not following an established law. You can get a ticket. From a police officer. If you are not going to follow the established laws. I just wondered if you follow ANY? You know like red lights? Or heck do you have plates on your car? Where do you draw the line? Which laws do you choose to follow? Those are all things that law enforcement deal with. I don't even know what "Honey Boo Boo" is?

WinstonSmith's picture

You are wrong... The ONLY type of established law recognized by the CONstitution is 'Common law' and nowhere in common law is there anything about asking the state for permission to travel unmolested.
What you are calling established law is in fact just 'Revised code' or 'Ordinances', that is "Statutory law" and only holds authority over those that have individually consented. Since I never consented by agreeing to that contract I'm not bound to it.
You may want to start your book reading with the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers and then move to something pertaining to the 14th and/or 17th Amendments.


So you have never consented to having plates on your car ? You must get pulled over ALOT! How do you explain that? I bet that is a fun conversation. Then again, by the sounds of it you are completely paranoid of everyone and everything and never leave the house. Do you buy a lot of tin foil?

WinstonSmith's picture

Do you always resort to ad hominem when presented with an argument you can't counter with logic and/or reason?
Don't believe me, just look into these Supreme Court rulings:

The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147

When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose."
Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75

Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege."
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516


So you never actually answer a question? DO you have plates on your car? DO you have a drivers license? DO you have car insurance? DO you stop at red lights? DO you drive on the right side of the road?

WinstonSmith's picture

You obviously can't read 'cause if you did you'd see, with your own two eyes, that licensing to use the public roads is something that slaves do.
I'm not a slave... Are you?


DO YOU HAVE PLATES ON YOUR CAR? DO YOU HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE? Yep I am a slave to the laws of the State of OHIO. I drive legally down the road.

Spy's picture

So how exactly did this story transcend into whether or not it is a right or priviledge to drive? Off-topic banter.


Looks like you done some reading while sitting in your cell!

WinstonSmith's picture

How long did it take you to think up that brilliant comment?
Did ya think of it when you were in your cell? Hurrdurrr


The matter at hand here is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". He broke the law so he has to pay the consequences. And yes, he will most likely be suspended or terminated when he gets home. @winstonsmith: you Sir, are contradicting the heck out of yourself. First you say all cops are bad and dumb, wearing their "Silly costume" and oppressing the "Sheep". Then you say PPD did a good job?.... Ok, you rather not be a sheep. Fine, good luck when the big bad wolf comes to huff and puff and blows your house down (different tale I know, same analogy). I much rather have the "Sheep dogs" keeping guard than not. If you don't believe in LE, please pack up and move to the Ozark Mountains and live under a rock. Good luck with them mountain boys BTW, don't welcome outsiders much. And next time you need help (if you happen to be smart enough to realize when you might need help), call a fellow crackhead, since LE can't protect or help you... in your uneducated, self serving, arrogant and moronic opinion. Just thank God or whomever you worship that these cops will still come to your aid, regardless of what you think of them. It's called sense of duty and doing what they have sworn to do: protect your d*%*%ss. It's called "Code".

WinstonSmith's picture

The monopoly of violence that is police are in the Ozarks too.

You are eight times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist... I'll take my chances... I'd feel safer calling a terrorist for help.

sandtown born a...

All CCW holders are required to know the laws of the state your in PERIOD! IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!!!! I damn sure would not have been given a pass neither should he!


Bad things happen even in establishments that are posted. I always carry in malls and restaurants. Paranoid-no. When carrying, why should I be paranoid!

WinstonSmith's picture

Lord knows that when seconds count police are ten minuets away.


This is why cops get a bad name. So all (fill in of your choice) are bad? Nice stereo-typing. I think of some cops who told their contemporaries to take off their badge and go around the corner. Now more than ever this land needs people with solid standards. yeah i still think Ricki Vitte & John Born are *****.


I can see there are some folks on here who are not a fan of police in general but for all of the cop bashing going on, did anyone else notice that his blood alcohol level was under the legal limit of which you can be arrested for DUI? If this would have been anyone else being arrested for this, I would have seen the comments about his BAC being below 0.08 but don't let the facts get in the way.

getit right be4...

"did anyone else notice that his blood alcohol level was under the legal limit of which you can be arrested for DUI?"

Ohio has a zero tolerance law. You can legally get a DUI for any BAC over 0.00. The 0.08 is the limit to witch the desecration is no longer up to the officer. By law the officer has to issue a DUI if the BAC is 0.08 or above.

" his BAC being below 0.08 but don't let the facts get in the way."

ORC 2923.121 Possession of firearm in beer liquor permit premises - prohibition, exceptions.

(A) No person shall possess a firearm in any room in which any person is consuming beer or intoxicating liquor in a premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code or in an open air arena for which a permit of that nature has been issued.

(e) Any person who is carrying a valid concealed handgun license, as long as the person is not consuming beer or intoxicating liquor or under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse.

Don't let the facts get in the way.