Page 1 of 3 [ 39 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Message
Post subject: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:42 pm
I found this on another board -- HB48 goes further than HB20 in liberalizing handgun storage in cars on school grounds . . .

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131-HB-48
Zeko
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:31 pm
Posts: 122
Location: Central Ohio
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 12:06 am
The bill sounds great. I wish they would add employee parking lot protection.
Top
Offline
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:47 am
Posts: 107
Location: Findlay
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 8:26 am
cfranks82 wrote:
The bill sounds great. I wish they would add private property rights infringement.

There, fixed that for you.

Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:36 am
Posts: 683
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 1:24 pm
What's in my car is my property and business. Defending myself while traveling to and from work is also my business.
Top
Offline
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:47 am
Posts: 107
Location: Findlay
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 1:42 pm
cfranks82 wrote:
What's in my car is my property and business. Defending myself while traveling to and from work is also my business.



^^^^^^^ What he said. If you open up your property for public or uncontrolled employee parking you relinquish any rights to specify what can be in another's private vehicle in that parking lot.
That is, your rights end where his begins.
Interestingly the ORC already defines, albeit loosely, that your private vehicle is, in effect, part of your home and castle doctrine applies. IIRC

AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:02 am
Posts: 2428
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 4:46 pm
But, what I allow *on my property* is *my* business, whether or not it is encased inside a piece of your property. You don't like it, work somewhere else.

You have no right to enter my property unless I allow it. Before I allow you to do so, you must agree to my rules. If my rules include the misguided prohibition against firearms, so be it - my property, my rules.

Alan, if you truly believe my private property rights end where his 2A rights begin, how about my 1A rights and your property? Shall I convene a pro-Hilary rally in your front yard? Free political speech and all...

Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:36 am
Posts: 683
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 7:16 pm
There is a BIG difference between private property that is open to the public and private property not open to the public. And there are those businesses that serve the public, but by appointment only. Employee rules and customer rules can be drastically different.

As long as we all know the rules before parties engage then the parties can decide to do business with each other based on the rules.

That is why Ohio law requires a sign on the door. No sign, no notice, no crime.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2669
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 7:23 pm
color of law wrote:
That is why Ohio law requires a sign on the door. No sign, no notice, no crime.

I (mostly) agree with you up to this part, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this particular point, CoL.

A sign does not need to be on the door, and there can be notice without a sign.

Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:36 am
Posts: 683
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 7:55 pm
JustaShooter wrote:
color of law wrote:
That is why Ohio law requires a sign on the door. No sign, no notice, no crime.

I (mostly) agree with you up to this part, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this particular point, CoL.

A sign does not need to be on the door, and there can be notice without a sign.

Well, actually no, not when it comes to a business open to the public. People seem to misunderstand 2923.126(C)(3) and 2911.21(A)(4). No sign no crime. If you believe you can be asked to leave just because, then no sign would even be needed. What would be the point?

I would like to read one Ohio court of appeals case that says no sign is required.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2669
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 8:46 pm
JustaShooter wrote:
But, what I allow *on my property* is *my* business, whether or not it is encased inside a piece of your property. You don't like it, work somewhere else.

You have no right to enter my property unless I allow it. Before I allow you to do so, you must agree to my rules. If my rules include the misguided prohibition against firearms, so be it - my property, my rules.

An employer cannot prohibit women, Italians and democrats from entering their parking lot, nor can an employer have a policy that an employee cannot fight back in self-defense if attacked, but you think an employer should be able to single out the Second Amendment?

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:45 am
Posts: 470
Location: Akron
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 9:24 pm
color of law wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
color of law wrote:
That is why Ohio law requires a sign on the door. No sign, no notice, no crime.

I (mostly) agree with you up to this part, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this particular point, CoL.

A sign does not need to be on the door, and there can be notice without a sign.

Well, actually no, not when it comes to a business open to the public. People seem to misunderstand 2923.126(C)(3) and 2911.21(A)(4). No sign no crime. If you believe you can be asked to leave just because, then no sign would even be needed. What would be the point?

I would like to read one Ohio court of appeals case that says no sign is required.

The context of this sub-thread was an employee not customer of a business open to the public - you brought that into the discussion - so a notice in the employee handbook would suffice. Similarly, I *do* believe as a customer or visitor of a company open to the public that you could be asked to leave even if no sign is posted - say you were carrying openly or were not concealing well. Do you believe that would not constitute notice?

Oh, and you haven't addressed the first issue I took with your point - that is, a sign need not be on the door.

Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:36 am
Posts: 683
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 9:31 pm
Liberty wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
But, what I allow *on my property* is *my* business, whether or not it is encased inside a piece of your property. You don't like it, work somewhere else.

You have no right to enter my property unless I allow it. Before I allow you to do so, you must agree to my rules. If my rules include the misguided prohibition against firearms, so be it - my property, my rules.

An employer cannot prohibit women, Italians and democrats from entering their parking lot, nor can an employer have a policy that an employee cannot fight back in self-defense if attacked, but you think an employer should be able to single out the Second Amendment?

Those restrictions are also infringements on the rights of a private property owner who happens to operate a business. Do you think additional infringements are OK, as long as you agree with them? I don't. Wrong is wrong.

And as I posted, if you think the 2A (which was intended to restrict the government, not individuals) allows you to exercise those rights on my property against my wishes, what of my counter example of holding a political rally on your business' property? Is not that a restriction of my 1A rights? Is that then allowed by virtue of the same argument?

Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:36 am
Posts: 683
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 10:50 pm
JustaShooter wrote:
But, what I allow *on my property* is *my* business, whether or not it is encased inside a piece of your property. You don't like it, work somewhere else.

Only true until the State says otherwise. A business is a creature of the State.

JustaShooter wrote:
You have no right to enter my property unless I allow it. Before I allow you to do so, you must agree to my rules. If my rules include the misguided prohibition against firearms, so be it - my property, my rules.

Most businesses don't give you the rules until after they hire you.
If you are a business open to the public then you allowed it.

JustaShooter wrote:
Alan, if you truly believe my private property rights end where his 2A rights begin, how about my 1A rights and your property? Shall I convene a pro-Hilary rally in your front yard? Free political speech and all...

Allan's private property (his home) is private property not open to the public. I would bet Allan understands the difference between private property open to the public and private property not open the the public.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2669
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 10:56 pm
JustaShooter wrote:
color of law wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
color of law wrote:
That is why Ohio law requires a sign on the door. No sign, no notice, no crime.

I (mostly) agree with you up to this part, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this particular point, CoL.

A sign does not need to be on the door, and there can be notice without a sign.

Well, actually no, not when it comes to a business open to the public. People seem to misunderstand 2923.126(C)(3) and 2911.21(A)(4). No sign no crime. If you believe you can be asked to leave just because, then no sign would even be needed. What would be the point?

I would like to read one Ohio court of appeals case that says no sign is required.

The context of this sub-thread was an employee not customer of a business open to the public - you brought that into the discussion - so a notice in the employee handbook would suffice. Similarly, I *do* believe as a customer or visitor of a company open to the public that you could be asked to leave even if no sign is posted - say you were carrying openly or were not concealing well. Do you believe that would not constitute notice?

Oh, and you haven't addressed the first issue I took with your point - that is, a sign need not be on the door.

Your free to believe whatever you wish. But, the law does not support your position when it comes to carrying a gun.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2669
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 11:06 pm
JustaShooter wrote:
Those restrictions are also infringements on the rights of a private property owner who happens to operate a business. Do you think additional infringements are OK, as long as you agree with them? I don't. Wrong is wrong.

And as I posted, if you think the 2A (which was intended to restrict the government, not individuals) allows you to exercise those rights on my property against my wishes, what of my counter example of holding a political rally on your business' property? Is not that a restriction of my 1A rights? Is that then allowed by virtue of the same argument?

The law of the land is that businesses cannot prohibit women, Italians and democrats from employment or from entering their parking lots, and that is not going to change in the foreseeable future no matter how loud you scream about it.

You are advocating for firearms to be restricted in ways that other "rights" that are not enumerated in the Constitution are not restricted. The Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment cannot be relegated to a second class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.

When we advocate for parking lot carry, we are just asking the government to follow the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. You are advocating for something other than the government that we have. Would you advocate for a government that can make a law that allows an employer to order their employees not to resist being beaten or raped, i.e., to refrain from self-defense? The framers of our nation did not distinguish between the right to self-defense and the right to use arms. Do you think they were wrong?

And holding a political rally is not the same thing as someone who has a tool of self-defense in their private car.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:45 am
Posts: 470
Location: Akron
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 3 [ 39 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to: