Author
Message
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:23 am
color of law wrote:
Per plaintiff's OSU lawsuit.
Quote:
[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.

We already have constitutional carry, as described by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), under the power granted to that court by Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution.

Or to parallel a well-used quip ...

What don't you understand about "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"?

Folks can spew all sorts of Thomas Jefferson quotes about armed citizens, but the bottom line is that the value Jefferson held most dear was the right of the people to express their will through their elected legislators by majority vote. And those elected legislators have been expressing the will of the majority by limiting our gun rights for a couple of centuries. Like it or not, the courts' interpretations of the Second Amendment are the only things protecting us from the tyranny of the majority, and those of us who experienced the tyranny of the majority through the excessive gun control in the last half of the 20th century know just how bad it can be. If the courts are unwilling to shut down the legislature when it comes to gun control, our only option is to convince the legislature to peel back the limits on our gun rights.

That's where BFA and OFCC will always be valuable. The trick is for the membership to keep a close eye on what the leadership is doing, and to demand answers when necessary.

And a note for the more militant types: Yes, there's always the option of armed rebellion. You can be proud of your uncompromising ideology while you're laying in a body bag, three-percenter fantasies notwithstanding.

Note to color of law: That was not intended as a shot at you. You just gave me the springboard I needed for a good rant.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:42 pm
Posts: 111
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:39 am
One thing I believe OFCC and BFA have in common right now: A need for a changing of the guard in the top echelons. Not a clean sweep or a coup but definitely some fresh blood. I personally know longtime "middle management" folks in both these groups who would make fine Presidents etc. of the two organizations. And they would actually be able to let go of past "grievances" and maybe have all of us marching a little closer to lockstep.

So that for example when we'd have a "lobby day" at the statehouse maybe we'd get two or three times the participants, or we could spread out our schedules and increase the number of visits to our often sloooooow moving legislature. Short of giving one's local Representative or Senator a wheelbarrow full of campaign money this is the best way to get and keep their attentions.

"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: 1907
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:35 am
Werz wrote:
color of law wrote:
Per plaintiff's OSU lawsuit.
Quote:
[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.

We already have constitutional carry, as described by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), under the power granted to that court by Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution.

Or to parallel a well-used quip ...

What don't you understand about "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"?

Folks can spew all sorts of Thomas Jefferson quotes about armed citizens, but the bottom line is that the value Jefferson held most dear was the right of the people to express their will through their elected legislators by majority vote. And those elected legislators have been expressing the will of the majority by limiting our gun rights for a couple of centuries. Like it or not, the courts' interpretations of the Second Amendment are the only things protecting us from the tyranny of the majority, and those of us who experienced the tyranny of the majority through the excessive gun control in the last half of the 20th century know just how bad it can be. If the courts are unwilling to shut down the legislature when it comes to gun control, our only option is to convince the legislature to peel back the limits on our gun rights.

That's where BFA and OFCC will always be valuable. The trick is for the membership to keep a close eye on what the leadership is doing, and to demand answers when necessary.

And a note for the more militant types: Yes, there's always the option of armed rebellion. You can be proud of your uncompromising ideology while you're laying in a body bag, three-percenter fantasies notwithstanding.

Note to [b]color of law: That was not intended as a shot at you. You just gave me the springboard I needed for a good rant.


And that is my job, mission accomplished.
Last edited by color of law on Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2651
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:31 am
Even if we got C.C passed there are still other things to go after.. and let's say that gets done as well.

Pro2a org's would still have a place, The anti's won't go away, You have to hold the ground you take.
If we come to a point where everything is done, everyone folds up shop and goes home.. The gun control groups would just nibble away and we'd be back to square #1.

  • If you can't hit the broad side of a barn, You're not using enough bullets.
  • Zombies are the Trash-men of Humanity.
  • Certified Ammosexual, lolzImage
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:53 pm
Posts: 3308
Location: Columbus
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:13 pm
I agree with Joe. The framers stated many times that we must remain diligent specifically because the enemies of freedom would nibble away.

Speaking of nibbling away, is HB 147 another Trojan horse like HB 203? For those who did not follow that discussion, HB 203 contained goodies that the gun lobby had long advocated, but surreptitiously attempted to graft language from the federal firearms prohibitions into Ohio law thereby nullifying the federal exception set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 921(A)(20) for those who have had their rights restored automatically by R.C. § 2967.16(C)(1), i.e., non-violent felons such as those with convictions for having a hidden compartment in an automobile or bouncing a check. Such persons would have lost their rights over night, and Ohio prosecutors would have been obligated to prosecute such persons.

Likewise, HB 147 has Constitutional carry, which the gun lobby has long advocated, but surreptitiously grafts federal language in very strategic places. While HB 147 does not place the federal language directly into Ohio's prohibition statute (i.e., R.C. § 2923.13) like HB 203 did, it defines a "restricted firearm" as one that is possessed by a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under "any law of this state or the United States." See page 16, lines 448-451. Then on page 16-17, lines 452-460, HB 147 provides that:

"***a person who is twenty-one years of age or older and is not legally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) to (9) shall not be required to obtain a concealed handgun license***."

That language is repeated in several other places.

Such language in those places is probably innocuous because those references would presumably include the federal exceptions set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 921(A)(20). However, page 18, lines 500-513 provides that when a "person thereafter comes within any category of persons specified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) to (9)" cannot carry a firearm under the new provisions created in HB 147. This is problematic because there are currently many people in Ohio that "come[] within a[] category of persons specified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)" who have had their rights restored automatically by R.C. § 2967.16(C)(1), relief pursuant to R.C. § 2923.14, record sealing or pardon, and as such, the federal exception to its firearms prohibition set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 921(A)(20) applies to them. But when HB 147 creates an exception to constitutional carry for persons coming within the category specified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) to (9) (not those prohibited by), the exception set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 921(A)(20) would not apply because HB 147 is grafting the category into Ohio law--not the prohibition along with its exceptions.

The direct result would be that Constitutional carry would not apply to those non-violent offenders who have had their firearm rights restored automatically through R.C. § 2967.16(C)(1), relief pursuant to R.C. § 2923.14, record sealing or pardon. The indirect result could be that the federal government would no longer recognize Ohio's automatic restoration contained in R.C. § 2967.16(C)(1) or Ohio's relief pursuant to R.C. § 2923.14, record sealing or pardon based upon the "all or nothing" standard set in Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308 (1998). The end result would be the same thing that I and many complained about HB 203 doing, but worse; it would also nullify past relief rulings.

There are some other less serious problems with HB 147, but I don't have time to write about it right now.

"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: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:56 pm
Instead of 104 pages of gobbledygook we just amend R.C. 9.68 to:
Quote:
The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds that the state has no authority to regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition.

That right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any attempt to restrict any of these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Ohio shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.

Or better yet amend the Ohio Constitution that basically saye the same thing.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2651
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:03 pm
Liberty wrote:
Speaking of nibbling away, is HB 147 another Trojan horse like HB 203? For those who did not follow that discussion, HB 203 contained goodies that the gun lobby had long advocated, but surreptitiously attempted to graft language from the federal firearms prohibitions into Ohio law thereby nullifying the federal exception set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 921(A)(20) for those who have had their rights restored automatically by R.C. § 2967.16(C)(1), i.e., non-violent felons such as those with convictions for having a hidden compartment in an automobile or bouncing a check.

It is quite possible that ship has already sailed. United States v. Cassidy, 899 F.2d 543 (6th Cir. 1990), and United States v. Chenowith, 459 F.3d 635 (5th Cir. 2006) reached opposite conclusions as to whether a certificate of final discharge under R.C. 2967.16 was sufficient to relieve a convicted felon of federal firearm disability due to an Ohio felony drug conviction. The newly enacted R.C. 2923.13(C) may tip the scales even further toward the Cassidy approach.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:42 pm
Posts: 111
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:32 pm
Chenowith's predicate conviction was manslaughter (i.e., an offense of violence); so, according to Cassidy, the automatic restoration provisions of R.C. § 2967.16(C)(1) did not restore his firearms rights because of the existence of Ohio's prohibitions in R.C. § 2923.13. The 5th Circuit, however, reversed his conviction because his final release certificate did not put him on notice that he was prohibited from possessing firearms. That case was before 5th Circuit because Chenowith moved from Ohio to Texas and was arrested by ATF in Texas.

When Chenowith was decided, R.C. § 2967.16(C)(1) only restored rights for those convicted of non-violent and non-drug felonies. Presently, I am not sure who R.C. § 2967.16(C)(1) restores due to the recent changes to R.C. § 2923.13(A) and the addition of subsection (C). All I know is that I would not want to be the test case.

Nevertheless, I believe that HB 147 could cause the feds to refuse to recognize any restorations (including past restorations) from Ohio (i.e., automatic for non-violent and non-drug felonies by R.C. § 2967.16(C)(1), by records sealing, by pardon and by court order pursuant to R.C. § 2923.14), based upon the "all or nothing" standard set in Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308 (1998), and create thousands of instant felons with firearms confiscations to follow. And this comes right after the Ohio legislature expressly provided for restoration of firearm rights based upon restorations such as record sealing and pardons.

I would like to know who is behind these sneaky gun control poison pills that have recently appeared in HB 203, SB 97 and now in HB 147.

"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: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:13 pm
Joe Sixpack wrote:
Even if we got C.C passed there are still other things to go after.. and let's say that gets done as well.

Pro2a org's would still have a place, The anti's won't go away, You have to hold the ground you take.
If we come to a point where everything is done, everyone folds up shop and goes home.. The gun control groups would just nibble away and we'd be back to square #1.


Agreed. I don't think I would lose my motivation to support groups like BFA or the NRA if CC was passed. The second amendment would be just as important to me as it is now. The right would just be a little less infringed.

Joel
NRA Certified Instructor,Member and Recruiter
Centerburg Conservation Club Trustee
CCC Range committee and Lake committee
Second Call Defense Recruiter

If you like guns, click here! https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/sign ... ID=nranews
Top
Offline
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:18 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Centerburg, Ohio
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:58 pm
Werz wrote:
BB62 wrote:
Werz wrote:
Is it fair to assume that you made you made the standard email submissions to General Counsel and the University Police?

No, this time I figured I'd get the largest, scariest, mangiest bunch of desperadoes to show up unannounced!

:shock: :shock:

Well, if you posted the responses of the University legal and police authorities - which you had before the UC and OSU events - you might get more willing participants. Hell, even Liberty might transcend being a "keyboard revolutionary" and actually put his feet in the street. :surp:

I visited Akron again yesterday to do lunch scouting and route scouting. Although I visited there last year, my memory was hazy - and the campus has a school on/adjacent to their property, so I wanted to make sure I knew where it was.

During my visit I met the Assistant Chief of the UAPD, another officer, and various other staff members of the University. All were stellar.

If this report isn't enough to get your desk-bound friend out from behind his monitor, NOTHING is.
Top
Offline
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:21 pm
Posts: 226
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:13 am
Werz wrote:
BB62 wrote:
Werz wrote:
Is it fair to assume that you made you made the standard email submissions to General Counsel and the University Police?

No, this time I figured I'd get the largest, scariest, mangiest bunch of desperadoes to show up unannounced!

:shock: :shock:

Well, if you posted the responses of the University legal and police authorities - which you had before the UC and OSU events - you might get more willing participants. Hell, even Liberty might transcend being a "keyboard revolutionary" and actually put his feet in the street. :surp:

Maybe this article will get your desk-bound friend out from behind his monitor:

http://buchtelite.com/26982/news/open-c ... -saturday/

Event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/1592187871040889/


Disclaimer: this event is not sponsored or endorsed by any gun rights or "gun rights" group - I organized it.
Top
Offline
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:21 pm
Posts: 226
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:11 pm
Hit the poll on this page:http://buchtelite.com/26982/news/open-carry-walk-on-saturday/

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: 2424
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:13 am
BB62 wrote:
Werz wrote:
BB62 wrote:
Werz wrote:
Is it fair to assume that you made you made the standard email submissions to General Counsel and the University Police?

No, this time I figured I'd get the largest, scariest, mangiest bunch of desperadoes to show up unannounced!

:shock: :shock:

Well, if you posted the responses of the University legal and police authorities - which you had before the UC and OSU events - you might get more willing participants. Hell, even Liberty might transcend being a "keyboard revolutionary" and actually put his feet in the street. :surp:

I don't think your friend made it, but the University of Akron Open Carry/Firearm Education Walk was GREAT - in a number of ways.

Video: https://youtu.be/4W_2XaaAaXk

Akron Beacon Journal article:
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/gun ... s-1.586490
Top
Offline
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:21 pm
Posts: 226
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Fri May 01, 2015 12:07 pm
AlanM wrote:
All ready did....interesting to see the results....and I was there.

3FULLMAGS+1
They say the best "Home Remedy" for Tyranny is... LEAD POISONING!
Top
Offline
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:09 pm
Posts: 394
Location: far sw corner of stark co.
Post subject: Re: Constitutional Carry
Post Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 7:38 am
BB62 wrote:
BB62 wrote:
Werz wrote:
BB62 wrote:
Werz wrote:
Is it fair to assume that you made you made the standard email submissions to General Counsel and the University Police?

No, this time I figured I'd get the largest, scariest, mangiest bunch of desperadoes to show up unannounced!

:shock: :shock:

Well, if you posted the responses of the University legal and police authorities - which you had before the UC and OSU events - you might get more willing participants. Hell, even Liberty might transcend being a "keyboard revolutionary" and actually put his feet in the street. :surp:

I don't think your friend made it, but the University of Akron Open Carry/Firearm Education Walk was GREAT - in a number of ways.

Video: https://youtu.be/4W_2XaaAaXk

Akron Beacon Journal article:
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/gun ... s-1.586490

You come to one of Ohio's finest universities in one of Ohio's finest cities in mass with rifles drawn in an ostentatious display that would frighten ISIS where neither the university nor the city police are hostile to the 2nd Amendment and protest them for public policies forced upon them by the Ohio legislature, while at the same time, BFA and many on this forum ignore legislation (that is about to be passed by the same legislators responsible for the policy you are protesting) that legitimizes the anti-2nd Amendment agenda of Bloomberg, the Brady Bunch and Tobby Hoover.

"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
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 5 of 6 [ 77 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 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: