Page 1 of 2 [ 30 posts ] Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author
Message
Post subject: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:52 am
The House threw us some scraps and we're supposed to be happy about it. With such a majority as the republicans have, why are they scared to make real change for the people who voted them?

Sorry for the rant, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who is seriously disappointed with the last minute HB48/SB199 shuffle that just happened.
Last edited by sd790 on Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 9:06 am
Posts: 43
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:31 am
sd790 wrote:
Sorry for the rant, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who is seriously disappointed with the last minute HB48/SB199 shuffle that just happened.

Nope, certainly not the only one. I'm just as disappointed at the shuffle that happened earlier in the legislative session when they dropped the section removing houses of worship from the statutory "no guns" list. I saw the writing on the wall back then so this didn't surprise me, but still quite disappointed at the complete mess they made of it (and, I'm seeing some issues that make the K-12 vehicle carry provision the *only* provision that isn't broken in some way.)

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: 690
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:55 pm
Every year the Ohio establishment Republicans pass less and less meaningful legislation when it comes to improving our Gun Rights! They take our vote for granted and could really care less about the 2nd Amendment!

Back in March of 2015 I predicted this would happen. The fact that they would wait until the lame duck session and then do very little. It was not a hard prediction since it's been deja vu for the last few sessions!

Not sure what alternative we have since we can't vote democrat and even though I'd like to vote Libertarian, they are either unable to do the necessary ground work to become a national party or they just don't know how! Most of the Libertarians I hear from are just far out whack jobs so that might be the problem too!

I suppose sooner or later we'll just stop voting period and let the welfare queens take over! :(

px

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
Top
Offline
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:58 pm
Posts: 1709
Location: Akron, Ohio
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:29 pm
SB 199 is garbage. It is simple as that. I hope Kasich vetos it.
2923.1210 says "Privately owned motor vehicle" and "locked within the trunk. glove box. or other enclosed compartment or container within or on the person's privately owned motor vehicle" is going backwards, not forward. Not in a friends vehicle or a rented vehicle or your spouses vehicle, but your owned motor vehicle. What is interesting is if someone walks onto the property then the property owner can be sued.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2681
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:45 pm
color of law wrote:
What is interesting is if someone walks onto the property then the property owner can be sued.


Can you elaborate on this part? I'm not following.

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: 690
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:52 pm
color of law wrote:
SB 199 is garbage. It is simple as that. I hope Kasich vetos it.
2923.1210 says "Privately owned motor vehicle" and "locked within the trunk. glove box. or other enclosed compartment or container within or on the person's privately owned motor vehicle" is going backwards, not forward. Not in a friends vehicle or a rented vehicle or your spouses vehicle, but your owned motor vehicle. What is interesting is if someone walks onto the property then the property owner can be sued.


I believe you are mistaken. Not only is 2923.1210 repealed, "privately owned" can be my spouse's, my roommates, or my friend's privately owned vehicle. It does not state that it must be the person's personally owned vehicle.

On the other hand, the one great addition which does push a little in the right direction that will positively help lots of Ohioans is in regards to school safety zones: (I have removed some wordy language without changing the meaning)
Quote:
This section does not apply to a person...if...all of the following apply:
(a) The person is carrying a valid concealed handgun license or the person is an active duty member of the armed forces of the United States...
(b) The person leaves the handgun in a motor vehicle.
(c) The handgun does not leave the motor vehicle.
(d) If the person exits the motor vehicle, the person locks the motor vehicle.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 9:06 am
Posts: 43
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:18 pm
sd790 wrote:
color of law wrote:
SB 199 is garbage. It is simple as that. I hope Kasich vetos it.
2923.1210 says "Privately owned motor vehicle" and "locked within the trunk. glove box. or other enclosed compartment or container within or on the person's privately owned motor vehicle" is going backwards, not forward. Not in a friends vehicle or a rented vehicle or your spouses vehicle, but your owned motor vehicle. What is interesting is if someone walks onto the property then the property owner can be sued.


I believe you are mistaken. Not only is 2923.1210 repealed, "privately owned" can be my spouse's, my roommates, or my friend's privately owned vehicle. It does not state that it must be the person's personally owned vehicle.

I believe you might have missed that although 2923.1210 might have been previously repealed, a *new* section 1210 would be created by this act. And, as col points out, it is specific to the "person's privately owned motor vehicle". Whether or not anyone will try to split that hair remains to be seen. Not sure how or whether legislative intent might affect that interpretation, however.

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: 690
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:04 pm
The changes for the school safety zones was a step in the right direction, but it comes too late to help me; my son just aged out of public school. He has special needs, and we had frequent meetings at his school. Meetings were at a different location from where I had to pick him up. So on meeting days, I had to drive on the campus and pick him up, drive off campus, drive back on campus and drop him and his mother off at the building where the meeting was going to take place, drive off campus, park on the street, take my gun out of its holster and lock it up, and then walk 1/2 mile back to the building where I dropped them off. After the meeting, I had to walk to my vehicle, take my gun out of its locked box, re-holster it and drive back on campus to pick them up. If he needed something while at school like a forgotten lunch or if he needed medication, I could not just drop it off. I would have to drive on campus, pick him up, drive off campus, turn around, drive back on campus and drop him back off. I also could not assist school personnel to get him into my vehicle.

"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: 477
Location: Akron
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:10 pm
PX4_Storm wrote:
Every year the Ohio establishment Republicans pass less and less meaningful legislation when it comes to improving our Gun Rights! They take our vote for granted and could really care less about the 2nd Amendment!

Back in March of 2015 I predicted this would happen. The fact that they would wait until the lame duck session and then do very little. It was not a hard prediction since it's been deja vu for the last few sessions! ...

Very well said, and I agree 100%.
Top
Offline
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:21 pm
Posts: 227
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:21 pm
It seems to me until us grassroots organizations combine our efforts (and way more importantly, advocacy a/k/a PAC bribe) money into one stack for the House and Senate Republican leadership, this sort of shoddy lip service is about the best we can hope for. Maybe if the Top Brass of OFCC, BFA, etc. could be gathered into one room at the same time and forced to tell us members how much money they have, we could hire a full time lobbyist to hang out in the Statehouse regularly and bug hell out of the legislators.

For all the traffic we have at the OFCC forums we can't get our President to post up more than three or four times a year, usually it's when he's got a gun or something for sale. Says he's too busy but yet has time to play around on Facebook, Twitter etc. The forums here at BFA are equally ignored by the suits nowadays.

"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: 1942
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:53 am
We need a rating system for the quality of the legislation and a recommended amount of $ to sent to each legislator based upon the quality of the legislation, and they do not get a penny from anyone until it is signed by Taft--or I mean Kasich. For example:

(1) SB 199 would earn each legislator $3.00 from most of us (I know it is bad, but there are some freedoms in there for a few people who understand them),

(2) The elimination of all victim zones would earn them the maximum allowed by law from each of us, and

(3) Constitutional Carry with the elimination of all victim zones would earn them the maximum allowed by law from each of us and from all of our family members.

And again, not a penny until it is signed into law. No rewarding effort. ONLY RESULTS!

"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: 477
Location: Akron
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:41 am
That would only work if:

A: The system was defined and objective, and

B: They actually believed we would send them any money - let's face it, the *vast* majority of us don't, and wouldn't, send them *any* money as it is.

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: 690
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:09 am
JustaShooter wrote:
That would only work if:

A: The system was defined and objective, and

B: They actually believed we would send them any money - let's face it, the *vast* majority of us don't, and wouldn't, send them *any* money as it is.

BFA or OFCC could organize such a thing if they wanted to. I would donate if such a system were put into place and the legislation was good.

"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: 477
Location: Akron
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:13 pm
SB 199 proves that signs on state buildings open to the public only apply to conceal carry.

Quote:
2923.1212(A) The following persons, boards, and entities, or designees, shall post in the following locations a sign that contains a statement in substantially the following form: "Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person's control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance onto these premises.":
2923.1212(A)(9) The officer of this state or of a political subdivision of this state, or the officer's designee, who has charge of a building that is a government facility of this state or the political subdivision of this state, as defined in section 2923.126 of the Revised Code, and that is not a building that is used primarily as a shelter, restroom, parking facility for motor vehicles, or rest facility and is not a courthouse or other building or structure in which a courtroom is located that is subject to division (B)(3) of that section.
So, under 2912.1212 a sign is to be posted on a building that is a government facility as defined in 2923.126.

Quote:
2923.126(B) A valid concealed handgun license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun in any manner prohibited under division (B) of section 2923.12 of the Revised Code or in any manner prohibited under section 2923.16 of the Revised Code. A valid license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun into any of the following places:
2923.126(B)(7) Any building that is a government facility of this state or a political subdivision of this state and that is not a building that is used primarily as a shelter, restroom, parking facility for motor vehicles, or rest facility and is not a courthouse or other building or structure in which a courtroom is located that is subject to division (B)(3) of this section, unless the governing body with authority over the building has enacted a statute, ordinance, or policy that permits a licensee to carry a concealed handgun into the building;

2923.126 defines a building that is a government facility under (B)(7); the new law added that the governing body can allow conceal carry.
The new section (7) was the old section (9) and what is underlined was added to the new law.
Ohio law only prohibits open carry in courthouses, jails, schools, bars and state run mental hospitals, period. And conceal carry is regulated as to where you can and cannot carry.

As I have clearly pointed out the posted sign as described in 2923.1212 applies to conceal carry licensees, not open carriers. Open carry in the public areas of buildings that are government facilities is perfectly legal.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2681
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:52 pm
BFA spokesperson Joe Eaton (username jeaton)was on WLW700 AM last night during Rocky Boiman's call in talk show. Joe did the best he could putting a positive spin on SB 199, and as a longtime friend of his I tip my hat.

On the other hand I wanted to call in myself and lay out "The rest of the story" as Paul Harvey used to say.

"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: 1942
Location: SW Ohio
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 2 [ 30 posts ] Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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: