# New Ohio Concealed Weapon Bill introduced



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

"A bill introduced in Columbus yesterday would no longer require most Ohioans to have a permit or training in order to carry a concealed weapon"

What's your feelings on this? I'm going to sit quiet, observe,. and comment later.


----------



## joebertin (Mar 26, 2010)

That's the way it was meant to be, and the way it should be. 

A 12 hour course is not going to bless the attendants with common sense, or morality.

People carried long before the cc law with few problems, besides being bullied by authorities if searched.


----------



## GYoung36 (Nov 2, 2011)

Great news!


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

joebertin said:


> People carried long before the cc law with few problems, besides being bullied by authorities if searched.


So you feel if your carrying legally concealed your being bullied? Please show me a case of this. Also what is meant by "before", before legal CCW or open carry? So you feel any Felon can carry until he's caught or shoots someone like they do now, or just anyone can carry without being in full state of mind or some how mentally incapacitated? No holds barred just let um rip? 

So just what percentage of people do you think have no experience at all with any kind of firearm? I'm willing to take a shot at it that it's approaching better then 60% of the population have never nor will ever touch any kind of firearm.

These are just a few questions I ask myself when things like this are proposed. I've been raised in a house with 5 other siblings and always able to access any of our firearms as were my brothers and sisters. Did we access them?, sure every time we went shooting, hunting, or to clean BUT... we knew the dangers, the how too's of safety and the meaning of handling that firearm weather loaded or unloaded, and the damage they would create if fired.

My point is,, did that knowledge just fall out of the sky on us or were we TAUGHT? That's the problem I have with this whole issue.


----------



## joebertin (Mar 26, 2010)

Popspastime said:


> So you feel if your carrying legally concealed your being bullied?


No, re-read my post. I was referring to the period prior to the concealed carry law.

I also agree with you that a 12 hour course cannot teach what you and I learned being raised with firearms. I also served in the military.

I believe that in Israel, and Switzerland military training is required for every citizen. More than 12 hours, and probably a good idea for the U.S. for more than just the firearms training.


----------



## mck1975 (Jun 18, 2009)

Popspastime said:


> So you feel if your carrying legally concealed your being bullied? Please show me a case of this. Also what is meant by "before", before legal CCW or open carry? So you feel any Felon can carry until he's caught or shoots someone like they do now, or just anyone can carry without being in full state of mind or some how mentally incapacitated? No holds barred just let um rip?
> 
> So just what percentage of people do you think have no experience at all with any kind of firearm? I'm willing to take a shot at it that it's approaching better then 60% of the population have never nor will ever touch any kind of firearm.
> 
> ...


Very good points. I can see the side of having to pay for a right we already have, HOWEVER, by paying for the permit and required classes it insures at least some kind of training and establishing without a doubt being legally clear for carry.

I would like to see carry permits legal in all states instead of having to deal with reciprocity.


----------



## joebertin (Mar 26, 2010)

mck1975 said:


> I would like to see carry permits legal in all states instead of having to deal with reciprocity.


Great point, hopefully we'll get there.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

mck1975 said:


> I would like to see carry permits legal in all states instead of having to deal with reciprocity.


Me too, but all things being equal in the training to qualify. That's the problem we have now.. 4 or 5 different programs and requirements not matching other states.


----------



## mck1975 (Jun 18, 2009)

Popspastime said:


> Me too, but all things being equal in the training to qualify. That's the problem we have now.. 4 or 5 different programs and requirements not matching other states.


I have no disagreement with that. Brings piece of mind across the board. Education, Respect and Practice is the key. I wonder at times how many CC but never go to the range to become familiar with a firearm.


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

My take is the income from cc classes is slowing down and its time to move to another system.


----------



## Walleye Rap (May 7, 2011)

Popspastime said:


> So you feel if your carrying legally concealed your being bullied? Please show me a case of this. Also what is meant by "before", before legal CCW or open carry? So you feel any Felon can carry until he's caught or shoots someone like they do now, or just anyone can carry without being in full state of mind or some how mentally incapacitated? No holds barred just let um rip?
> 
> So just what percentage of people do you think have no experience at all with any kind of firearm? I'm willing to take a shot at it that it's approaching better then 60% of the population have never nor will ever touch any kind of firearm.
> 
> ...


Scroll down to the sixth paragraph and click on tape to listen to what the officer's and Bryan said. 

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/some...ntinue-demonstrate-ignorance-about-open-carry


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Walleye Rap said:


> Scroll down to the sixth paragraph and click on tape to listen to what the officer's and Bryan said.
> 
> http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/some...ntinue-demonstrate-ignorance-about-open-carry


This is a clear cut case of someone testing the laws and creating problems for the rest of us. Altho we have a right to carry open "without" a licence this guy has a license and it clearly states in the laws it "MUST" be concealed when on your person. Now an un-licensed person can carry open in most parts of the state that's mainly governed by the Sherriff and you'll probably never get tested from them. But I can tell you this.. open carry in my town and see what happens.. Just like Eastlake police are trying to tell that guy, he made a bad choice in what he was doing. They could write him for inciting a riot and make a bad day for him. The kicker is when he tries to tell the officer who teaches the class where he got his that it was ok to do it. 
Have you ever heard of home rule? Many, many, populated cities will not put up with that type of thing. That should embarrass you like it does me and all gun owners. I've had to tell an officer 3 times I was carrying and all 3 treated me with utmost respect to the fact. 
Something like this only gives us a black eye and fuels the fire for that officer if another one comes down the pike.


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

Of course he got the response he wanted. Thats why he had the recorders. He knew what he was doing and I agree with you pops. He was just pushing the issue for notoriety and to give gun owners a bad name.


----------



## Walleye Rap (May 7, 2011)

Popspastime said:


> This is a clear cut case of someone testing the laws and creating problems for the rest of us. Altho we have a right to carry open "without" a licence this guy has a license and it clearly states in the laws it "MUST" be concealed when on your person. Now an un-licensed person can carry open in most parts of the state that's mainly governed by the Sherriff and you'll probably never get tested from them. But I can tell you this.. open carry in my town and see what happens.. Just like Eastlake police are trying to tell that guy, he made a bad choice in what he was doing. They could write him for inciting a riot and make a bad day for him. The kicker is when he tries to tell the officer who teaches the class where he got his that it was ok to do it.
> Have you ever heard of home rule? Many, many, populated cities will not put up with that type of thing. That should embarrass you like it does me and all gun owners. I've had to tell an officer 3 times I was carrying and all 3 treated me with utmost respect to the fact.
> Something like this only gives us a black eye and fuels the fire for that officer if another one comes down the pike.


The city gave him a public apology at a city meeting and now holds yearly training on Ohio gun laws for the officers. I'm sure they review more than once per year.


----------



## snakedog (Feb 12, 2009)

It's the same bill that Rep. Hood tried to introduce in late 2013. Then Speaker Batchelder (GOP) kept that one from even coming to the floor for a vote. This time it seems to have a little more support, and the current House speaker Rosenberger hasn't chimed in yet. The bill's got a long way to go before it even comes to a vote on the floor, it's only going to committee for review at this point. There's enough Republicans it could eventually go through, but I can't imagine Gov. Kasich signing off on it if various police organizations go against it. And I think the police will never support a bill like this.


----------



## Walleye Rap (May 7, 2011)

ostbucks98 said:


> Of course he got the response he wanted. Thats why he had the recorders. He knew what he was doing and I agree with you pops. He was just pushing the issue for notoriety and to give gun owners a bad name.


Wrong. He had his iPhone with him, that he used to record. 
He is a certified chl instructor now. He knew the laws better than some of the responding officers.


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

Walleye Rap said:


> Wrong. He had his iPhone with him, that he used to record.
> He is a certified chl instructor now. He knew the laws better than some of the responding officers.


Go watch the video. Its hard to even enter dialogue with someone so blind. Yeah ok he just happened to be carrying both weapons walking down the street and recording his day on his phone. When the two officers approached him.


----------



## Walleye Rap (May 7, 2011)

ostbucks98 said:


> Go watch the video. Its hard to even enter dialogue with someone so blind. Yeah ok he just happened to be carrying both weapons walking down the street and recording his day on his phone. When the two officers approached him.


Do you have a link to the video? All that I could get was the audio. Yeah, most people carry phones on them these days. He recorded the stop on his phone. I'm sure, if the police would have found the phone. It (the phone) would have came up missing. 
I know Bryan is a stand up guy. 
Sorry, if you and I disagree on this.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Walleye Rap said:


> Wrong. He had his iPhone with him, that he used to record.
> He is a certified chl instructor now. He knew the laws better than some of the responding officers.


So you agree with what and how he went about this?


----------



## Neo (Jun 29, 2013)

Please show me where it states it's illegal to open carry if you have your CCW. As per the Ohio Attorney General Concealed Carry Handbook.

Open Carry
Ohio&#8217;s concealed carry laws do not regulate &#8220;open&#8221; carry of
firearms. If you openly carry, use caution. The open carry of firearms
is a legal activity in Ohio.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

I wouldn't get my hopes up about this passing but it's good to know at least some of our representatives are attempting it.


----------



## bigmikeh2o (Aug 5, 2008)

I agree with the idea of the bill in principal, but I don't think it should pass. I look at it like it kind of like mobsters getting charged for tax evasion when murder, drug, etc. charges won't stick. If a criminal is carrying without a license and an officer knows he has committed a more serious crime but has no evidence he could still charge him with carrying. I think the carry license process is an inconvenience and I don't like the public record portion of the law at all, but I like that those who carry illegally get charged. To me that compromise is worth it.


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

Don't hold your breath folks, it will not pass. I for one am mostly satisfied with the current law and as for folks that "open carry" for the purpose of getting into confrontations with LE to post on Youtube, you are idiots and give all gun owners a bag name. Please do not tell everyone that you are doing this to promote our rights.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Saugernut said:


> Don't hold your breath folks, it will not pass. I for one am mostly satisfied with the current law and as for folks that "open carry" for the purpose of getting into confrontations with LE to post on Youtube, you are idiots and give all gun owners a bag name. Please do not tell everyone that you are doing this to promote our rights.


What about the folks who open carry for reasons other than what you mentioned?


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

There is a time and place for it, but not in places where you know it will likely cause a complaint to be filed and a LE response inevitable. Those folks are just looking for trouble in my opinion.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Saugernut said:


> There is a time and place for it, but not in places where you know it will likely cause a complaint to be filed and a LE response inevitable. Those folks are just looking for trouble in my opinion.


What is an acceptable time and place? What places will likely cause a response? Where do you personally feel it's unacceptable? In your opinion of course.


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

Do you have a point to all these questions?


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

Your just wasting your time going back and forth with people who are all about me,me,me and cant see both sides.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

buckeye dan said:


> What is an acceptable time and place? What places will likely cause a response? Where do you personally feel it's unacceptable? In your opinion of course.


Dan, you won't get away with it in my town or any town that boarders mine. So I feel all that person is doing by trying that is looking for a confrontation and wants to test the local laws. Everyone in here knows what the 2nd amendment means but some want to try to stretch it and test it. This makes us all look bad don't you agree? 
Try to find me a video where the LE says hey you look great carrying that, or, sure you can do that here no problem.. please find me one. 
I was standing in a Dunkin Doughnuts in Macedonia getting a coffee one day and a guy with shorts and T-shirt behind me is carrying open. Do you think he got everyone's attention? You bet he did. 
Now right behind him was a deputy sheriff watching everyone. We pulled the Deputy aside and asked about it and he said he was within his rights and could do it. We all agreed and no more was said. Now I'll bet anything that if it were a local LEO there might have been a problem due to how he felt about it and what the city "home rule" laws say. If that same local police man knew you were carrying he'd never say a word because it was concealed and not upsetting people around him. 
So there's a place for everything, and there are places your going to get a hassle, why push it?


----------



## mck1975 (Jun 18, 2009)

The biggest downfall I see is the ability to carry open or concealed is the people who are not allowed to carry for legal or medical reasons. In that, there is a problem with the bill. Applying and receiving the clearance, even at a price ensures legal and medical responsibility.


----------



## chris1162 (Mar 12, 2008)

Popspastime said:


> Dan, you won't get away with it in my town or any town that boarders mine. So I feel all that person is doing by trying that is looking for a confrontation and wants to test the local laws. Everyone in here knows what the 2nd amendment means but some want to try to stretch it and test it. This makes us all look bad don't you agree?
> 
> Try to find me a video where the LE says hey you look great carrying that, or, sure you can do that here no problem.. please find me one.
> 
> ...



I bet its horrible to live in a town that doesnt understand freedom but you probably fit right in! Maybe you should move to chicago or something where they really hate the 2nd amendment and then and only then would you be safe and never have to see a pistol openly carried.

Dan,
Thanks for all the work you do but sometimes you just cant fix stupid!


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

chris1162 said:


> I bet its horrible to live in a town that doesnt understand freedom but you probably fit right in! Maybe you should move to chicago or something where they really hate the 2nd amendment and then and only then would you be safe and never have to see a pistol openly carried.
> 
> Dan,
> Thanks for all the work you do but sometimes you just cant fix stupid!


So here we go with the name calling? Listen up lil man.. I've had the enjoyment of owning and using weapons all my life and I've earned the RIGHT to speak my peace without the name calling like you've started. 
Any time..ANY TIME you want to try to test it you just let us know. Your just another that DOESN'T know his freedom's. Where do you live that you can just go packin a side arm down the road? You better READ the 2nd amendment and see what it says, and what it's about, then come running your mouth. You call people stupid?


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Here's some reading for you on the 2nd amendment, that's if you can read and not go by what other people say and think. I can't seem to find any where in it where it says I can carry a weapon on my side down the road any time and any where just to prove I can. It says I can take up arms.. It says I can bare arms.. ..how many times it was amended. I'm Pro Gun.. not the Enemie.. get this straight.
Common smart guy show me...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

Hold on he is consulting rush limbaugh.


----------



## chris1162 (Mar 12, 2008)

Bear arms= carry firearms. Are you slow or something? It doesnt say only if its concealed does it? Is that hard to understand for you? I cant make it any clearer!


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

I like it the way it is, now with a 8hr course....it does weed out a few that don't have self control(violent tempers)....and some of those might carry anyway....passing the back ground check does help some....no way every body should have the right ....there are some that just have no self control on the behavior and tempers


----------



## Neo (Jun 29, 2013)

The course is a joke I could have slept through mine and still passed with 100% and fwiw PA doesn't have any class or range requirements and they don't seem to have any problems.


----------



## fishincontrol (Jul 9, 2009)

I thought 12 hours was a good amount of time. The classes I know of used all 12 hours not much idle time. What is getting cut out of the program to afford lowering the class length to 8 hours?


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

I open carry quite frequently. I don't do it for attention, youtube fame or necessarily for rights promotion but I would argue that the latter is a byproduct. 

When the weather is cold or cool I conceal and wear a cover garment by default for the same reasons anyone else would. To keep warm. When it's very warm or hot I open carry and don't use a cover garment for the same reasons anyone else would. To keep cool.

My handgun lives at the same place on my person and always has. My training is hinged on that. So I am not willing to compromise that for the comfort of others and I am not willing to compromise my comfort or safety for others. Also, two handed draws suck.

My position on this subject is what makes others uncomfortable or fearful is not my problem. It is their problem to deal with. Historically for me the time to open carry has always been dependent on the temperature and the place is everywhere the law will allow because I am always armed. When my pants go on my pistol does too.

When people say "you won't get away with it in my town", I assure I would and if I've had reason to be in your town, I already have. The only special step that I take is to avoid places that post no gun signs.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Popspastime said:


> Try to find me a video where the LE says hey you look great carrying that, or, sure you can do that here no problem.. please find me one.







It's not the only one either but it is one of the better ones.


----------



## fishincontrol (Jul 9, 2009)

Neo said:


> The course is a joke I could have slept through mine and still passed with 100%.


For people that handle firearms routinely this should be the case. I don't believe the class is designed to train special forces. It is there to provide people who have not grown up around or used to handling firearms the knowledge to keep them safe. I would much rather see someone take a class on firearm safety, as basic as it may be, rather then hand them a gun and say here ya go. Taking a class does not make them safe but takes away the I didn't know excuse when something does happen.


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

buckeye dan said:


> Best Open Carry stop EVER. Share with EVERY OFFICER YOU KNOW ! - YouTube
> 
> It's not the only one either but it is one of the better ones.



Great video!! I hadn't seen that one before and 1 worth sharing.....many of those black evil guns too 



fishincontrol said:


> For people that handle firearms routinely this should be the case. I don't believe the class is designed to train special forces. It is there to provide people who have not grown up around or used to handling firearms the knowledge to keep them safe. I would much rather see someone take a class on firearm safety, as basic as it may be, rather then hand them a gun and say here ya go. Taking a class does not make them safe but takes away the I didn't know excuse when something does happen.


education as to the law and where and how to conceal carry along with some gun safety ....there was a lady in my class that never shot a gun before and was scared to shoot the 22(and recoil)....now her husband was a darn fine shot


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Popspastime said:


> Now I'll bet anything that if it were a local LEO there might have been a problem due to how he felt about it and what the city "home rule" laws say.


I swear I am not singling you out or picking on you Popspastime. I am just addressing your comments individually as I find the time.

"Home rules" regarding firearms have been preempted by ORC 9.68 since 2007. It's also been challenged in the courts and the city of Cleveland failed miserably.

Here it is:


> 9.68 Right to bear arms - challenge to law.
> 
> (A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.
> 
> ...


So if your local municipalities still have conflicting laws on the books let me know and I'll pass it along to someone who will get the ball rolling to correct it. The same goes for non privately owned public parks with improper signage that prohibit firearms. They can't do that either.

It's not necessarily intentional on the part of the municipalities. It's just that they simply don't know, don't care or no one has ever challenged them. They still pop up even after all this time.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Dan, I'm with you 100%, I know all about our rights and the state laws. I agree with all of them. Putting that aside my problem like I stated earlier is that there are, lets call them activists, who provoke, incite, confrontational, baiters, disruptive, deceptive, etc. who demonstrate when it's not needed, and make all the gun owners of the USA look real bad. 
In almost every case that person has carried open to be NOTICED, and when illegally approached by our fellow police turned it into their own personal activist agenda. I'm all about open carry, a place of business (such as a gun shop) that has employees open carry is a good idea to DETOUR soft crime.

Why do we need to do this? What does it prove that isn't already in bold print? 

The start of this thread was about a no training issue being presented.


----------



## Dayfishman (Apr 6, 2015)

I certainly want the right to CC but I want to keep the certification requirement. It's not a fool proof system but, good grief, at least show some of these people not to look down the end of the barrel to see if it is loaded. Some of my friends that are getting certified probably ran while holding scissors as a kid!


----------



## Neo (Jun 29, 2013)

Yep all them PA CCW holder shooting themselves because they didn't have a safety class.


----------



## Misdirection (Jul 16, 2012)

Neo said:


> Yep all them PA CCW holder shooting themselves because they didn't have a safety class.


I haven't shot myself yet! PA CCW holder here. And I can temporarily come over to OH now!


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Yes, back on topic.

Ohio is not treading new ground. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming are all Constitutional carry states. PA does not require any training to CCW. Florida will issue you a CHL with a hunter ed course certificate. Virgina has an online application process. If I remember correctly Georgia and Maryland have no training requirements for a CHL.

On top of that, more than half the US allows open carry without a permit. 

So mandatory training requirements are to either A) Make someone else feel good about the idea of you carrying. OR
B) A poison pill to discourage you from doing it. OR
C) A way for .gov to maintain some level of control over the process. 
The answer in many cases is D) All of the above.

The end game in Ohio has always been Constitutional Carry and I both welcome and advocate for it. In Ohio you can strap a loaded gun on and go for a walk anywhere firearms are not prohibited. In order to enter a vehicle or place fabric over it to conceal it you need training. Pure and utter nonsense and there is plenty of data on record to validate that statement.


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

Here is a stupid question for the open carry folks, why do you carry a firearm?


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Saugernut said:


> Here is a stupid question for the open carry folks, why do you carry a firearm?


Oh.. now you went and did it..


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

Serious question, I am open minded and want to understand their pov whether I agree or not, doesnt make me right or them, just trying to understand.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Saugernut said:


> Here is a stupid question for the open carry folks, why do you carry a firearm?


That isn't a stupid question. Just sayin.

I carry a firearm for personal safety and self defense. It's also useful for my line of employment.


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

Thanks for the response, now I understand where you are coming from.
Anyone else?


----------



## 10fish (May 12, 2005)

I also carry if I have to go to one of my rentals in the wee hours of the night for a repair. Do I carry everyday nope, but there times and areas of town where better safe than sorry.


----------



## 10fish (May 12, 2005)

As too the proposed bill , although I will admit I have not read the proposal word for word I am in general against it, as least the concept as I understand it. I believe in our rights to carry safely and responsibly BUT I do not believe in the many idiots around us in being able to be safe and responsible.


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

I carry a firearm everyday for the same reasons as buckeye dan does, however I carry concealed. This is a personal choice, not requirement. I do not want anyone to know Im carrying a gun, this includes private citizens, LE or anyone who might want to do harm to me or my family. There is still something to be said for the element of surprise and I dont want to be the first one shot should I find myself unlucky enough to be in a place being robbed or be mistaken for the perp by responding LE. I try to always be aware of my surroundings and pay strict attention to people's actions. I would rather avoid a fight altogether if I see it coming. I also do not carry a firearm to get noticed or try to intimidate anyone. This will not work with a well determied, hardened criminal anyway. I have confidence in my myself, abilities and traning therfore I do not feel the need to display my gun for any reason. Of course this is only my opinion and Im sure it differs from others.


----------



## Flymaker (Jan 24, 2013)

I have mixed feelings on this . Granted its 2nd amendment and we should be allowed to carry without the license , but ok maybe they drop the class requirement . But I feel the background check and the actual permit should maybe remain as is . Again I said I had mixed feelings . I like the background check thing and actually having the permit ...this way if you are ever dealing with a LEO and he finds your gun or you report ..you still have a permit to product that constitutes the elaborate back check it takes to have the permit . I really don't feel we should do away with the permit . I honestly don't feel this will gain much ground but I don't know . I would rather see other changes like removing the retreat requirement ...not that I wouldn't retreat anyways if able to do so ...but just remove something a prosecutor could use against you. And I would also like more protection from civil liability if the shooting was ruled justified.....it shouldn't cost you everything you have to defend yourself ..if you are not at fault and honestly needed to use the weapon to defend yourself or family.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

For the admins and mods... I have permission to reprint articles from this source.

With that said, there is a message within this article that I believe is applicable here: 


> "Universal" Background Checks - A Call to Reason
> by Jeff Knox
> 3:00pm Thursday, April 09, 2015
> 
> ...


Source credit: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/universal-background-checks-call-reason


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

Great post buckeye dan, thanks for sharing.


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

The background checks led to only 13 people prosecuted but how many were deterred? How many felons would buy weapons if there were no background checks? Its true they can still buy weapons underground but thats hardcore criminals and their way of life not the masses the background checks block.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

ostbucks98 said:


> The background checks led to only 13 people prosecuted but how many were deterred? How many felons would buy weapons if there were no background checks? Its true they can still buy weapons underground but thats hardcore criminals and their way of life not the masses the background checks block.


There is no way to measure who was "deterred". But based on the numbers we can measure it makes the entire system a big suckhole for the tax payer's dollars and the criminals still get their guns. Or they use another weapon of some kind. All this is at the inconvenience of the law abiding citizen or as the article states, people who already lawfully own guns.

Take myself for an example. I get delayed every time I purchase a firearm because I have a common name. The computer flags me based on whatever criteria it doesn't like and a human must investigate it. Since this system was implemented I've never not been delayed. Not once. On the rare occasion that I actually get a response within the 72 hour period, the gun show has already left town. I usually don't even get a response. The time lapses and the dealer sells me the gun anyway. It's cost me some time sensitive deals too I'm here to tell you.

Another case and point. A former CHL student of mine took an interest in firearms. He purchased several successfully through licensed dealers. He too was delayed each time. The 72 hours came and went and the dealer released the firearms. He took my CHL class got the certificate and applied at the local Sheriff's office. His application was denied due to him pleading guilty to a non violent domestic violence in 1992. The Lautenberg amendment passed in 1997 and made all prior offenses retroactive disqualifications for firearms ownership.

The guy is a business owner, has a flawless record except for the one offense due to a crazy woman in his life for a very short period 23 years ago. Not even a traffic violation. Ohio will not allow him to expunge or seal that record based on the status of the current law regarding that type of offense. In Ohio if you have a DV it's there for life until you get a Governor's pardon.

So there is your background system. It's flagging people who shouldn't be flagged. It's passing people who are flagged but shouldn't be flagged to begin with and people who know they are flagged just obtain their weapons of choice by some other means. Total crap.

Here is a banner idea ostbucks98, lets throw a few more billion dollars at it and trust that will fix it and Government can manage it efficiently. I personally would like the entire system to be written off as a failed experiment and fire everyone who remains in office that was part of it.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

What I do know for sure is at all the indoor ranges I've visited and shot at I've seen holes thru the stall dividers, holes in the stall table, holes thru the protective column enclosures, skips off the floors and ceilings. Even saw a few holes in the masonry wall dividing the range and the store and these are the people you want to be able to carry without a certain amount proper operating and shooting instruction? Oh hell ya, just strap um on um and let um fly. 
Not to say the legal aspects also presented to you in the classes? So just sell um guns and ammo and turn them lose. makes sense to me now.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Popspastime said:


> What I do know for sure is at all the indoor ranges I've visited and shot at I've seen holes thru the stall dividers, holes in the stall table, holes thru the protective column enclosures, skips off the floors and ceilings. Even saw a few holes in the masonry wall dividing the range and the store and these are the people you want to be able to carry without a certain amount proper operating and shooting instruction? Oh hell ya, just strap um on um and let um fly.
> Not to say the legal aspects also presented to you in the classes? So just sell um guns and ammo and turn them lose. makes sense to me now.


@Popspastime. I assume you are addressing comments I made. I never said there is anything wrong with training. I do that in part for a living so...Just sayin!

What I have a problem with is mandatory training requirements for fabric and vehicles. It doesn't make sense. You buy a gun and ammo and go for a stroll, avoid firearm sensitive areas and don't threaten or brandish and you are good to go. You attempt the same behavior by entering a vehicle or placing fabric over your firearm and you are a criminal if you do not possess a piece of plastic with your picture on it that grants you permission to do so with X training requirements.

Post number #58 in this thread by me was by design intended to make you consider a different way of looking at it.

On the one hand, background checks are good and training is good. The solutions we were dealt by our legislators make perfect sense. 

On the other hand, education and normalization of the activity is probably the best path.

I'm an education and normalization kinda guy but within a free market, non .gov involved kind of atmosphere. If that makes sense?

I think that your poor marksmen would be better marksmen and more safety conscience if their life on the subject was not taboo or learned from Hollywood, TV and video games.


----------



## mck1975 (Jun 18, 2009)

Popspastime said:


> What I do know for sure is at all the indoor ranges I've visited and shot at I've seen holes thru the stall dividers, holes in the stall table, holes thru the protective column enclosures, skips off the floors and ceilings. Even saw a few holes in the masonry wall dividing the range and the store and these are the people you want to be able to carry without a certain amount proper operating and shooting instruction? Oh hell ya, just strap um on um and let um fly.
> Not to say the legal aspects also presented to you in the classes? So just sell um guns and ammo and turn them lose. makes sense to me now.


I'm with you on that. At least some sort of training should be mandatory. It's a hassel for those who have experience, but the big picture needs to be viewed.


----------



## Bonemann (Jan 28, 2008)

I got my CC as soon as it was possible to obtain (number 000047 in Jefferson County) Had to get my training in WV as no one around me had started classes yet. Then got my nonresident from PA (had to go out to Centre County as no Sheriffs close would issue one).

By doing this I am legal to CC in all the states I ever visit or work in. PA, WV,VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, KY, MI, and IN. ( PA gave me GA )

What would happen if Ohio does away with CCW ? ( I won't be able to get a nonresident permit from PA anymore.) Will I be recognized in any other state that I am legal in now ? Will I be able to drive from my home to my favorite place in FL legally with my loaded gun ?

Maybe I am one of those me, me, me people ? I'm worried about how this could affect me.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Bonemann, I'm going to guess that if this ridicules proposal passes (lets say) the reprosity states will probably not honor ours with little or no training. This is the reason for all the different states now, some have less training to qualify so Ohio has more and won't honor that state and visa versa. Interesting thought tho.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

The way it works for all the other states is the training requirements remain intact and the licensing process remains the same. If you want to travel outside of Ohio reciprocity remains intact for all who hold a valid state issued license.

One thing that changes with this bill is you no longer need a license to conceal carry here.

Here is the bill:
http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_131/bills/hb147/IN?format=pdf


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...n-control-study-background-checks-really-work


Thoughts?


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

ostbucks98 said:


> http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...n-control-study-background-checks-really-work
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


Anti's running bogus numbers. There are enough restrictions and laws on the books already that are not exercised. They need to lobby against the useless law makers to get tuff on the ones breaking the laws now. 
A felon gets caught and he gets a hand slap, a murder gets life witch includes 3 meals a day, TV, basketball, exercise gym, computer access, heated, cooled, clean, etc. I call it a vacation in better then their life out, and we pay for it. 
Just a bunch of pukes with nothing to do trying to make our life's harder.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

ostbucks98 said:


> http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...n-control-study-background-checks-really-work
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


Well, you have to pay to view the actual study first of all. I am not willing to buy it so I only have the abstract and third party reporting summaries. With that said, here goes...

I checked several sources with summaries about the study and the absract which thankfully includes the sources for the research data. The percentages are misleading because of Missouri's already low firearm homicide rate.

The sources either can't do math or are misinterpreting data from the study because they have quoted 14% to 25%. The one thing that remains constant is what the value of that percentage is, 55-63 homicides.

These studies almost always include every homicide committed with a firearm. That means that it is possible they used suicide, justified civilian self defense shoots and even law enforcement shoots.

The one article does make mention of the fact that Missouri enacted "stand your ground" in 2007 and that the study wasn't perfect.

You have to understand the well intentions of the researchers that do these studies. They place value on the life of a scumbag rapist killed by a single mom defending herself.

The data sources quoted do not differentiate those details. A homicide is a homicide even if it was a police officer thwarting an armed robbery and killing the bad guy. Or even if the police officer accidentally shot an innocent bystander in an attempt to thwart the same armed robbery. 

So with all that said, 55-63 homicides in a state the size of Missouri doesn't surprise me at all. It might be slightly more impressive if they collected the details of each homicide and described the conditions in which the homicide occurred but that would wreck their agenda which is to shock and scare people with percentages and loaded conclusions.

Wait for the John Lott rebuttal to the study where his research team will tell you who was killed and why they were killed. If he even bothers with it. Then understand I have no remorse for scumbags, thieves, rapists, violent repeat offenders and people who commit suicide with firearms and give them a bad name. Such as the authors of these studies frequently do.


----------



## Neo (Jun 29, 2013)

I find it interesting in the wake of everything that has happened Ferguson they would use Missouri as an example. Here's a site that show the actual numbers really can't say how they came up with that figure but it's must be coincidence that if you take the number from 2008 and 2010 and average them you come up with a with a difference 53 from 2007. You know lets just forget about all those other years in between that don't fit the agenda.

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


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

New Hampshire, West Virginia and Maine are poised to enact permitless concealed carry.

New Hampshire and West Virginia bills have both passed their Senate and have gone to the Houses. Maine's bill failed in the 2014 session by one vote but recent elections have caused a change in the political climate and it's expected to pass this time. Maine's bill was just reintroduced about a week ago.

Colorado Senate passed permitless carry about 2 weeks ago but it's not expected to survive the democratic-led house.

Idaho, Utah, Indiana and South Dakota all have bills that are either idling, tabled or have been vetoed.

So to put it into perspective Ohio is just one of many states making an attempt at permitless carry. All who would join the 6 existing states that allow it. 

What I find interesting is the fact that in the history of Vermont being a state it has never required a permit to conceal carry. Over 200 years of data we just ignore. Education and normalization served them well. Societal solutions work wonders when .gov stays out of the way.


----------



## Nate In Parma Hts (Jul 4, 2014)

Haven't read the entire thread yet.. 

A while back Ohio passed Preemption where Carry is concerned. Not sure of the exact HB it was in, or where it is in the law now. However it states that all Ohio carry laws preempt any County/City/Town's laws. This was introduced due to Cities severely limiting places where people could carry with their own wacky overbearing Ordinances. 

Obviously the places with the worst restrictions were places where the politicians with D after their names ruled the roost. And they screamed the loudest to try and keep it from passing. But it passed. If it's legal in Ohio Law, it's legal everywhere in Ohio. 

Anyone legal to own a firearm can open carry it anywhere they wish, regardless of having a CHL or not. And having a CHL doesn't revoke your right to open carry, it just gives you the ability to conceal a handgun. 

Not going to get involved in the CC vs OC debate. In a perfect world we would be able to OC and Soccer Moms wouldn't go into uncontrollable fits and call 911. I OC places where I know people aren't going to flip out. Anywhere else, I CC not because I have to. But because I just don't want the hassle of having the police called, and having to deal with an officer who might be less than thrilled that "common folks" are carrying, no matter how legal it is, and start cooking up charges of insighting this and that and the other. 

As far as the original topic of the thread... I'm torn. 

Is it right to require that we sit in a class for X amount of hours, and shoot some paper to carry? Not really. 

The class teaches safety and common sense. Something A LOT of people are lacking these days. If they can come up with a "Common Sense Test" to administer at the time of application to weed out the perpetually stupid, I'd be all for that. But stupid people have a right to defend themselves too.


----------

