Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UBC

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • UBC

    UBC's is unconstitutional for a reason. And yes, this is UNIVERSAL BACK GROUND CHECKS. And I resent the righteous indignation tone that Husted put out there saying that gun should want to not sell guns to criminals.

    1. Guns owners are more aware of who they can sell their guns to than ever..

    2. Gun owners who have a CHL have a lower crime rate than the police do.


    .“Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” Lott writes. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there’s no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states.” - Dr. John Lott, Crime Prevention Research Center

    3. Making more gun owners selling is an unknown some is felon is passing the buck. The individual buyer who knows he is prohibited should be punished, not the seller who still may knot know with these flawed Unconstitutional govt systems.

    All I see in this is how they are planning to make innocent Ohioans Criminals NOT SAFETY. These people really are Authoritarian Totalitarian thugs!


    I carry a firearm because a cop is too heavy and takes too many breaks.

    Montani Semper Liberi - (Mountaineers Are Always Free)

  • #2
    There is absolutely no evidence that any background check reduces crime just like there is no evidence that limiting gun ownership reduces crime. Background checks only gather data on gun owners and creates a mechanism for later confiscation.

    And making it a crime to negligently sell a firearm to a prohibited person while creating a mechanism for the Sheriff to process private background checks is mandating universal background checks without saying so. Who will define what negligently is? Communist judges? No one in their right mind would sell a gun in Ohio without having a Sheriff process the sale. And how much will that transaction cost? This is just an attempt to make it look like something that is is not.

    Make no mistake folks, we are in the fight for our lives, and it appears that BFA is not on our side. I think the only way we are going to secure our rights is by a ballot initiative that clearly defines the right to keep and bear arms in the Ohio Constitution and strips the legislature of authority to make weapons laws.
    "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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Absolutely right Liberty!

      St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree.

      I carry a firearm because a cop is too heavy and takes too many breaks.

      Montani Semper Liberi - (Mountaineers Are Always Free)

      Comment


      • #4
        How about this for an amendment to the Ohio Constitution via ballot issue:

        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 the United States, the citizens of the State of Ohio find the need to protect that right and insulate it from partisan politics.

        WHEREFORE, that right shall be defined only in this Constitution. Neither the General Assembly nor any legislative body of any political entity in this State shall have authority to make any law regarding the right of any free citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of home, person, family, property, and state, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, and these rights shall not be infringed. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable.

        Any law in this State that conflicts with this provision shall be null and void. Any person who, while acting under color of law, deprives or attempts to deprive a free citizen of the rights of this provision shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished without exception by a mandatory sentence of ten years in prison.

        A “free citizen” is hereby defined as a citizen of the United States of America who is not under arrest by lawful authority, incarcerated in a jail, prison, correctional facility or mental institution, and not under supervision as a result of being convicted of a felony involving the commission of actual violence upon another person.
        "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.

        Comment


        • #5
          I thought it was evident in the Constitution, federal or state, we already have these protections?

          In fact, Article 1 Section 8 grants the government no power over private ownership of weapons. Making the 2nd Amendment redundant. But you never hear that.

          At this point, I don't anything could be said in the Constitution this Authoritarian Totalitarian thugs won't do. They're smiling while lying to us that they are doing is Constitutional.

          Dictator want to be's don't follow the rules that restricts them and not the people
          I carry a firearm because a cop is too heavy and takes too many breaks.

          Montani Semper Liberi - (Mountaineers Are Always Free)

          Comment


          • #6
            You are correct. The Constitutions already clearly states what I just said, but my language affirms the meaning in modern terms and would make it more difficult for the Supreme Court to say it does not mean what is says. The amendment process was put in place so that the people could reassert their authority.

            Dictators only follow rules if the people are armed, clearly understand what the rules are and assert their authority to enforce the rules. The problem we have is that not enough of the general public know what the constitution says or what it was meant to accomplish. An amendment clarifying the meaning of such a provision may solve that problem, at least until the communists in the media and the education system find a way to convince enough people that it does not really mean what it says.
            "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.

            Comment

            Working...
            X