Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Message
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Tue May 05, 2015 12:38 am
My problem with the private property argument comes directly from the conceal carry legislation ORC 2923.126 (2)(a) "A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer's decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer."

The employer can prohibit the storing of a firearm in your car and if suffer grievous bodily harm death while commuting you or your family can not even take them to court. The state forbids it. When did the rights of the corporation come before the rights of the people?
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: Tue May 05, 2015 6:03 am
IMHO, legislative stupidity is responsible for most of the foolishness....

(The same old "promptly notify" language is still there, btw.)

I can understand the law letting the property owner (whether your employer or Sears) telling you not to carry in their building, but we've even managed to get the legislature to agree that disarming before picking up or dropping off your kids at school shouldn't be subject to restriction, even though they didn't quite get that.

Maybe someday....

Regards,

Stu

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

יזכר לא עד פעם
Top
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:01 pm
Posts: 6694
Location: Youngstown OH
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Tue May 05, 2015 4:22 pm
What should or shouldn't be in the bill aside, what are the odds of seeing some action on this bill anytime soon? A similar bill died last session, I believe, without any committee hearings on it.

I think the removal of these ridiculous no carry zones should be top priority.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:03 pm
Posts: 11
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Tue May 05, 2015 10:13 pm
cfranks82 wrote:
My problem with the private property argument comes directly from the conceal carry legislation ORC 2923.126 (2)(a) "A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer's decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer."

The employer can prohibit the storing of a firearm in your car and if suffer grievous bodily harm death while commuting you or your family can not even take them to court. The state forbids it. When did the rights of the corporation come before the rights of the people?

For the couple of times I worked exclusively with some company it was under contract. Have never worked union. Usually was the nonunion person working in a union shop. Helps to have a talent that is in demand.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2641
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Tue May 05, 2015 11:12 pm
Next hearing on this bill may 6th.
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: Wed May 06, 2015 12:02 am
Liberty wrote:
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.

The legal misconceptions abound.

First, discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin are prohibited by statute, not the Constitution, the most notable statutory authority being the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Heart of Atlanta Motel was not about whether people had a Constitutional right against discrimination, but whether the United States Congress could pass an act which prohibited businesses from discriminating. People constantly confuse this because they have some idea of the outcome, but they don't understand the law.

Second, prohibitions against public accommodation discrimination on the basis of political affiliation are not based on the Constitution, either, and there are very few statutory prohibitions, DC being the most notable. Employment discrimination based on political affiliation may be prohibited when applied against government employees, but that, too, is statutory, not Constitutional (Civil Service Reform Act of 1978), and it only applies if political affiliations do not negatively affect job performance.

Third, the Second Amendment applies against the government, not against private enterprises. I have heard many, many people who insist differently, but they have zero legal basis for making that claim; they just yell, "Shall not be infringed!" a little bit louder. The Second Amendment is the same as all the others in the original Bill of Rights: it is a limitation on government action, not private acts. If we want to prohibit private employers from prohibiting firearms in their parking lots, we will need to enact a statute by majority vote of the Ohio General Assembly, just like some other states have done. The courts are not in position to intervene under the Constitution.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:42 pm
Posts: 111
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Wed May 06, 2015 1:16 am
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.

I would like to read such an Ohio Court of Appeals case, too, but as we both know, no Ohio appellate opinion exists which states the case one way or the other, and nobody is willing to stick his finger in the fan to test that legal proposition.

However, the requirement of a sign on the door is pretty clearly non-existent. The sign merely needs to be "in a conspicuous location." R.C. 2923.126(C)(3)(a). Furthermore, posting it only on the door would be anathema to the General Assembly's provision which allows private property owners to ban firearms on their "land or premises," as opposed to government firearms bans, which are limited to "buildings"; that distinction was recognized by the Ohio Attorney General more than ten years ago. 2005 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2005-015.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:42 pm
Posts: 111
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Wed May 06, 2015 4:13 pm
Werz wrote:
Liberty wrote:
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.

The legal misconceptions abound.

First, discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin are prohibited by statute, not the Constitution, the most notable statutory authority being the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Heart of Atlanta Motel was not about whether people had a Constitutional right against discrimination, but whether the United States Congress could pass an act which prohibited businesses from discriminating. People constantly confuse this because they have some idea of the outcome, but they don't understand the law.

Second, prohibitions against public accommodation discrimination on the basis of political affiliation are not based on the Constitution, either, and there are very few statutory prohibitions, DC being the most notable. Employment discrimination based on political affiliation may be prohibited when applied against government employees, but that, too, is statutory, not Constitutional (Civil Service Reform Act of 1978), and it only applies if political affiliations do not negatively affect job performance.

Third, the Second Amendment applies against the government, not against private enterprises. I have heard many, many people who insist differently, but they have zero legal basis for making that claim; they just yell, "Shall not be infringed!" a little bit louder. The Second Amendment is the same as all the others in the original Bill of Rights: it is a limitation on government action, not private acts. If we want to prohibit private employers from prohibiting firearms in their parking lots, we will need to enact a statute by majority vote of the Ohio General Assembly, just like some other states have done. The courts are not in position to intervene under the Constitution.

Did you even read my post that you quoted? Specifically this:
Quote:
You are advocating for firearms to be restricted in ways that other "rights" that are not enumerated in the Constitution are not restricted.

"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: 444
Location: Akron
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Wed May 06, 2015 4:52 pm
The government is not being neutral in the business property firearms bans. The government expressly allows businesses, that are open to the public and subject to all of the other government mandated accommodations that are not enumerated constitutional rights, to create unarmed victim zones while exempting those businesses from civil liability. How many businesses would still prohibit their employees from having a firearm in their car if they were not exempt from civil liability? It is the government that is causing the infringement of adequate self-defense in employer parking lots.

"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: 444
Location: Akron
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Thu May 07, 2015 6:14 pm
cfranks82 wrote:
Next hearing on this bill may 6th.


Whoo-hoo! I guess they must have read my post and responded :D

I actually am surprised that they are taking it up so early in the session instead of the usual waiting until Nov/Dec of the second year. Cautiously optimistic that we will see some broader gains this time.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... ver_mobile
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:03 pm
Posts: 11
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Thu May 07, 2015 6:58 pm
Lots more steps in the process. Plenty of opportunity for delays.

"I have decided not to vote, speak in public, assemble in groups or petition my government either directly or by writing to the newspapers.

Some ignorant person may become alarmed, and we can't have that.''

--CAR15A2, 3/31/09
Top
Offline
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:07 pm
Posts: 1890
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 10:37 am
Too bad Ron Maag is term-limited out after this term ... he's been a staunch supporter of rights in the General Assembly. He is my State Rep. and one of the very few politicians I have no problem or qualms about voting for ...

As an aside, I am really enjoying this thread --- the debate between property rights and gun rights is well articulated by the civil arguments in this thread.

US NAVY VETERAN
Navy Qualified Tactical Action Officer
Navy Qualified Sharpshooter (Pistol, Rifle)
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor

"Vigilia aeterna est pretium libertatis"
Top
Offline
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:48 pm
Posts: 3401
Location: WPAFB
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 12:42 pm
I'm right there with cfranks82! The civil immunity protection needs to go away. It is my understanding that this element (civil immunity) was a bargaining chip by then Gov. Taft and the business community to get CCW passed back in 2004??

So, I guess if so long as someone kills or injures with a knife, a bat, their fists, etc. (other forms of lethal weapons) the business owners can still be sued and held liable for those injuries? Doesn't make sense does it? I think if business owners were held liable, I think we'd see less victim zones?

I do recall someone pointing out the differences b/w personal, private property (a home) VS property used for business and the duty to provide customers a safe environment.

While I respect a business owner's rights, until this immunity crap is fixed and the victim zones are fixed, I just choose to spend my dollars with those who think like I do.

Along the same lines as civil immunity, lets get rid of the employer's prohibitions on employee's person vehicles like Ky did!!!

Viking - I'm in Ron's district as well. Good guy!
Top
Offline
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 23
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: House Bill 48 introduced by Ron Maag
Post Posted: Wed May 27, 2015 12:01 am
Please contact your State Senators and ask them to co-sponsor Senator Uecker’s parking lot bill.
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: Wed May 27, 2015 1:00 am
gkh7890 wrote:
I'm right there with cfranks82! The civil immunity protection needs to go away. It is my understanding that this element (civil immunity) was a bargaining chip by then Gov. Taft and the business community to get CCW passed back in 2004??

So, I guess if so long as someone kills or injures with a knife, a bat, their fists, etc. (other forms of lethal weapons) the business owners can still be sued and held liable for those injuries? Doesn't make sense does it? I think if business owners were held liable, I think we'd see less victim zones?

I do recall someone pointing out the differences b/w personal, private property (a home) VS property used for business and the duty to provide customers a safe environment.

While I respect a business owner's rights, until this immunity crap is fixed and the victim zones are fixed, I just choose to spend my dollars with those who think like I do.

Keep in mind that civil immunity cuts both ways. Should a business owner be held liable because he allows a customer to carry a gun in the business, and that customer, in an arguable act of self-defense, shoots the wrong person? I doubt very much that the legislature will allow immunity in one direction but not the other.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:42 pm
Posts: 111
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

 
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: