# change in ccw law



## viper1

Well just read this. Seems they passed a law that now you have to have a concelled carry license to open carry.

Open Carry Information:
Ohio is a traditional open carry state. Recently, the Ohio legislature passed HB-12 over Governor Taft&#65533;s veto, thus preempting all local open carry bans even in Ohio&#65533;s "home rule" localities. Unfortunately, despite passage of HB-12, a permit to conceal is still required to openly carry a handgun in a vehicle. Please see http://opencarry.org/

Another right down the tubes while we sleep.


----------



## boatnut

Taft hasn't been governor for sometime. do you mean Kasich?


----------



## MLAROSA

boatnut said:


> Taft hasn't been governor for sometime. do you mean Kasich?


No, he is reading an article I bet is 7 years old.

Would have been easier to understand if he referenced something specific on opencarry.org.

Open Carry of a firearm in the state of Ohio is a constitutionally protected right, according to the Ohio Supreme court. Concealed Carry is a _privilege_ according to the same court...

Even his own opening post says that open carry is legal _except_ in a vehicle. I'm not sure what the point of this thread is at all. The title is flat out false.


----------



## viper1

To be honest I dint check it out. Just spotted it on a CCW site so I copied it.


----------



## MLAROSA

viper1 said:


> To be honest I dint check it out. Just spotted it on a CCW site so I copied it.


I can tell....sort of. 

Opencarry.org is not a CCW site - it is an open carry site.

Whatever you read was probably refering to ORC 9.68 which can be found in the link below.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68

Ohio Revised Code does not mention open carry at all, thus making it legal. There is no crime what so ever for carrying a weapon openly.

How you read what you wrote in the opening post and came to the conclusion that the right to open carry a fire arm has been taken away from citizens of Ohio, I have no idea.


----------



## fallen513

Never trust the internet. 



And never let anyone tell you that you can't open carry. For reference, see the _Constitution of the United States_.


----------



## Iraqvet

I believe the law has stated for a while you must have a carry permit to carry a loaded pistol in your vehicle..It used to be the law to have it in plain sight..Now you can have it concealed on you,in a console,glove box,case,range bag,etc etc..I believe people should be aloud to open carry without a permit,but I agree you should need one while transporting a loaded pistol...When they run your plates before they approach your car,they will know you have your CHL...If people don't have a CHL,it's anyone's guess if they are armed or not.....


----------



## Snakecharmer

Iraqvet said:


> I believe the law has stated for a while you must have a carry permit to carry a loaded pistol in your vehicle..It used to be the law to have it in plain sight..Now you can have it concealed on you,in a console,glove box,case,range bag,etc etc..I believe people should be aloud to open carry without a permit,but I agree you should need one while transporting a loaded pistol...When they run your plates before they approach your car,they will know you have your CHL...If people don't have a CHL,it's anyone's guess if they are armed or not.....


Do they know if a husband has a CHL if he's driving a car reistered to his wife? Just asking....


----------



## Snakecharmer

boatnut said:


> Taft hasn't been governor for sometime. do you mean Kasich?


I think it was Gov. Rhodes or maybe Gilligan.


----------



## BigV

Snakecharmer said:


> Do they know if a husband has a CHL if he's driving a car reistered to his wife? Just asking....


If the wife does not have her CHL the answer is no. 
However the law states you have a "duty to inform" if stopped for law enforcement purposes.


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> I believe people should be aloud to open carry without a permit,but I agree you should need one while transporting a loaded pistol...


Why should they _*need*_ a permit while carrying a firearm in a vehicle? 

So the police know you could possibily be armed during a traffic stop? Aren't police officers trained to approach _*every*_ traffic stop as if the person inside is armed, permit or not? So what difference does it make? Is it the business of anyone else that you may or may not be armed at any given time, including the police? I don't think so.

Do you need a permit to read a newspaper? To write a column in the newspaper? To carry a newspaper in your vehicle? Of course not, that is covered under the first amendment. You shouldn't _need_ a permit to carry a firearm in your vehicle either, since it is covered under the second amendment.

A permit is a violation of the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment of The United States Constitution.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> Why should they _*need*_ a permit while carrying a firearm in a vehicle?
> 
> So the police know you could possibily be armed during a traffic stop? Aren't police officers trained to approach _*every*_ traffic stop as if the person inside is armed, permit or not? So what difference does it make? Is it the business of anyone else that you may or may not be armed at any given time, including the police? I don't think so.
> 
> Do you need a permit to read a newspaper? To write a column in the newspaper? To carry a newspaper in your vehicle? Of course not, that is covered under the first amendment. You shouldn't _need_ a permit to carry a firearm in your vehicle either, since it is covered under the second amendment.
> 
> A permit is a violation of the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment of The United States Constitution.


Yes,they are..But doesn't actually KNOWING,make a dfference?..I think so..I also believe its te general concensious that people who have permits have basically zero law violations,and carry for defensive purposes rather than offenive ones..I think a cop likes knowing someone he is pulling over has a CHL beforehand,vs randon people carrying openly...I believe anyone who legally can own a gun,has the right to open carry,not in a car though...As far as concealed,well your backround will come into play..Thats a good thing..I don't believe permits violate anything in MY state...If you qualify for a CHL,you can get one...No one is taking away anyones right to bear arms here...There is just a hoop to jump through stating you have been "trained",and want to carry for good eason...The option is here..


----------



## BigV

Iraqvet said:


> Yes,they are..But doesn't actually KNOWING,make a dfference?..I think so..I also believe its te general concensious that people who have permits have basically zero law violations,and carry for defensive purposes rather than offenive ones..I think a cop likes knowing someone he is pulling over has a CHL beforehand,vs randon people carrying openly...I believe anyone who legally can own a gun,has the right to open carry,not in a car though...As far as concealed,well your backround will come into play..Thats a good thing..I don't believe permits violate anything in MY state...If you qualify for a CHL,you can get one...No one is taking away anyones right to bear arms here...There is just a hoop to jump through stating you have been "trained",and want to carry for good eason...The option is here..


Just by the fact that I am REQUIRED to have a CHL in order to CCW is (in my opinion) a violation of my Constitutional Rights!


----------



## Iraqvet

BigV said:


> Just by the fact that I am REQUIRED to have a CHL in order to CCW is (in my opinion) a violation of my Constitutional Rights!


Does that law PREVENT your right to bear arms??..The simple answer is no,it doesn not..


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> Yes,they are..But doesn't actually KNOWING,make a dfference?..I think so..I also believe its te general concensious that people who have permits have basically zero law violations,and carry for defensive purposes rather than offenive ones..


Permit or no permit, the police do not "actually know" anything. The owner of a vehicle is not necessarly driving the vehicle. The vehicle could be loaned or stolen. Using your logic, this actually places the officer in more danger with a false sense of security.



> I think a cop likes knowing someone he is pulling over has a CHL beforehand,vs randon people carrying openly


What a cop likes and doesn't like about his job is not my concern. 



> I don't believe permits violate anything in MY state


Perhaps you need to read the constitution. Start with the amendments I provided above, then read the rest of it.



> If you qualify for a CHL,you can get one...No one is taking away anyones right to bear arms here...There is just a hoop to jump through stating you have been "trained",and want to carry for good eason...The option is here..


No, it isn't as simple as if you qualify you can get one. You MUST take a class ranging from $100 to $300 in cost, sumbit to a back ground check, finger prints, photograph and then pay a $50 fee. Lots of hoops to exercise a right if you ask me. 

Some people simply can not afford the cost. For a married couple the cost can easily exceed $1,000 if you toss in the purchase of a mediocre firearm. $1,000 that alot of people do not have laying around to simply exercise a right guranteed to them in the constitution.

Would you pay $100 to $300 every 10 years, submit finger prints, subject yourself to background checks simply to have a license to purchase and transport a newspaper?


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> Does that law PREVENT your right to bear arms??..The simple answer is no,it doesn not..


For me, no it does not. 

To some in the state it certainly does. The cost associated with obtaining a license and firearm can be high. 

No other "right" do you have to pay so much to exercise, so why the 2nd amendment?

Actually, you know, now that I have thought about this, yes the current law did prevent me from carrying. When I decided I wanted to begin carrying a firearm, I could not just go get the old colt out of the safe and begin carrying. I had to wait until a class was available, pay the fees, wait on the background check to return and the sherif to issue the license. All in all it was about 3 months after I decided I wanted to begin carrying that I could legally do so. So yes, the current law does actually prevent you from exercising your right to bear arms.


----------



## Sharp Charge

MLAROSA said:


> Permit or no permit, the police do not "actually know" anything. The owner of a vehicle is not necessarly driving the vehicle. The vehicle could be loaned or stolen. Using your logic, this actually places the officer in more danger with a false sense of security.
> 
> 
> 
> What a cop likes and doesn't like about his job is not my concern.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you need to read the constitution. Start with the amendments I provided above, then read the rest of it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't as simple as if you qualify you can get one. You MUST take a class ranging from $100 to $300 in cost, sumbit to a back ground check, finger prints, photograph and then pay a $50 fee. Lots of hoops to exercise a right if you ask me.
> 
> Some people simply can not afford the cost. For a married couple the cost can easily exceed $1,000 if you toss in the purchase of a mediocre firearm. $1,000 that alot of people do not have laying around to simply exercise a right guranteed to them in the constitution.
> 
> Would you pay $100 to $300 every 10 years, submit finger prints, subject yourself to background checks simply to have a license to purchase and transport a newspaper?


Unless you bring your DD214 with ya, then it's just $50, no class required.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA,as you stated,an officer is trained to respond accordingly...Some of them pulled for no guns peroid..But given th choice of open carry from any joe schmo,or someone who has a CHL and is identified, I think they would choose option #2...If somene can't afford a CHL,thy probably can't afford ammo to practice with it regularly and be proficient with their gun correct??..Again.how does a permit effect your right to bear arms??..Is anyone telling you under no circumstances can you carry??..NO...Open carry is still an option..Getting your CHL is like putting a money deposit down on a boat..It show's your intent,seriousness,and the effectiveness of your words and motives..And your credit score would be like your backround check...I have one...So I KNOW you have to go to a class,backround check etc etc...You must also show you can handle the gun safetly,and shoot it accuratly..And why are you bringing up the cost of a pistol??..If they can't afford one, how does getting a CHL come into the picture??..I hope you meant two guns for $1,000?...You can get TWO NEW glocks for that and I believe they are above "mediocre" quality..Your newspaper referance, just goes to prove you're showing little reasoning..That was just plain dumb...


----------



## Iraqvet

Sharp Charge said:


> Unless you bring your DD214 with ya, then it's just $50, no class required.


Only if you can show you have qualified with an M9...


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> And why are you bringing up the cost of a pistol??..If they can't afford one, how does getting a CHL come into the picture??..I hope you meant two guns for $1,000?...You can get TWO NEW glocks for that and I believe they are above "mediocre" quality..Your newspaper referance, just goes to prove you're showing little reasoning..That was just plain dumb...


Cost for class husband and wife $150 ea $300 total.

Cost of new glock $500

Cost of 200 rounds of range ammunition $75

Cost of 20 rounds of self defense ammunition $25

Cost of license fee $55

Total - $955

Perhaps you are the "dumb" one, who can't seem to be able to do simple logical math. Regardless, if the fees associated with obtaining a CHL prevent even a single welfare mother from protecting herself and her family then the law is unconstitutional. Or are constitutional rights only available to those who can afford them?

Let me know when you read the constitution and are able to explain intelligently how a permit fits in to "shall not be infringed".


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> Cost for class husband and wife $150 ea $300 total.
> 
> Cost of new glock $500
> 
> Cost of 200 rounds of range ammunition $75
> 
> Cost of 20 rounds of self defense ammunition $25
> 
> Cost of license fee $55
> 
> Total - $955
> 
> Perhaps you are the "dumb" one, who can't seem to be able to do simple logical math.
> 
> Let me know when you read the constitution and are able to explain intelligently how a permit fits in to "shall not be infringed".


So, 100 rounds each and you and your wife are "experts"?..25 SD rounds?...Well lets say you have a high cap mag that holds 17 rounds..That leaves 8 rounds for you to practice with and check how they function in your gun??..Again,I am dumb how??..Because I run 150 rounds minimun of the ammo I am gonna trust my life with through my gun...Incase you don't know, rounds can shoot differently...Some may even JAM in your gun...My SD rounds shoot about 3" higher than my targt rounds...That may be good to know right??..I called your thought process comparing a newspaper to a CHL supid,not you..But lets continue on with this..SO you buy two NEW glocks..DO you HAVE TO get your CHL license as SOON asyou purchase them??..No..You can give it a few months and let some paychecks roll back in...And like I said, PRACTICE..It not only makes you a better shot, but being a goodshot makes you more of a responible person when you figure you may discharge YOUR GUN OFF IN PUBLIC!..SO what in this statement may have you consider me to be dumb...I bet you will find others will agree with what I am telling you...


----------



## MLAROSA

When you get done reading the entire constitution, show me the part that in order to exercise your constitutional rights, you must justify your reasoning first to a keyboard warrior.


----------



## jcustunner24

Another ccw thread turns into a rambling argument full of name calling. Someone throw a giant Chevy ad over this thing.

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> When you get done reading the entire constitution, show me the part that in order to exercise your constitutional rights, you must justify your reasoning first to a keyboard warrior.


Keyboardwarrior??..Why because I expresse my opinion??..Again,another set of words showing you're not here to rationalize whats being said..And what is said in the constitution??..Does it guaruntee us calibers or mag capacity..Limiting us to a single shot .22 still lets us have arms correct??...Now that would suck,and I believe some states have gross gun laws..Heck look at the hunting laws...3 shells max in your shotgun and a plug is mandatory..I am a law abiding citizen,why shouldn't they trust me?..Thats unfair because someone hunting with a revolver can carry 6 rounds..See how we can go back and forth all day??..I am taking it you don't have your CHL?..There are ex-cons who may be allowed to own guns,but my not meet the requirments to get a CHL..And like I stated,anyone who is serious aout carrying a gun,should be puttng ALOT of time in and the range anyways..Bullets cost money..If they have to have a CHL, they should be putting some $ aside for it...Until then they are legally aloud to open carry..Except on boats,in cars, and in gun free places,schools,court house,etc etc..


----------



## MLAROSA

jcustunner24 said:


> Another ccw thread turns into a rambling argument full of name calling. Someone throw a giant Chevy ad over this thing.
> 
> _OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


Many people are very passionate about the right to bear arms, and the rest of the constitution. It doesn't surprise me at all that people show emotion when having these types of discussions.

And you are about 3 weeks late on the chevy add! It's crazy silly. Someone is raking in some money on the adds, thats for sure. I've never seen a site actually shrink the content to make space. They can blame the bills all they want, but to keep the site running isn't that expensive.


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> Keyboardwarrior??..Why because I expresse my opinion??..Again,another set of words showing you're not here to rationalize whats being said..


Yes, you have made it clear that in order to exercise ones rights, they must justify it to you first.



Iraqvet said:


> And what is said in the constitution??..


For about the third or fourth time read it and see for yourself



Iraqvet said:


> I am taking it you don't have your CHL?..


Whether my family or myself are armed or not is none of your business. Neither is it the business of anyone else, including law enforcement.



Iraqvet said:


> There are ex-cons who may be allowed to own guns,but my not meet the requirments to get a CHL..And like I stated,anyone who is serious aout carrying a gun,should be puttng ALOT of time in and the range anyways..Bullets cost money..If they have to have a CHL, they should be putting some $ aside for it...*Until then they are legally aloud to open carry..Except on boats,in cars, and in gun free places,schools,court house,etc etc*..


Do you know the hassle of carrying a firearm with out a permit? For example, lets say I want to carry while going grocery shopping at Kroger and I have no permit. I take my loaded firearm and unload it, including the magazine. I then place the firearm in the trunk, or locked glove box. I then pray that while I am driving to Krogers noone attempts to car jack me. When I arrive at Krogers, I retrieve my firearm from the trunk or locked glove box. Standing in the parking lot, I thumb in 10 rounds of .45 caliber ammunition. I then jack one round in the chamber and drop the magazine to replace the round that is now chambered. Now, I holster the firearm on my hip and load my back up magazine. All the while I hope noone has called the police because some guy in the parking lot at Krogers is loading a firearm.....

Heaven forbid I have to go inside a bank on the way.

Silly, huh?

Or we could abide by the constitution, and just pick up our firearm and go about our business like Americans.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> Many people are very passionate about the right to bear arms, and the rest of the constitution. It doesn't surprise me at all that people show emotion when having these types of discussions.
> 
> And you are about 3 weeks late on the chevy add! It's crazy silly. Someone is raking in some money on the adds, thats for sure. I've never seen a site actually shrink the content to make space. They can blame the bills all they want, but to keep the site running isn't that expensive.


This isn't a discussion...You are bent on trying to prove with no facts,that requiring a CHL to carry concealed takes away from your right to bear arms...Please prove otherwise and as stated,name calling isn't needed around here..And the site's expense,well isn't our busiess nor do we know what it is..It's free to us and I haven't seen anyone leave because of the adds..


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> Yes. Do you know the hassle of carry a firearm with out a permit? For example, lets say I want to carry while going grocery shopping at Kroger and I have no permit. I take my loaded firearm and unload it, including the magazine. I then place the firearm in the trunk, or locked glove box. I then pray that while I am driving to Krogers noone attempts to car jack me. When I arrive at Krogers, I retrieve my firearm from the trunk or locked glove box. Standing in the parking lot, I thumb in 10 rounds of .45 caliber ammunition. I then jack one round in the chamber and drop the magazine to replace the round that is now chambered. Now, I holster the firearm on my hip and load my back up magazine. All the while I hope noone has called the police because some guy in the parking lot at Krogers is loading a firearm.....
> 
> Heaven forbid I have to go inside a bank on the way.
> 
> Silly, huh?
> 
> Or we could abide by the constitution, and just pick up our firearm and go to Krogers.


Or you could save $150 (can't be that hard) and just get a CHL..Wow how easy was that to figure out??..


----------



## MLAROSA

I have provided examples of how the current system prevents people from exercising their right to bear arms. That is a fact, regardless if you wish to read it, comprehend it, or ignore it.

There has been no name calling. So I'm not sure what you are talking about. You mad about the keyboard warrior thing? Well, aren't we all keyboard warriors? You just want people (me in particular) to justify a reason to carry a firearm. I on the other hand do not see that need. The United States Constitution is pretty clear. Why have you refused to address that?

Finally, I do have a pretty good idea of the cost to run a site of this size, and I stand by my statement to JC that someone is making money off of this big time.


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> Or you could save $150 (can't be that hard) and just get a CHL..Wow how easy was that to figure out??..


Which is the point you are missing. The constitution doesn't say you need a permit.

Also an extra $200+ isn't that easy to save for some people living pay check to pay check. Or unemployeed. Or whatever.

How hard was that to figure out?

The fact is, you shouldn't need a permit to exercise a constitutionaly protected right. Would you pay $150 to the government in order to purchase and transport a newspaper? I know the "dumb" example again. Think about it, and see if you can figure out the meaning of it.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> I have provided examples of how the current system prevents people from exercising their right to bear arms. That is a fact, regardless if you wish to read it, comprehend it, or ignore it.
> 
> There has been no name calling. So I'm not sure what you are talking about. You mad about the keyboard warrior thing? Well, aren't we all keyboard warriors? You just want people (me in particular) to justify a reason to carry a firearm. I on the other hand do not see that need. The United States Constitution is pretty clear. Why have you refused to address that?
> 
> Finally, I do have a pretty good idea of the cost to run a site of this size, and I stand by my statement to JC that someone is making money off of this big time.


Dude you think I am trying to justify you carrying a firearm??...WHAT..You're the one crying about the price and rights involved with getting a CHL..I could care less if you carry...If you feel you have no need,why did you even bring this topic up??.Why even give the examples you did?.One's that didn't even prove anything at that!..Did you not take your meds today or something??..Do you just like to get a rise out of people through ignorance??..And WHO CARES WHO MAKES WHAT OFF THIS SITE??..IT'S FREE!!!



MLAROSA said:


> Which is the point you are missing. The constitution doesn't say you need a permit.
> 
> How hard was that to figure out?



It was also put in place when people were shooting BLACK POWDER RIFLES,who killed alot of what they ate themselves...Heaven forbid if they put in there that no man shall have a gun that shoots multiple shots before reloading!!...Then what??


----------



## jcustunner24

MLAROSA said:


> And you are about 3 weeks late on the chevy add! It's crazy silly.


Not late. It was a joke, I figured since it's big already we could cover up this incessant argument that always involves the same people. It gets really old.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> Which is the point you are missing. The constitution doesn't say you need a permit.
> 
> Also an extra $200+ isn't that easy to save for some people living pay check to pay check. Or unemployeed. Or whatever.
> 
> How hard was that to figure out?
> 
> The fact is, you shouldn't need a permit to exercise a constitutionaly protected right. Would you pay $150 to the government in order to purchase and transport a newspaper? I know the "dumb" example again. Think about it, and see if you can figure out the meaning of it.


The constitution left ALOT of things open ended...While I believe some states have went overboard, I believe the whole CHL situation is a good one..If someone can't afford the $200,I doubt they can't afford to buy a gun and ammo...Again,you're comparing a HARMLESS NEWSPAPER, to a GUN...That's all the thinking I need to do to know it only makes sense to a person who is merely trying to argue instead of prove a VALID point..


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> Dude you think I am trying to justify you carrying a firearm??...WHAT..You're the one crying about the price and rights involved with getting a CHL..I could care less if you carry...If you feel you have no need,why did you even bring this topic up??.Why even give the examples you did?.One's that didn't even prove anything at that!..Did you not take your meds today or something??..Do you just like to get a rise out of people through ignorance??..And WHO CARES WHO MAKES WHAT OFF THIS SITE??..IT'S FREE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also put in place when people were shooting BLACK POWDER RIFLES,who killed alot of what they ate themselves...Heaven forbid if they put in there that no man shall have a gun that shoots multiple shots before reloading!!...Then what??


Perhaps while you are studying the constiution, you should review our founding fathers as well. I bet you would be surprised.


----------



## MLAROSA

jcustunner24 said:


> Not late. It was a joke, I figured since it's big already we could cover up this incessant argument that always involves the same people. It gets really old.


Yeah yeah. I know it was a joke.

I'm just surprised at this one particular person I guess. The vets I know have more respect for individual liberties.


----------



## BigV

Wow! This went downhill quickly!!


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> The constitution left ALOT of things open ended...While I believe some states have went overboard, I believe the whole CHL situation is a good one..If someone can't afford the $200,I doubt they can't afford to buy a gun and ammo...Again,you're comparing a HARMLESS NEWSPAPER, to a GUN...That's all the thinking I need to do to know it only makes sense to a person who is merely trying to argue instead of prove a VALID point..


Perhaps while you are reviewing the constitution and our fuonding fathers, you will come accross something that changes your mind about a "harmless newspaper".

_The pen is mightier than the sword._


----------



## Snakecharmer

Time to put this up again....


----------



## Iraqvet

BigV said:


> Wow! This went downhill quickly!!


Yes,as you can see I think MLAROSA is just in a mood to argue...He went from arguing invalid points to thinking he knows how much this site costs to run and doesn't believe the owners should be aloud to make a profit from it...He also said he doesn't think he feels the need to carry,and thinks I am "making" him..Reminds me of a looney tunes character..


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> Yes,as you can see I think MLAROSA is just in a mood to argue...He went from arguing invalid points to thinking he knows how much this site costs to run and doesn't believe the owners should be aloud to make a profit from it...He also said he doesn't think he feels the need to carry,and thinks I am "making" him..Reminds me of a looney tunes character..


I am not trying to make this personal but, do you have a reading comprehension problem or something?

I never said _any_ of the things you are accusing me of.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> Which is the point you are missing. The constitution doesn't say you need a permit.
> 
> Also an extra $200+ isn't that easy to save for some people living pay check to pay check. Or unemployeed. Or whatever.
> 
> How hard was that to figure out?
> 
> The fact is, you shouldn't need a permit to exercise a constitutionaly protected right. Would you pay $150 to the government in order to purchase and transport a newspaper? I know the "dumb" example again. Think about it, and see if you can figure out the meaning of it.


I think this falls into one of the invalid points...A chl does not compare with thinking the government will charge $300 to transport a newspaper..News flash, criminals can buy newspapers..



MLAROSA said:


> I have provided examples of how the current system prevents people from exercising their right to bear arms. That is a fact, regardless if you wish to read it, comprehend it, or ignore it.
> 
> There has been no name calling. So I'm not sure what you are talking about. You mad about the keyboard warrior thing? Well, aren't we all keyboard warriors? You just want people (me in particular) to justify a reason to carry a firearm. I on the other hand do not see that need. The United States Constitution is pretty clear. Why have you refused to address that?
> 
> Finally, I do have a pretty good idea of the cost to run a site of this size, and I stand by my statement to JC that someone is making money off of this big time.



I think this falls under you arguing in this thread,then saying you don't even feel the need to carry,and I am trying to justify the need for you to??..What the heck is up with that??..And again,the sites profits and costs are none of our business...The owners can do as they please...




MLAROSA said:


> Many people are very passionate about the right to bear arms, and the rest of the constitution. It doesn't surprise me at all that people show emotion when having these types of discussions.
> 
> And you are about 3 weeks late on the chevy add! It's crazy silly. Someone is raking in some money on the adds, thats for sure. I've never seen a site actually shrink the content to make space. They can blame the bills all they want, but to keep the site running isn't that expensive.


They can blame whatever...They have never asked me to pay to be a member here,and probably never will...




MLAROSA said:


> I am not trying to make this personal but, do you have a reading comprehension problem or something?
> 
> I never said _any_ of the things you are accusing me of.


There ya go..These are the things you did say,that you said you didn't...


----------



## injun laker45




----------



## Iraqvet

I second that ***** laker...Its pretty evident this guy is just looking to argue and insult..


----------



## bobk

Iraqvet said:


> I second that ***** laker...Its pretty evident this guy is just looking to argue and insult..


Now that is funny. You like to argue as much as the next guy. Some of this stuff should be done in PM's. It seems to always be the same guys that go on & on & on. It's no wonder that people get tired of the ccw posts.


----------



## Iraqvet

bobk said:


> Now that is funny. You like to argue as much as the next guy. Some of this stuff should be done in PM's. It seems to always be the same guys that go on & on & on. It's no wonder that people get tired of the ccw posts.


Atleast I was making valid points...This guy went on about this,only to say he doesn't even feel the need to carry!..


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> Atleast I was making valid points...This guy went on about this,only to say he doesn't even feel the need to carry!..


You have no idea what you are talking about. I have never said I do not carry, and I have not said in this thread that I do carry. I said it is none of your business if I carry or not, just as it is not the the governments business if I (or anyone else) carries, according to the constitution - which was only brought up due to you sayin that police "want to know" when they pull you over for a traffic stop.

Your assumptions about _me_ couldn't be further from the truth. I have been an instrumental figure in the fight for Ohio gun rights since 2002. All the way back from challenging the constitutionality of the old CCW law clear up to the present legislation that is essentially "constitutional carry". I have been to the state house and spoken to representatives face to face to many times to count. I have sat and listened to testimony from folks who come from all over the country to support the advancement of gun rights in Ohio. I have worked closely with both OFCC, BFA and the NRA (if you don't know who they are google them) to further gun rights in Ohio. I have also worked closely with many in the Ohio house, Senate as well as past and present Attorney General's and Govenor's to promote freedom.

So _please_, STOP taking my words out of context to suit your own personal agenda, because you simply have no clue.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> *You just want people (me in particular) to justify a reason to carry a firearm. I on the other hand do not see that need.* The United States Constitution is pretty clear. Why have you refused to address that?


Ok,so do YOU recognize THE WORDS ABOVE??...Please take the time to read them slowly..You clearly say you do not see a need to carry??..What do I have anything to do with it?..Please, read your own words before responding to this..And no,the Constitution isn't clear..That's why there is a constant battle over its interpretation and limits of gun rights..



MLAROSA said:


> *You have no idea what you are talking about. I have never said I do not carry, and I have not said in this thread that I do carry.* I said it is none of your business if I carry or not, just as it is not the the governments business if I (or anyone else) carries, according to the constitution - which was only brought up due to you sayin that police "want to know" when they pull you over for a traffic stop.
> 
> Your assumptions about _me_ couldn't be further from the truth. I have been an instrumental figure in the fight for Ohio gun rights since 2002. All the way back from challenging the constitutionality of the old CCW law clear up to the present legislation that is essentially "constitutional carry". I have been to the state house and spoken to representatives face to face to many times to count. I have sat and listened to testimony from folks who come from all over the country to support the advancement of gun rights in Ohio. I have worked closely with both OFCC, BFA and the NRA (if you don't know who they are google them) to further gun rights in Ohio. I have also worked closely with many in the Ohio house, Senate as well as past and present Attorney General's and Govenor's to promote freedom.
> 
> So _please_, STOP taking my words out of context to suit your own personal agenda, because you simply have no clue.


I believe I have addressed the bold statement...The reason I brought up law enforcement is because with the CHL program,it is easier to identify those who could be armed during a traffic stop...Since you're making such a big deal about the CHL program and its fee's, I am gonna assume you don't carry...Lets not forget,the program is also there to ensure they know the carry laws,and show they can competently shoot the firearm..Those are good things to be checked on right?..You are so hung up on the price,you actually feel that right is taken away....I believe open carry is a right,and concealed carry is a privilege..I will never be anti gun...But I will always be "anti putting guns in the wrong hands"...I am choosing not to believe your story of working with the senate and such on gun laws...The biggest reason is because of your unprofessional manor of arguing,and secondly because of your lack of facts...


----------



## MLAROSA

This isn't that hard to understand, which is what makes me wonder if you have a comprehension problem. So lets clear the misunderstanding up.

In the first quote, I was responding to an earlier statement you made in which you made it clear that in order for a person to carry a concealed firearm they should have to justify it, I was saying I see no need for anyone to justify it. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I do not carry based off of that.

The second part, you are right, I will not offer any proof that would ever be satisfactory to you. I have no desire to share any confidential material I have with you simply to prove a point.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> This isn't that hard to understand, which is what makes me wonder if you have a comprehension problem. So lets clear the misunderstanding up.
> 
> In the first quote, I was responding to an earlier statement you made in which you made it clear that in order for a person to carry a concealed firearm they should have to justify it, I was saying I see no need for anyone to justify it. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I do not carry based off of that.
> 
> The second part, you are right, I will not offer any proof that would ever be satisfactory to you. I have no desire to share any confidential material I have with you simply to prove a point.


What on earth are you talking about??..People get robbed raped,car jacked,and killed daily..Um I believe that justifies carrying concealed...Now if you and others can't justify the cost,thats a personal problem...That doesn't mean the state should drop the CHL and allow criminals and unqualified people to carry concealed guns...Again,people who open carry have the right..You're still not proving how the law has prevented people from getting a license to carry??..And what confidential material do you have?..You keep bringing up the Constitution,which isn't confidential..If your "points" are in there, why would you need "confidential material" to prove this??


----------



## MLAROSA

I guess it is that hard to understand.....


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> I guess it is that hard to understand.....


Once again you fail to answer asked questions,or make factual points...Sorry,I am done trying to dumb myself down to get what you're saying..


----------



## Jigging Jim

montagc said:


> Fairly simply put, a basic right should not be available to only those that can afford it.
> 
> IraqVet, if I charged you $50 for each post you make on here, as a permit fee so you can practice free speech, how far would that "right" get you?


There's really no such thing as "Free Speech". If you don't believe me, just mouth-off to your Wives or Girlfriends and see how much it will cost you!


----------



## fallen513

jcustunner24 said:


> Another ccw thread turns into a rambling argument full of name calling. Someone throw a giant Chevy ad over this thing.
> 
> _OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_



It's crazy how these threads get derailed. The good news is the that loons are few & far between & the vast majority of members both here, & in society are in agreement.


----------



## fallen513

And I have to say, somebody needs to work on their reading comprehension before they get all bent out of shape & look like a fool.


----------



## jcustunner24

fallen513 said:


> It's crazy how these threads get derailed. The good news is the that loons are few & far between & the vast majority of members both here, & in society are in agreement.


It's a shame really. You probably remember that I'm not a gun owner, but I support the rights of my fellow OGFers and citizens to arm and protect themselves. These threads could be constructive and educational but it turns into a pissing contest too fast for anyone to really make informative posts.


----------



## Iraqvet

montagc said:


> Fairly simply put, a basic right should not be available to only those that can afford it.
> 
> IraqVet, if I charged you $50 for each post you make on here, as a permit fee so you can practice free speech, how far would that "right" get you?


I don't know why people blieve the CHL program is such a cash cow for this state..A very good crook could buy a gun using a false identity...Not the case with getting a CHL..As stated,there are crimes people have committed that would still allow them to buy a gun,yet not get a CHL..Getting rid of it would level the playing field and would give the bad guys an upperhand..How is that hard to see??..So because there is a small amount of people who can't afford to get a CHL we should risk more crime??..Again,there is no law stopping law abiding citizens from carrying concealed..Just a small fee and a course to prove your competent..I just can't believe people would be selfish enough to risk crime levels raising just because they can't make a few concessions in there life for a short amount of time so they can afford a CHL...And before anyone can say more people being armed would lower crime,lets not forget the fact that open carry is an option...Many choose not to...


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> ..I just can't believe people would be *selfish enough to risk crime levels raising *just because they can't make a few concessions in there life for a short amount of time so they can afford a CHL...And before anyone can say more people being armed would lower crime,lets not forget the fact that open carry is an option...Many choose not to...


Open carry is the only option for someone who doesn't wish to obtain a permit. Which makes them defenseless while in a vehicle and subjects them to harassment while loading and unloading their firearm everytime they reach their destination. Not to mention the risk of accidental discharge increases greatly from the constant contact with a firearm.

Statistically speaking, the crime rate goes down, not up when gun rights are restored.

The states with the lowest crime rate in the country are also those with the most laxed gun restrictions to their citizens. Lets compare.

Lets take the state of Vermont for our first example. Vermont, also known as The Free State, does not require a concealed carry permit for any of their citizens. There are very few restrictions on where or how you can transport a loaded firearm in Vermont, concealed oropenly. The murder rate per 100,000 people in Vermont is 1.1 persons in 2009. See link below.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/azcrime.htm

Lets now look at the state of Alaska. In 2007 the murder rate per 100,000 people was 6.4. If I recall off hand, "Alaska style" carry was pased in 2008, essentially meaning you can carry concealed or openly and no permit was required. The 2008 murder rate dropped to 3.9 per 100,000 residents. The most recent numbers show the downward trend continuing with 2009 murder rate at 3.1 per 100,000 resident. See link below.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/akcrime.htm

Now lets look at Ohio's murder rate. In 2004 Ohio became a "shall issue" state, meaning the sheriffs departments had to issue permits to any resident who was qualified. 2003 murder rate in Ohio per 100,000 residents was 4.6. 2004's murder rate was 4.4 per 100,000 residents. The most recent numbers available, 2009 was 4.5 per 100,000 residents. In other words relatively unchanged.

In 2010 Arizona made it so their citizens can carry a concealed firearm with out a permit. Look for their crime rates to drastically fall when sufficient data is available in the next couple of years.

As you can see, the states with the more liberal gun laws actually have lower crime rates.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA, I am gonna give you some examples of what I seen online..Vermont has a population of about 625,000 residents..It is under 10,000 square miles...How many ghetto's do you think they have?..Alaska is almost 600,000 square miles..The population is just under 700,000 residents..Now Ohio is about 45,000 square miles..The population is about 11,500,000...Do you see where this is going?..Just because it works somewhere,doesn't mean it will work everywhere...You're truly comparing apples to oranges..


----------



## MLAROSA

That is why the constant of 100,000 residents are used in statistic and not just the raw numbers.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> That is why the constant of 100,000 residents are used in statistic and not just the raw numbers.


Do you think it's at all possible that 100,000 might be different than 100,000 people from another state..Demographics could play a huge role in this...


----------



## MLAROSA

1995 Texas (the second highest populated state) passed concealed carry. The murder rate has since been cut in half. 1994 murder rate was 11 per 100,000 residents. 2009 the murder rate was 5.4 per 100,000 residents.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

In 2007 The United States Supreme Court ruled on DC vs Heller striking down much of the districts gun laws. Mind you prior to this DC had the toughest gun laws in the country. The murder rate for DC in 2007 was 30.8 per 100,00 residents. The murder rate in 2009 (after Heller) is 24 per 100,000 residents. 

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

You have no been given the stats from the east coast to the west coast. You can decide what to do with them.

The fact is arming Americans save lives. Why do you support making it more difficult for Americans to arm themself?


----------



## Iraqvet

You just gave me stats on how having a CHL helped..I want people to be armed..You don't see that because you're hung up on me thinking its about the money...The CHL program is also a secondary screeing process..Do you get fingerprinted when you buy a gun??..Nope..Now they can change it and say anyone can carry,but you have to wait 10 days to get your gun because of the additional processing..Again,you still have the right to get a CHL...You need to get it signed off at 5 years,then take the class again at 10 years..10 years is 120 months..Lets say the average cost to get your CHL is $200...Your CHL costs about $1.60 a month!..I know people that spent $200 a month on smokes...You ask them,they are broke though..Now lets factor in all the people who could afford one of they made small concessions for a short amount of time...Are they mad because they really feel their right is taken away,or does it really boil down to them not wanting to spend the $1.60 a month to get one??


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> I want people to be armed..


Then why do you _support_ making it tougher for people to be armed?


Why do you feel the _need_ to restrict when, where and how people are armed?


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> Then why do you _support_ making it tougher for people to be armed?
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the _need_ to restrict when, where and how people are armed?


Once again,people can open carry for free...We're not talking about a massive amount of money here..And a CHL is an option for any law abiding citizens..You're so hung up on the price you can't even see it's avalible to people..An 18 year old is a LEGAL adult..They can't buy pistols or alcohol..Isn't that agaisnt their rights to be denied a pistol?..What about all the 18,19,and 20 year olds shooting M9's, M16's,M2',M249's,M240's in combat,yet can't come back to Ohio and buy a pistol??..There is no money amount to change this..Paying $200 is small beans compaired to flat out being denied purchasing and carrying...You're denying the right because it costs money..While others who fought for that right get nothing...Try swallowing that pill...


----------



## MLAROSA

So two wrongs make a right?

For what it's worth in Vermont the age is 16 years old to carry a concealed firearm.


----------



## Snakecharmer

I'd hate to see you guys argue if you were on different sides regarding handguns....You do realize you are both for arming citizens?
You should really just start a new thread Iraqvet vs MLAROSA debate of the day.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> So two wrongs make a right?
> 
> For what it's worth in Vermont the age is 16 years old to carry a concealed firearm.


Well we are not in Vermont..And for all we know their gun laws are laxed because it's not a state thats known for gang shootings and fatal robberies..Maybe it has always been a peaceful state that never had a problem with violence....No problems = nothing to fix...Could you imagine the day when Ohio would let 16 year olds carry concealed guns??...I never said what Ohio is doing is wrong..I am saying you have the right while others don't,yet you still wanna complain about it...I think the right thing to do is keep concealed weapons in the hands of law abiding citozens who have had their backround/fingerprints ran, been tested on current carrying regulations,and have shown competency by qualifying with their firearm...


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> I think the right thing to do is keep concealed weapons in the hands of law abiding citozens who have had their backround/fingerprints ran, *been tested on current carrying regulations*,and have shown competency by qualifying with their firearm...


What test on "current regulations" did you take? The state of Ohio does not require any training on the law in order to obtain your CHL.

There is also no required "qualification with their firearm". There is a required 2 hour range time, but that does not mean you hae to 'hit' anything. You can spend two hours and never hit the paper and still get your CHL. You do not even need to own a firearm to get your CHL, so you certainly do not need to qualify with it.

Also, you do realise that no matter what hoops the government puts in place they only affect law abiding citizens. In other words, criminals will continue to carry concealed with or with out being able to obtain a permit. No law will restrict them.


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> What test on "current regulations" did you take? The state of Ohio does not require any training on the law in order to obtain your CHL.
> 
> There is also no required "qualification with their firearm". There is a required 2 hour range time, but that does not mean you hae to 'hit' anything. You can spend two hours and never hit the paper and still get your CHL. You do not even need to own a firearm to get your CHL, so you certainly do not need to qualify with it.
> 
> Also, you do realise that no matter what hoops the government puts in place they only affect law abiding citizens. In other words, criminals will continue to carry concealed with or with out being able to obtain a permit. No law will restrict them.


Well,I would suggest you do alittle more research then...We had 2 people in the class who had to arrange another range day because they couldn't put 15 holes in a 9" target..We were standing about 12' away..One person was held from shooting until he could pass his written test...So if a person doesn't want a CHL because of the price,who's ultimate decision is that??..Theirs,not the state's...And yep,bad guys will conceal guns no matter what..But why make it easier for them to do so by making it legal..?


----------



## jcustunner24

Anyone ever see the movie Groundhog Day? 

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## Snakecharmer

jcustunner24 said:


> Anyone ever see the movie Groundhog Day?
> 
> _OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


LOL That was spot on...


----------



## fallen513

montagc said:


> Just to clarify the point that you are making your case with:
> 
> 
> Enacting right-to-carry will allow felons to carry guns concealed that they are already restricted from owning



And that they're already carrying concealed. 



Might be the dumbest argument I've ever heard...but hey, when the going gets tough and stuff starts makin' sense, stick to your guns! No pun intended.


----------



## Iraqvet

montagc said:


> Just to clarify the point that you are making your case with:
> 
> 
> Enacting right-to-carry will allow felons to carry guns concealed that they are already restricted from owning





fallen513 said:


> And that they're already carrying concealed.
> 
> 
> 
> Might be the dumbest argument I've ever heard...but hey, when the going gets tough and stuff starts makin' sense, stick to your guns! No pun intended.


So we should be stupid enough to make it legal??...Fallen,if you think this is a dumb argument, I guess you have no reason to make another post in this thread....


----------



## sbreech

1.) criminals are criminals. Period. They won't respect a law, won't obtain a CC permit to carry concealed, and will use the weapon unlawfully. The CC law will NOT protect any law officers a single bit. Law abiding citizens must now jump thru the hoops to carry the weapon concealed when the criminals (who don't pay) have been doing it all along.
[/COLOR] 
2.) The Constitution of the United States is the real permit to carry, however, not intended for protection against car jackers, but rather against tyrranical freedom jackers (the government) like the ones trying to empart gun control.

3.) The very laws on the book disarm citizens. Citizens in cars. Citizens on boats. If you don't PURCHASE a CC permit, you CANNOT be armed in your car or on a boat. Is a gun with no ammo a weapon? No. Are you armed if your firearm is in your trunk and ammo is in your glove box while Joe Thug is breaking your driver side glass with a brick and his buddy is dragging your lady by her hair with intent to rape and kill? No. Is this extreme? Yes. Can / has it happened? I'm quite sure. A person who lawfully carries open without BUYING HIS RIGHT TO EXERCISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS will not be armed in this situation because he is a law abiding citizen and has his gun & ammo separate.

4.) A CC permit is pretty cheap, but that is NOT the point. The class is pretty cheap, but THAT'S not the point. Presenting my DD214 is easy, but THAT is still not the point. The point is, the Constitution does not say "the right to bear arms when politicians want you to," it says "The Right to Bear Arms shall not be Infringed upon."

5.) I believe I took an oath many many years ago, and I still hold to it.


----------



## MLAROSA

Thanks, sbreech.


----------



## Iraqvet

sbreech,does one really have to explain the differences between when the constitution was written,and now??...It's not the government's fault..It is ours...A generation of bad parenting led us down a road of a crime filled country fueled by drugs,desperation,and hate...Thank god I don't see our law changing anytime soon...I think some of you have tunnel vision..I also think we would learn the hard way that making it easier for criminals to carry would be a bad idea...


----------



## sbreech

Iraqvet said:


> sbreech,does one really have to explain the differences between when the constitution was written,and now??...It's not the government's fault..It is ours...A generation of bad parenting led us down a road of a crime filled country fueled by drugs,desperation,and hate...Thank god I don't see our law changing anytime soon...I think some of you have tunnel vision..I also think we would learn the hard way that making it easier for criminals to carry would be a bad idea...


With your comment that didn't address any of my points even indirectly, I'll address yours very directly. I will not resort to name calling or belittling because I believe everyone has an opinion, which I respect just as much as their votes that they cast whether I agree or not provided they were passionate about their push of the button.
[/COLOR] 
The difference is 224 years. People are still the same, and power still corrupts. The Second Amendment is probably closer to being invoked now than it has ever been since that signing date back in 1776 with our faithful leadership becoming more and more tyrranical, regulating everything from the food that we eat to the air that we breathe to which parts of the Constitution we should keep or not due to their own fancy. What really scares me is whether our less-than-up-on-their-oath modern soldiers would protect the people or the government should that frightful day ever occur that the people stand up and take back what is theirs in the darkest hours of domestic preservation.

And I know what you're saying, but your own tunnel vision doesn't allow you to realize that criminals don't care about laws. They'll carry no matter what, no matter when, no matter where, and they will shoot you or me whether it is legal or not. The real solution is to make the repercussions much more severe for crimes involving weapons or other deadly weapons. Steal a man's wallet? 5 years. Rob a man of his wallet at gunpoint? 10 years of hard labor. Shoot a man? Good night. And those are just for the first offenses.

The last thing that I want is for criminals to "have it easier" as you may put it, but nothing the law does will make it easier for a criminal as long as what they do outside the law is more powerful than what we can do within the law. Therefore allowing open carry will just do more to level the playing field for law abiding citizens. The new law does nothing BUT restrict law abiding citizens right to defend even more by forcing them to take even LONGER to take arm when in danger by considering a magazine or speedloader the firearm, and these laws are to "protect the law officers." Really? A criminal will not be following that law or any other law - but we will. Who is the government affraid of? US or CRIMINALS? They don't care about the crime with the passage of the laws... the government wants controllable lemmings. Presidents don't run for re-election for the money any more, heck, they're already rich. They do it for power. A society armed with a weapon as powerful as our US Constitution is one that the government must show respect as the people show it.

And for the record, if you dig up some statistics, crime is actually almost a constant per capita from 1960 to present...and that murder and rape have actually been on a big decline for the past few years....(which seems awefully strange by your thinking, since before O's election, the US went on a gun and ammo shopping spree) it's just that you hear and read about it all the time in the news - just like Africa is still in turmoil as it has been forever and hurricanes have been wiping out coastal towns since the dawn of mankind.

I'll help with the statistics (raw numbers of crime per-capita, not manipulated) just like I helped with the Constitution.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm


----------



## Iraqvet

HHmm...Why would you say "less-than-up-on-their-oath modern soldiers"..?..For someone who claims to be "pro American" ,you sure ain't proving it..And um, where was most of toady's military when soldeirs did stuff like say,,shot innocent people at Kent State?...Most of us weren't even born..Please learn some history about how the military was used in the 60's and 70's against protesters compared to today...Because I believe in gun control you believe me/our military doesn't live up to our oath??..You're fanatically talking about revolting against the government in "the darkest hours of domestic preservation"...You're getting very side tracked here...You're still not proving how the CHL program prevents people from arming themselves..


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> Because I believe in gun control


And the truth finally comes comes out.....


----------



## Wannabitawerm

MLAROSA said:


> And the truth finally comes comes out.....


Not to muddle the waters, but this is a classic case of choosing a piece of the phrase that suits you and ignoring the whole statement. Just my opinion. 

Continue... 


Ain't technology great? Now I can be distracted by fishing everywhere I go!


----------



## MLAROSA

Really not sure how, his own words in this thread support that he believes in gun control, at the least while in a vehicle.

To his point about Kent State, I ask, was he alive when Katrina happened? If so, who confiscated the guns there & did they live up to the oath they took.


----------



## Wannabitawerm

Responsible gun control is essential to firearm laws. I believe in gun control as in classes, fees, and competency training too. It's not a perfect system, nor will it ever be. You both are making the same, valid point, just coming from two different directions. 

And historically speaking, the right to bear arms was concerning the state militias. We have a right to own firearms in the event of a state militia being called up. In today's terms, the various interpretations of this law could be a dangerous thing. This is where I think the laws need to be specific and clear. 

I hope I'm staying on subject here. If I strayed from the point, I apologize. My hats off to you guys for keeping the discussion to the point and civil. It can be a very touchy subject. 


Ain't technology great? Now I can be distracted by fishing everywhere I go!


----------



## MLAROSA

I guess it depends on how you view self preservation.

Either you believe you have a God given right to protect yourself and others, or you believe that an "old out dated open ended document" gives you a right to self defense, or you believe you have no right to self protection but must ask the state and pay a fee to enjoy the privilege.

I know where he stands and I know where I stand. Where do you stand?


----------



## Wannabitawerm

My stance is simple. If you are a responsible member of society, and a God fearing believer, you understand that owning a firearm is a huge responsibility. And if I have to register it, take a course to carry it and pay that fee to do so, then so be it. To just assume we are entitled to whatever interpretation we see fit, that's irresponsible. 

"Render unto Ceasar's that which is Ceasar's." which means, it is God's will that we respect laws. The people who make the laws are appointed by God's authority, for better or worse. That's my stance. 


Ain't technology great? Now I can be distracted by fishing everywhere I go!


----------



## Iraqvet

Werm,thanks for pointing that out...Its good to see others out there believe in gun control..MLAROSA,I believe people should be armed...Gun control in this matter has nothing to do with stripping rights from anyone...As far as Katrina, no I don't think what they did was right...But that was the cops taking weapons from people...


----------



## MLAROSA

Wannabitawerm said:


> "Render unto Ceasar's that which is Ceasar's." which means, it is God's will that we respect laws. The people who make the laws are appointed by God's authority, for better or worse. That's my stance.


And perhaps this is where we will disagree forever.

My faith does not allow me to believe that God sent such heinous dictators to purposely govern such as Saddam Hussein (responsible for at least 1 million deaths), Mao Ze-Dong (responsible for an estimated 50 million to 80 million deaths), Jozef Stalin (responsible for an estimated 23 million deaths), Adolf Hitler (responsible for an estimated 12 million deaths). And we can go on throughout history if you like.

I prefer The Declaration of Independance:

_We hold these truths to be self-evident, *that all men are created equal*, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> As far as Katrina, no I don't think what they did was right...But that was the cops taking weapons from people...


Perhaps you need a refresher. The National Guard played a major role in disarming citizens.


----------



## Wannabitawerm

MLAROSA said:


> And perhaps this is where we will disagree forever.
> 
> My faith does not allow me to believe that God sent such heinous dictators to purposely govern such as Saddam Hussein (responsible for at least 1 million deaths), Mao Ze-Dong (responsible for an estimated 50 million to 80 million deaths), Jozef Stalin (responsible for an estimated 23 million deaths), Adolf Hitler (responsible for an estimated 12 million deaths). And we can go on throughout history if you like.
> 
> I prefer The Declaration of Independance:
> 
> _We hold these truths to be self-evident, *that all men are created equal*, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_


Faith does give us the same thing those terrible men had. Free will. They chose to do those things. They weren't put there for that. And just like us, they chose to commit those crimes. Just like we can choose to disobey the laws or uphold them. God allows us to make our own choices. Those men also disarmed their people in order to prevent them from defending their rights. You and I both know that in this country, legal or not, we wouldn't allow that to happen. 


Ain't technology great? Now I can be distracted by fishing everywhere I go!


----------



## Iraqvet

I was mobilizing to go to Iraq when that happened...Even in the video it shows people talking about the LOCAL sheriffs demanding the weapons and many officers trying to take them..Even in the video you can clearly see its proven that all started because of local law enforcement,not the military...What about the cops?..I didn't see a whole lot of "serving and protecting" going on there..You still like cops right?..Hindsight is 20/20...It's easy to criticize what happened..Also,given the choice between disarming citizens or going to Fort Leavenworth ,I think many would disarm the people....That video also doesn't show how bad it truly was down there..


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> I was mobilizing to go to Iraq when that happened...


Do Iraqis need a permit to transport a loaded fully automatic firearm in their vehicle?



Iraqvet said:


> That video also doesn't show how bad it truly was down there..


Do you think it was worse then Iraq is?


----------



## Iraqvet

MLAROSA said:


> Do Iraqis need a permit to transport a loaded fully automatic firearm in their vehicle?
> 
> Nope...But many have died because of it...
> 
> Do you think it was worse then Iraq is?


Just the weather..


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> .Also,given the choice between disarming citizens or going to Fort Leavenworth ,I think many would disarm the people....


Let me provide you with a couple of web sites.


http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders_2.htm

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

Also, please remember that he military _is_ under the control of civilians. This is America, and we are not a military state. 

The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._

Think carefully before following any *unlawful* order.

If you would a subscription to oathkeepers, let me know, I'll gladly pay for it.


----------



## Iraqvet

The military is under control of the government point blank..There is no two ways around that...I will pass on the oath keepers...There are things in the military no one wants to do...But you're talking about around 3 million people in the military,plus the police officers and the civilian contractors...So even though I wouldn't want to disarm people, someone behind me would...I would be alot more scared of the police than the military if I were you...


----------



## fallen513

Hmmm 3 million vs. 200 million. 


Guns aren't going anywhere except through having our rights slowly taken away, as you support. 


Gun control. You may as well be as far left as you could possibly be man. I must say I'm disappointed.


----------



## Iraqvet

fallen513 said:


> Hmmm 3 million vs. 200 million.
> 
> 
> Guns aren't going anywhere except through having our rights slowly taken away, as you support.
> 
> 
> Gun control. You may as well be as far left as you could possibly be man. I must say I'm disappointed.


I ask you put a little more though into your posts...Did you know the oldest serving part of the military is the National Guard??..AKA "minute men"??..Comprised of citizen soldiers,just like today...Do you know how many vets and current members of the military are members of the NRA?..The military doesn't hold a constant authority over citizens like the police do...Do you hear about "military brutality" on the news everyday??No, it involves police brutality..And low and behold,who gets the military involved with the general public when disasters come about??..The politicians that people vote in...No where have I said I supported taking anyone's rights away..Are you so ill minded you think because I believe in responsible gun control that you think I am against people having them??..If I got $1 every time I heard or seen the NRA say "guns don't kill,criminals do" , I would be the owner of a 100,000 acre ranch in Montana right now shooting guns off my back porch...Don't be so ignorant just because someone doesn't believe in making it easier to arm criminals..I believe in making this state safer, not trying to re create Dodge City...ALso,if you guys are gonna try and discredit someone's beliefs in the constitution,don't go after someone who actually fought for your rights..


----------



## Iraqvet

I just can't believe there are people who bring up the constitution,yet are against those who fought for your freedom...


----------



## fallen513

I'm not alone when I say your logic is ridiculous, aside from arguing with anything or anybody within earshot. 



Hmmm. Making people pay to carry their weapon keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.





Brilliant!


----------



## Iraqvet

fallen513 said:


> I'm not alone when I say your logic is ridiculous, aside from arguing with anything or anybody within earshot.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. Making people pay to carry their weapon keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant!


I am not alone either...Look at driver's licenses...Driving is easy..Yet you can't do it with a license..You must show you can operate the car and know the laws...You must pay for both..Not to mention to be legal while driving your car you need insurance...But these things are done to keep people safe,agreed?..None of which are in the constitution...Now...Why should concealing a pistol be any different..?.You don't need gun insurance incase you accidentally shoot someone..Hmm,hope the shooter has money to pay your bills..Remember, they were holding off on a CHL because they couldn't afford the small $150 it costs to get one..SInce he doesn't have to show he knows the laws, thats exactly what he'll say to the judge when he shoots someone for accidentally bumping into him at the gas station..Maybe he'll get 2 weeks in jail...Now when he does go to shoot someone,he misses and hits an innocent bystander...He didn't have to prove he could shoot competently so now your 7 year old is dead because someone couldnt hit where they "tried" to aim...But yet because this is in the constitution,we shouldnt be able to look at it and compare times,and whats better for todays people?..Again,you have no reason to cry about rights being taken away...They are there and available to any citizen who wants to carry concealed..If not,they are more than welcome to open carry...However if they do so only to avoid paying for a class, well whats the saying??...Ignorance is bliss..


----------



## PITCHNIT

License fees are simply another form of taxation and a way for our government to infringe upon liberty and freedom. Somewhere there is a lengthy list all the way down to dog licenses.


----------



## Iraqvet

PITCHNIT said:


> License fees are simply another form of taxation and a way for our government to infringe upon liberty and freedom. Somewhere there is a lengthy list all the way down to dog licenses.


Well, they have to get the money somewhere..Your kids need schools,cities need cops and firefighters,we need the ODNR, highway patrol etc etc...


----------



## Snakecharmer

PITCHNIT said:


> License fees are simply another form of taxation and a way for our government to infringe upon liberty and freedom. Somewhere there is a lengthy list all the way down to dog licenses.


Most licenses are user fees... Want to drive a car- get a drivers license, want a boat- get a boat license, want to fish - get a fishing license, want a dog- get a dog license. Don't want to do any of the above guess what you don't have to get one!


----------



## Iraqvet

Snakecharmer said:


> Most licenses are user fees... Want to drive a car- get a drivers license, want a boat- get a boat license, want to fish - get a fishing license, want a dog- get a dog license. Don't want to do any of the above guess what you don't have to get one!


Exactly..But since none of these are in our constitution people don't cry about them...The state knows the majority of people won't open carry,even though its our right to...Part of the problem is uneducated local law enforcement..So by getting a CHL you get to conceal, after you show you can shoot and have past a knowledge test on gun laws..By doing this you are basically giving your word to the state and its CITIZENS that you are using your weapon in a law abiding manner...People focus so much on the price they forget why its a law..


----------



## fallen513

You have a very small worldview. Ever taken your pistol to CA? 


I'm outta here before it gets ugly. Carry on!


----------



## MLAROSA

Iraqvet said:


> I just can't believe there are people who bring up the constitution,yet are against those who fought for your freedom...


Noone in this thread is against "those who fought for their freedom".

In fact, I have extended an invitation to you, for eduational purposes.

We may disagree on a permit, forever. I do not expect every person I encounter to agree with me. How boring would this world be, if that were the case. However, as this discussion has drifted quite far from the original topic, I have become very concerned that you would follow an order to disarm the American people and likely shoot an American who refused to be disarmed. If such an order was brought up, it would simply be an act of war on the American people, as such would be treason, therefore any such order should not even be considered.

I understand that my views have very little meaning to you, so I will not provide you with references, but I suggest that you review your history books yourself. The attempt to disarm the American people is what lead to this country's revolution on April 19th 1775.

Finally, I would like to say that I have nothing but the up most respect for those who have and are currently serving in our military, this however does not change the fact that acording to the constitution the military is under civilian control. The United States of America is not a military state, plain and simple.


----------



## Iraqvet

The military is for the people,ran by the government...If it was vice versa Joe Blow from down the road could command us to attack Russia if he wanted us to correct?..Would I ever want to be put into a position to kill other Americans??..Heck no!!..But lets say PETA decides to start blowing up stuff and killing people?..Then what??..Can they not be enemies of their own country?..I had to swear to protect against foreign and DOMESTIC threats...As far as disarming people...Yeah right...Because I know if it were me in that situation, they would be getting them from my dead hands...I am trying to agree with you about the military,and the guns...I want more people to carry...But I also want those people to be law abiding citizens..There are so many things people don't think twice about with guns...Say you had a boat for 10 years you fished on Erie..Now you wanna run it as a charter boat..You have to get licensed,and take a course...Not only to prove you can do this safely,but so your customers know you know what your doing incase of an emergency..Why should concealing a deadly weapon be any different??..There is no right being taken away...


----------



## fredg53

Fallen ur right on

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## bunkeru2k

MLAROSA said:


> What test on "current regulations" did you take? The state of Ohio does not require any training on the law in order to obtain your CHL.
> 
> There is also no required "qualification with their firearm". There is a required 2 hour range time, but that does not mean you hae to 'hit' anything. You can spend two hours and never hit the paper and still get your CHL. You do not even need to own a firearm to get your CHL, so you certainly do not need to qualify with it.


You are entirely incorrect on both statements. The state does require you to have a range competency test. They have not set down a requirement for accuracy, but it is required to demonstrate competency with the firearm. It can vary from instructor to instructor, but I can tell you that in my class (and all instructors that I know personally) if you cannot pass my range test you do not get a cert. Now with that being said, if I cannot instruct someone well enough to pass, then I have failed as an instructor.

As to being trained on the current laws, yes you do have to review the laws. I will quote straight from the state's book here


> As part of the training, applicants must also receive and certify that they have reviewed a copy of this publication.


----------



## MLAROSA

Ok.

Where _*exactly*_ was the "test" again?

Or

Can you tell me what minimum "score" the state of Ohio requires for your range test, and what question one says regarding the laws portion?


----------



## FISNFOOL

Man has this thread gone way off topic. And the first post was about an outdated 7 year old article.


----------



## viper1

Well since it has maybe I can get an answer quickly. What are they charging to renew a permit in Columbiana county Ohio? Also what's a recertification class run today? As far as scoring on test. I was under the idea it has nothing to do with accuracy just knowing your firearm and safety. I for one agree its a good thing. But I feel you should have to qualify to a certain degree of accuracy also. There has been talk of doing it for hunting also. It would be nice to know if some has to shoot they have the skills to hit what they aim at instead of something else close by.


----------



## captainshotgun

Wannabitawerm said:


> Responsible gun control is essential to firearm laws. I believe in gun control as in classes, fees, and competency training too. It's not a perfect system, nor will it ever be. You both are making the same, valid point, just coming from two different directions.
> 
> And historically speaking, the right to bear arms was concerning the state militias. We have a right to own firearms in the event of a state militia being called up. In today's terms, the various interpretations of this law could be a dangerous thing. This is where I think the laws need to be specific and clear.
> 
> I hope I'm staying on subject here. If I strayed from the point, I apologize. My hats off to you guys for keeping the discussion to the point and civil. It can be a very touchy subject.
> 
> 
> Ain't technology great? Now I can be distracted by fishing everywhere I go!


There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions "state" militia. Militia could be, can be, and are; state, local, federal, or even especially private, historically!
Further more the Constitution does not limit, nor was it intended to limit, the right to keep & bear arms. The 2nd amendment was & is, (historically), to facilitate the forming of militia, not to retard it in any way.


----------

