color of law wrote:
Per plaintiff's OSU lawsuit.
[T]he interests sought to be protected in this lawsuit by Plaintiff Ohioans for Concealed Carry (OFCC) are germane to the organization's purpose. In the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint at para. 2, the purpose was stated as: "* * * OFCC's mission became to refine the concealed carry law and to restore and preserve the rights of all gun owners in Ohio." The fact that some of the claims presented by the Plaintiffs might involve so called "open carry" of firearms is entirely consistent with the organizational purpose of OFCC stated in the Amended Complaint. The fact that the group's name focuses on "concealed carry" is hardly dispositive and a more thorough factual inquiry must take place, precluding the possibility of dismissal at this time.
And pigs can fly.
If Constitutional carry was passed then BFA and OFCC would not have a reason to exist.
So the more than four dozen firearm laws would disappear overnight as well? Reading this bill it doesn't eliminate all of the restrictions on firearms so I think there is still a good fight.
Brian D. wrote:
So Jedi, after Ken's reported statement about constitutional carry, how do you now feel about good ol' BFA and and OFCC coming together, making up with each other and getting all smoochie smoochie, as you were sort of hoping a few months back?
Honestly I'm hoping Hanson was misquoted, but we'll see. In any event I know deep down he doesn't speak for all of BFA. However, jumping in front of the media microphone that way wasn't optimal in my opinion.
After the vast differences of opinions on HB 203, I don't think the two will ever work together. BFA continued saying it was a great bill and that it did not do what Liberty, Werz, and a few others claimed it would do. OFCC looked at the bill as well and agreed with Liberty, Werz, and the others in opposition and took a neutralist-opposition of HB 203.