# Constitutional carry ohio



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...ill-to-allow-concealed-handguns-without-a?amp

I like it. Its good to carry a gun. But not many will carry because its a hassle. Never know what will happen with the economy. Police can get cut quickly and its up to the citizen to protect themselves.


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

So you like letting people off the hook for carrying a weapon unlawfully? 
Nope, not a fan of how that is written at all.


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

If it passes theres no reason to hold people for prior convictions of conceal carrying with out a permit. If its determined the government was breaking the law then the people who were conceal carrying were in the right and dont deserve those counts against them.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

bobk said:


> So you like letting people off the hook for carrying a weapon unlawfully?
> Nope, not a fan of how that is written at all.


Have you ever sped in your car, or had an open beer while driving? Have you ever smoked weed, or beat someone’s ass at a bar, {which is assault}? Are you a spotless citizen? If their only crime was having a weapon on their person or their vehicle without a CCW, and they had committed no other crime involving that piece, you are opposed to “letting them off the hook” if the State now deems that a CCW should not be a requirement? Seems a bit petty of anyone to hold that stance as reason to oppose a law like this.

Let me add this is not a personal attack on you, I don’t know you, it is a response to the reasoning behind your position that I’m sure is shared by many others.


----------



## $diesel$ (Aug 3, 2018)

I believe it is way over due. I've had a concealed carry for many years. One must renew the license every five years including a fee. The Second Amendment allows one to carry a weapon for protection any where they choose.
Not singling you out either, bob, i'm just happy to see some states doing it the constitutional way.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Just me, but a weapons violation is a little more serious to me than a speeding ticket.


----------



## joebertin (Mar 26, 2010)

bobk said:


> So you like letting people off the hook for carrying a weapon unlawfully?
> Nope, not a fan of how that is written at all.


"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Our founding fathers were not afraid to confront "Human Nature", the most dangerous 
and existential threat to mankind.

It's pretty obvious that "laws" do not stop crime. 

The threat of immediate and lethal repercussions will curtail some crime. 

I stand with the wisdom of our founding fathers.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

If it passes it will be more dangerous for law enforcement.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Snakecharmer said:


> Just me, but a weapons violation is a little more serious to me than a speeding ticket.


A weapons violation in the sense that all the individual did was have a weapon. Any other infraction that involved a weapon certainly would not be excused by this bill. I have a friend that was pulled over while moving from one residence to another, because the officer said he look suspicious with his vehicle so full, and amongst the items he was moving was a handgun that was in a box with other personal items buried deep in his back seat. He was cited carrying a concealed handgun without a permit and it was a HUGE problem for him before it was all over. This is an example of the kind of infractions that would be excused.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

joebertin said:


> "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Our founding fathers were not afraid to confront "Human Nature", the most dangerous
> and existential threat to mankind.
> ...


So you believe felons should have guns so their rights aren't infringed? I doubt if our founding fathers meant that....


----------



## STRONGPERSUADER (Nov 5, 2006)

That’s not what the bill says. Convicted felons aren’t allowed to even own a gun. That’s a law. And more dangerous for the police how? I thought about it and I would have to rule with our constitution. A lot of people have died for that piece of paper.


----------



## joebertin (Mar 26, 2010)

Snake, the point I'm trying to make is that the felons will have weapons anyway. By definition they are "unlawful".

What are you going to accomplish by disarming "lawful" citizens?

Think about the "reality" of the situation, not the legislative "intention"... which is
illusory.

Prohibition was probably the greatest example of legislative failure.


----------



## EnonEye (Apr 13, 2011)

OKAY let's see... allow anyone who has a gun to walk out of the house with it, concealed or open carry, anytime they want... what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## STRONGPERSUADER (Nov 5, 2006)

EnonEye said:


> OKAY let's see... allow anyone who has a gun to walk out of the house with it, concealed or open carry, anytime they want... what could possibly go wrong?


Do you have a carry license? I assume you do so your obviously not a convicted felon. So what makes you any better than any other non-felon?


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Yep , many of the bad guys are already carrying. They don't obey the law anyway right ? Restrictions on carrying a firearm only affect what law abiding citizens do , it causes them to have to pay in order to exercise a constitutional right. Constitutional carry gives us back what was ours all along. Its not like criminals have been waiting for constitutional carry so they can carry a gun......they ignore the law anyway. This wont be any less safe. Some of us have unfortunately bought into the anti gun logic that gun control is a good and necessary thing. Making it easier for the good guys to carry don't help the bad guys , if anything it helps keep them in check.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

EnonEye said:


> OKAY let's see... allow anyone who has a gun to walk out of the house with it, concealed or open carry, anytime they want... what could possibly go wrong?



Nothing that isn't already going wrong. For the most part anyone who has a gun can already walk out of the house with it. Open carry is legal , and the concealed law does nothing to stop anyone from concealing , it only penalizes some after the fact. " IF" they get caught , which is hard to do if concealed.

A huge percentage of the unlawful shootings are done by felons , or others not supposed to carry according to the law....who still somehow walk around with a gun.

How will the change in the law make anything worse ?


----------



## bbsoup (Apr 3, 2008)

I love this site. I go here every day. First thing, before I look at anything else. I love my fellow fishermen, and respect all their opinions. Nothing against anybody. That said......"In before the lock!"...........which is a sad indictment of OGF. I know we should be able to separate our pastime from all the BS of life, but some things are just too important to ignore. Don't tread on me.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

joebertin said:


> Snake, the point I'm trying to make is that the felons will have weapons anyway. By definition they are "unlawful".
> 
> What are you going to accomplish by disarming "lawful" citizens?
> 
> ...


Some would argue that felons should be allowed to have guns so that their rights to bear arms aren't infringed. I don't agree but...


----------



## EnonEye (Apr 13, 2011)

FOP oppose the bill... I'll stand with them


----------



## bbsoup (Apr 3, 2008)

BTW, that means I agree with yonderf. You see, I believe that the founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they say "shall not be infringed". So, if the right "shall not be infringed", who gave the right in the first place? Not the founding fathers, they are saying the right already existed at the time they wrote that. So who gave that right? The British? Certainly not. Then who? The right was given by whoever makes all laws on what is right and wrong. It just is. It exists by any measure of humanity. I am a Christian (OM that is going to get flagged by a bot), so you know who I believe gave that right. But nonetheless, the fathers knew the right existed naturally. And they wrote it into law. For our country. Anything that infringes on our ability to defend ourselves against threats of violence, whether it be from criminals or arms of government (bot flag), is against the laws of the universe. End of story.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

EnonEye said:


> FOP oppose the bill... I'll stand with them


The FOP is a union and when they speak it is the leadership that speaks, not the rank and file. There are a dozen or so states that currently allow Constitutional Carry and the wheels have not fell off of their peaceful carts. In fact try to find any statistics in these states of crimes committed by legal concealed carry folks and you won’t find anything because they just about don’t exist. Those that should not have guns already carry guns whenever they want, they ignore gun laws and all other laws for that matter. Like said earlier, CCW laws only restrict gun possession to the folks that obey our laws.


----------



## STRONGPERSUADER (Nov 5, 2006)

I must be missing something here.. are some of you guys that PAID for your carry license just pissed off because you had to pay and now other non-felon citizens like yourselves might not have to pay? It’s like you were all for concealed carry and now you’re not because that’s the only difference. You would rather have other fellow non-felon citizen’s rights revoked? The only difference is we won’t have to pay anymore. That and apparently you won’t have to disclose it to law inforcement which I never understood why we needed to in the first place. I didn’t mind paying for mine but I hope people won’t have to moving forward. Leave “felon” out of the equation because they aren’t even allowed to be around guns if this law passes or not. That’s the law no matter how you try to hypothetically twist it. If your a non-felon, law abiding citizen you should be able to conceal or open carry, license or no license. This bill is more about your rights than anything else which is a good thing.


----------



## Crappieking08 (Feb 4, 2019)

maybe u should walk behind the badge before u assume things sir.. even though u and I are law abiding citizens seing a loaded weapon in a car with out knowing or knowing still is unsteady.. even though a person is a law abiding citizen people still do some stupid things sometimes


----------



## STRONGPERSUADER (Nov 5, 2006)

If it’s concealed... never mind, you wouldn’t get it. I’m not assuming anything. Nor do I need or want to walk behind a badge to understand the possible repercussions of carrying. That gun is for my safety not his.. I’ve been pulled over for speeding. Disclosed I had a concealed loaded carry weapon in the car but not on my person. He told me he appreciated letting him know. Gave me a speeding ticket and that was it. I had no problem with telling him. Why? Because as of now it’s the law.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Regardless of needing a ccw permit or not I still think it should be required to immediately announce the presence of a firearm to law enforcement at a traffic stop. This not only lets the LEO know how to proceed and helps to avoid some potential surprises but it also contributes to a safer experience for the driver. Mistakes can be made but good communication helps to avoid mistakes and misunderstanding. This is the part of the law I hope would remain in place. We may be law abiding citizens and the officer may be the best trained and most honorable person on the force , but we both want to return home to our family. I don't want to be misunderstood and become a statistic due to lack of communication so you better believe my hands are going to be on the steering wheel and the first words out of my mouth will always be that I am legally carrying and there is a firearm in the car.


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

The car is the biggest impediment for conceal and open carry. Cant open carry in a car. If you got 4 guys in the car with heat the police are at a disadvantage. Its a problem for the police. Being a police is a dangerous job. But you sign up for it. The cops that reach for their guns just because they saw a gun being open carried or are scared and cant control their emotions are a problem.


----------



## STRONGPERSUADER (Nov 5, 2006)

hailtothethief said:


> The car is the biggest impediment for conceal and open carry. Cant open carry in a car. If you got 4 guys in the car with heat the police are at a disadvantage. Its a problem for the police. Being a police is a dangerous job. But you sign up for it. The cops that reach for their guns just because they saw a gun being open carried or are scared and cant control their emotions are a problem.


As of now, He will know that at least the driver is a licensed carry or not before they even approach the vehicle. As for the others I guess it would be tricky. I would think they do or should assume everyone carries in Ohio and should treat it as such since it’s legal to. But I have no idea. If I were a passenger I would disclose open or concealed for sure. For my safety, his and the passengers. The proposed law is about basically wheather or not law abiding citizens will have to pay a fee and put into a databank to carry. That’s all it is. No hidden agenda against law enforcement, it’s just constitution. There will be stipulations if this bill is passed. As they should be for obvious safety reasons. I just don’t understand why some ccw people have an issue with it.


----------



## doegirl (Feb 24, 2005)

Snakecharmer said:


> So you believe felons should have guns so their rights aren't infringed? I doubt if our founding fathers meant that....


The prohibition of felons owning a gun was something the NRA dreamt up and pushed for in the 60's...
My take, felons pay their debt to society by time served and being rehabilitated into fully functioning members of society.
To continue to disenfranchise felons by not allowing them to vote, own guns, or have decent jobs is a recipe for recidivism. 
And as for our Founding Fathers, if they were around today they would be regarded as dangerous terrorists. They killed people over taxes and had no problems giving British loyalists dirt naps. 
Disability whether it be prohibited from voting or owning guns is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes the herd feel.


----------



## $diesel$ (Aug 3, 2018)

First off, i have no problem with the fee. The main reason i carry is self protection. The other reason is because of people who think the founding fathers were terrorists, people who hate the NRA because they are the largest impediment to to confiscation. What are you doing to fear common citizens with a gun?
Lets just hope you "anti's" are near some legal gun owners, rather than armed ex-cons, when the SHTF.


----------



## jamesbalog (Jul 6, 2011)

only reason id be upset over this is if it screws up the CHL acts as background check when buying a gun law. Id hate to go back to NICS delaying me 80% of the time.

As mentioned above I believe announcing the presence of a firearm to police officers should be mandatory even if this passes.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

[QUOTE="jamesbalog, post: 2636997, member: 28870. As mentioned above I believe announcing the presence of a firearm to police officers should be mandatory even if this passes.[/QUOTE]

Agree 100%, not sure why this would be an issue with anyone and I wonder what the reason it is being considered as a dropped requirement in this bill.


----------



## OptOutside440 (Feb 3, 2019)

With this Stand your Ground law passed, I have a question regarding a situation that I had asked a friend last summer. I know we had the Kingdom law where if a intruder comes into your house that you have the right to shoot them, but my question to him last summer was if let's say you hear something in one of outbuildings/barns etc. in the night and go out to investigate and while out there you're faced with an intruder and I had asked if I could shoot them and I was told no. With the new stand your ground law one would be able to shoot the intruder outside of the house as well?


----------



## Crappieking08 (Feb 4, 2019)

Dead man can’t talk


----------



## Muddy (May 7, 2017)

doegirl said:


> The prohibition of felons owning a gun was something the NRA dreamt up and pushed for in the 60's...
> My take, felons pay their debt to society by time served and being rehabilitated into fully functioning members of society.
> To continue to disenfranchise felons by not allowing them to vote, own guns, or have decent jobs is a recipe for recidivism.
> And as for our Founding Fathers, if they were around today they would be regarded as dangerous terrorists. They killed people over taxes and had no problems giving British loyalists dirt naps.
> Disability whether it be prohibited from voting or owning guns is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes the herd feel.


Felons need to pay the consequences for their actions. By your reasoning we might as well allow sex offenders to live next to elementary schools.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Muddy said:


> Felons need to pay the consequences for their actions. By your reasoning we might as well allow sex offenders to live next to elementary schools.


Harsh example, but not a bad one and makes a very clear point. I believe that no one would be for violent felons, or those that used a firearm for their crime, to be allowed to later possess guns, the same as they would not support sex offenders near schools. There are several felonies that involve no violence whatsoever and I tend to agree with doegirl that not all felons need a lifetime of punishment and may be deemed rehabilitated after their time served. I feel that the rights provided to us by the 2nd Amendment are too often looked at as a privilege that come with conditions and our Constitution was not a declaration of conditional rights.


----------



## Shad Rap (Nov 10, 2010)

OptOutside440 said:


> With this Stand your Ground law passed, I have a question regarding a situation that I had asked a friend last summer. I know we had the Kingdom law where if a intruder comes into your house that you have the right to shoot them, but my question to him last summer was if let's say you hear something in one of outbuildings/barns etc. in the night and go out to investigate and while out there you're faced with an intruder and I had asked if I could shoot them and I was told no. With the new stand your ground law one would be able to shoot the intruder outside of the house as well?


If you felt your life was in immediate danger, yes...


----------



## Shad Rap (Nov 10, 2010)

doegirl said:


> The prohibition of felons owning a gun was something the NRA dreamt up and pushed for in the 60's...
> My take, felons pay their debt to society by time served and being rehabilitated into fully functioning members of society.
> To continue to disenfranchise felons by not allowing them to vote, own guns, or have decent jobs is a recipe for recidivism.
> And as for our Founding Fathers, if they were around today they would be regarded as dangerous terrorists. They killed people over taxes and had no problems giving British loyalists dirt naps.
> Disability whether it be prohibited from voting or owning guns is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes the herd feel.


Wish there was a big DISLIKE for this post.


----------



## STRONGPERSUADER (Nov 5, 2006)

Look, as law abiding citizens we have the right to be free of and defending of, clear and present danger. That’s what the ccw law is about along with the government controlling it. I don’t want to shoot or kill someone because they are on my property or in my barn. The same if my or mine lives are threatened out in public. But I will be armed in that situation just in case I need to. Now entering my home is a different situation. Whether I have a card or not I should be able to carry as a law abiding citizen. There are good people out there that deserve to be able to defend themselves also. Get over yourselves. Us that have a license aren’t privileged or better than any other law abiding citizen. A convicted felon should not. They gave up those rights when they infringed on someone else’s rights and they knew that.


----------



## loweman165 (May 15, 2015)

Kentucky and Oklahoma will be constitution carry states starting in a couple months. Sign of the times I imagine. 
Remember the conversations when Ohio among other states were pushing to allow concealed carry with permit? All we heard is how it would turn the streets into "the wild west". Didn't happen then. 
I guess the best thing to do is follow states that allow it and see what happens. 
My .02 cents.


----------



## doegirl (Feb 24, 2005)

Muddy said:


> Felons need to pay the consequences for their actions. By your reasoning we might as well allow sex offenders to live next to elementary schools.


And how exactly, has that prevented children from being harmed? I'm going to hazard a guess it's about as effective as those no weapon signs are at preventing school shootings. As in not at all. 
Either a person can be a fully functioning member of society or they cannot. Pedophiles for the most part can only be rehabilitated with a dose of sodium pentothal. We're just too spineless as a society to permit what needs to done.


----------



## fedora4me (May 31, 2014)

Spot on doegirl.
I see that many here are just ignorant of where this country was before the 60's. Our founders were felons. Enemies of the crown and had a price on their heads. Pretty sure they got it right when they wrote the constitution and as they did. It took over 200 years for the people today to mess it up. And look where we are today. I am of the opinion that anyone who agrees with anything that has been done in opposition to the constitution is suspect.

Many here are suspect by their own admission of the want to have this society separated into slots and discrimination to rein over certain segments of society while at the same time, complaining when they are the ones being singled out and ridiculed in some other manner.

The idea that some nobody on a hunting site has any idea of what is right or wrong is ludicrous to begin with. No deep thinker ever spent time on a website, going toe to toe with someone else who has nothing better to do than argue what they believe is right.

I see people arguing to regulate this and deregulate that. Shut this kind of person down and build that person up. How stupid!
Does anyone not see that by requiring a person to conform to a new law that has never existed before in a free nation, you are demanding that freedom be taken from that nation and it's people? It is just breathtaking to see the lack of depth that people posses and still believe their opinions should matter.

Just unbelievable.


----------



## Shad Rap (Nov 10, 2010)

fedora4me said:


> Spot on doegirl.
> I see that many here are just ignorant of where this country was before the 60's. Our founders were felons. Enemies of the crown and had a price on their heads. Pretty sure they got it right when they wrote the constitution and as they did. It took over 200 years for the people today to mess it up. And look where we are today. I am of the opinion that anyone who agrees with anything that has been done in opposition to the constitution is suspect.
> 
> Many here are suspect by their own admission of the want to have this society separated into slots and discrimination to rein over certain segments of society while at the same time, complaining when they are the ones being singled out and ridiculed in some other manner.
> ...


That's the great thing about all of this...your opinion matters as much as the next guys...people have strong beliefs as to why they've formed their opinion...doesn't mean they're idiots, as some in this thread have said or suggested...


----------



## Shad Rap (Nov 10, 2010)

doegirl said:


> And how exactly, has that prevented children from being harmed? I'm going to hazard a guess it's about as effective as those no weapon signs are at preventing school shootings. As in not at all.
> Either a person can be a fully functioning member of society or they cannot. Pedophiles for the most part can only be rehabilitated with a dose of sodium pentothal. We're just too spineless as a society to permit what needs to done.


I bet the re-offense rate of felons once they are released is actually pretty high...as a matter of fact I know it is...they are far from rehabilitated from one offense, let alone two...


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

The right to carry or even own a gun is not a right taken from felons it is a right given up by felons. A strong case can be made that they knew the consequences beforehand and did the crime anyway. That is a willing surrender of one or more rights and if they werent aware of it the law maintains that ignorance is no excuse.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

To think that the original constitution was void of major flaws is naive. There are 27 amendments to my knowledge. As an example - it originally recognized only white men as being created equal and granted full rights as described. And it took about 200 years to give women and people of color to even have a fair right to vote. If we open our eyes, we can see that time reveals the weaknesses that it has and the need for change. Better to move forward rather than backward.


----------



## Jtom (Apr 6, 2007)

Some interesting perspectives here, appreciate those who offer something more than just a knee jerk statement.

I am a CCW holder and am on the fence concerning allowing all citizens to carry concealed without some type of training. Several examples of what concerns me:

not all people have the temperament or judgement to carry a gun. This statement is going to ruffle some feathers..but its true. One of the takeaways from the CCW training is "choose wisely whether you have the temperament and good judgement to carry - it's a major responsibility". Any Tom, Dick or Jane can carry a gun, but knowing when to put that gun into action takes some thinking.
Knowing how to shoot accurately in a stressful situation. 
Realization that it is better to avoid putting yourself in a situation (if you can) where a gun is needed is a whole better than bravado.
Understanding that major legal trouble begins after you have pulled your firearm and sent one down range, especially if someone dies. 
When I took my class, 9 yrs back, of the 12 students, 4 failed the stressful shooting component.
Bottom line, the older and grayer I get the more I realize how certain segments of our population seriously lack engagement of the cerebral function, and I'm not sure how best to treat them while maintaining the integrity of one of the finest documents ever produced. Our forefathers had incredible wisdom.


----------



## Doboy (Oct 13, 2008)

Well, after reading 3 pages, I figured I'd search for some 'stats',, from somewhere!

AND, I realize that MOST 'stats' are only as good,,, as who has written them!?
Here goes,,, in General, a Google search;
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=stand+your+ground+law+statistics

Then I spied & read this one; 'Florida',,,, *
(note the 'FACT' SHEETS at the end. VERY INTERESTING stuff?)
https://everytownresearch.org/fact-sheet-stand-your-ground/*


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

TheKing said:


> To think that the original constitution was void of major flaws is naive. There are 27 amendments to my knowledge. As an example - it originally recognized only white men as being created equal and granted full rights as described. And it took about 200 years to give women and people of color to even have a fair right to vote. If we open our eyes, we can see that time reveals the weaknesses that it has and the need for change. Better to move forward rather than backward.



It could be said that the constitution hasn't changed at all , the amendments only more clearly define its intention and purpose. To my knowledge nothing has been removed from it. That makes it a relatively flawless document from the start , just an incomplete one.


----------



## Doboy (Oct 13, 2008)

FWIW,,,, lol,,, you guys gave me a Flash-back!

I was stopped 3 different times,,,,, City, Sheriff, & State. (just for the fun of it! ;>)
I immediately proclaimed my CC each time,,,, as directed. 

The City cop said, "I don't care,,, I assume EVERYBODY has one!" (smart huh?)
The State cop asked, "Where is it, & is it loaded?" (???????? no comment)
The Sheriff said, "SO WHAT,,,, Why did you tell me that!???"

The Sheriff THOUGH IT WAS A THREAT! :<(


----------



## mike oehme (Aug 17, 2014)

Ok here's my 2 cents worth. I believe that that the gun control measures on the books need to be enforced and no new ones added, with that said, I believe that paying a fee every 5 years to carry concealed is good. I am a responsible gun owner. My guns are locked in my safe and only taken out when I go hunting, to the range to practice what I have been taught, and when I carry concealed. If the laws that are on the books now are in forced, we would not need any bans or more gun control laws. I have had my carry license for a while now, and I think It's a good idea. If it is not used, then anyone will be able to carry and when cops pull over a driver they will not know if he/she may be carrying concealed. If you are a responsible gun owner and user, then paying for the privilege to carry should not be an issue. Would you want an airline pilot flying you around and not have the proper training?, or a doctor to preform surgery on you with no schooling? There are a lot of people out there that shouldn't own a gun period! If you ever been to a gun show, you will see them there. The CCW permit makes sure that people that that take the class have basic knowledge in the use of a hand gun. Our forefathers did not have the types of hand guns we do today, they had one shot black powder muskets and pistols witch were used mostly for hunting and protection. they did not have AK 47's and AR 15's or pistols that have a mag capacity of 17 or 18 rounds and 1 in the pipe. Times are different now then back then. People smoke weed, drink and do drugs and that mixed with firearms is not good. I feel that like the responsible gun owners, just like the responsible sportsman who pays fee's for a license to hunt, fish, or trap should not mind paying for a CCW permit. Constitutional carry was way different when our founding fathers wrote it into law back in the day then what it means for gun owners of today.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

mike oehme said:


> Our forefathers did not have the types of hand guns we do today, they had one shot black powder muskets and pistols witch were used mostly for hunting and protection. they did not have AK 47's and AR 15's or pistols that have a mag capacity of 17 or 18 rounds and 1 in the pipe. Times are different now then back then. Constitutional carry was way different when our founding fathers wrote it into law back in the day then what it means for gun owners of today.


First off, I don’t believe that the cost of the CCW is a prohibitive reason for much of anyone and to equate 8 hours of firearm training to an airline pilots training is foolish, come on now. As for the portion of your position that I have copied above, this is EXACTLY the same argument that I see every time that the anti gun crowd try to remove our rights to “black rifles and military style guns” or anything semiautomatic. The very simple logic that your argument lacks is that when our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, giving us the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, the general population carried exactly the same arms as The US Military at the time, exactly. It was not even unusual to see a cannon parked in the yard of a large family farm or plantation. The Government never established any restrictions on the type of weaponry the populas could possess and carry, none. It was their intent that the citizenry be amply armed to offer an insurgance against our government if it deemed necessary. You are right, times have changed and the Constitution was written to protect us thru the times and not to allow our government to slowly pull away from the citizenry and eliminate our ability to react.

I appreciate your position on this issue but I respectfully disagree with a good portion of it. We should not be subject to the individual scrutiny that the CCW laws expose us to, and it should not be the arbitrary decision of the local sheriff if you are to be so ‘entitled’ to a carry license after you have completed the mandated course. Our Constitution is not a conditional declaration, the Second Ammendment was not a right that was subject government mandated conditions nor was a fee table established for those that wish to enjoy it. This, instead, is exactly what it was established to prohibit.


----------



## Crappieking08 (Feb 4, 2019)

Maybe we should put the second amendment on here so people can read it and understand what it says.. yes we as law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms.. but is so much more to it than I think some people know or understand.. just like everything else before people try to discuss or argue about anything make you you know what your talking about then express your opinions imo..


----------



## ducknut141 (Apr 26, 2017)

In this lengthy thread only one post I have seen got it correct for Ohio. It's a Concealed Handgun Licence NOT a Concealed Weapons Permit. If you you don't know the difference you should not be carrying a gun anyway. This is nothing but a political argument that has gone on allot longer than I thought the moderators would allow. The second amendment gives the honest citizen the ability to carry a weapon. My opinion training should be MANDATORY and a permit needed. Remember the criminal has more rights in the US than the honest citizen.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

[QUOTE="mike oehme, post: 2637521, .............. If it is not used, then anyone will be able to carry and when cops pull over a driver they will not know if he/she may be carrying concealed. ............................................. Our forefathers did not have the types of hand guns we do today, they had one shot black powder muskets and pistols witch were used mostly for hunting and protection. they did not have AK 47's and AR 15's or pistols that have a mag capacity of 17 or 18 rounds and 1 in the pipe. Times are different now then back then. ............................. Constitutional carry was way different when our founding fathers wrote it into law back in the day then what it means for gun owners of today.[/QUOTE]


1.) Everyone with hands is already able to carry , do you think the bad guys care what the law says ? The law don't actually stop anyone from carrying , it only provides penalties for anyone who does it illegally " IF " they get caught. When cops pull over a driver they will NEVER know if he/she may be carrying , laws and permits do nothing to stop that fact. At some point people need to stop assuming outlaws obey laws. Laws are for keeping good people from making bad decisions , not to place restrictions on people who ignore the law anyway.

2.) Our forefathers carried the AK47's and AR 15's and high capacity handguns of their day , exactly what the army had and in some cases maybe even better. Citizens not being hopelessly outgunned , then or now......was exactly the point of amendment 2. Constitutional carry is no different from when they wrote it back in the day. If it is, then they wrote something not worth wasting paper and ink on.


----------



## CFIden (Oct 9, 2014)

mike oehme said:


> Ok here's my 2 cents worth. I believe that that the gun control measures on the books need to be enforced and no new ones added, with that said, I believe that paying a fee every 5 years to carry concealed is good. I am a responsible gun owner. My guns are locked in my safe and only taken out when I go hunting, to the range to practice what I have been taught, and when I carry concealed. If the laws that are on the books now are in forced, we would not need any bans or more gun control laws. I have had my carry license for a while now, and I think It's a good idea. If it is not used, then anyone will be able to carry and when cops pull over a driver they will not know if he/she may be carrying concealed. If you are a responsible gun owner and user, then paying for the privilege to carry should not be an issue. Would you want an airline pilot flying you around and not have the proper training?, or a doctor to preform surgery on you with no schooling? There are a lot of people out there that shouldn't own a gun period! If you ever been to a gun show, you will see them there. The CCW permit makes sure that people that that take the class have basic knowledge in the use of a hand gun. Our forefathers did not have the types of hand guns we do today, they had one shot black powder muskets and pistols witch were used mostly for hunting and protection. they did not have AK 47's and AR 15's or pistols that have a mag capacity of 17 or 18 rounds and 1 in the pipe. Times are different now then back then. People smoke weed, drink and do drugs and that mixed with firearms is not good. I feel that like the responsible gun owners, just like the responsible sportsman who pays fee's for a license to hunt, fish, or trap should not mind paying for a CCW permit. Constitutional carry was way different when our founding fathers wrote it into law back in the day then what it means for gun owners of today.


----------



## CFIden (Oct 9, 2014)

People did smoke weed and drink and do drugs then. Otherwise I understand and agree.


----------



## Farmhand (Jul 11, 2011)

OptOutside440 said:


> With this Stand your Ground law passed, I have a question regarding a situation that I had asked a friend last summer. I know we had the Kingdom law where if a intruder comes into your house that you have the right to shoot them, but my question to him last summer was if let's say you hear something in one of outbuildings/barns etc. in the night and go out to investigate and while out there you're faced with an intruder and I had asked if I could shoot them and I was told no. With the new stand your ground law one would be able to shoot the intruder outside of the house as well?


Don’t get confused about stand your ground. It’s not so cut and dry. And you can absolutley not shoot someone you hear in an outbuilding. The same laws for use of lethal force still apply. If you shoot a girl scout that walks into your house accidentally your going to prison. You can’t hunt people under any circumstance


----------



## Farmhand (Jul 11, 2011)

Jtom said:


> Some interesting perspectives here, appreciate those who offer something more than just a knee jerk statement.
> 
> I am a CCW holder and am on the fence concerning allowing all citizens to carry concealed without some type of training. Several examples of what concerns me:
> 
> ...


Where did you take a Ccw test that required a stressful component test? I got mine 3 days after you could get it in 2004 I believe and there was no such training involved. I have a close friend that teaches the classes now and there is no such component involved


----------



## Jtom (Apr 6, 2007)

"Where did you take a Ccw test that required a stressful component test? I got mine 3 days after you could get it in 2004 I believe and there was no such training involved. I have a close friend that teaches the classes now and there is no such component involved"

I took it in Austintown. My wife took one earlier than me from a range outside Boardman. Her instructors merely required shooting at a target 20 times. A woman in her class shot the ceiling doing the double tap...and passed!

My instructors provided the handguns and ammo. You started off using Ruger 22 semi autos shooting the bulls eye, moved to double taps and finished with shooting 2 targets adjacent to each other in double tap fashion. This was an indoor range with the targets hung on a wire. After the rimfire portion we were given Glock 9mm's and went through the same program as the 22's culminating in a low light "stress situation" round. All students were taken into the shooting area singly, the lights were real low, you were told to engage the target(s) and be watchful of good guys. The instructors, one on each side, then started yelling and giving me nonsense instructions and threats while having the targets come at me on the lines. You did this 5 times, some of the targets were good guys, and the instructors flashed a strobe on several of the rotations.

It was intense and I greatly appreciated it. My take away was I needed to really bone up on my proficiency with a handgun. 

If we choose to carry it is our duty to have the mindset and skill sets to handle the responsibility that goes along with it.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

DP


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

mike oehme said:


> ....If you are a responsible gun owner and user, then paying for the *privilege *to carry should not be an issue....


IMO, this is probably one of the biggest problems in our society today. The mere twisted mindset...or even the slightest suggestion that it is a 'privilege' for a law abiding citizen to carry a firearm just does not compute with me. 
Not one place in the 2nd Amendment does it even remotely hint that it is a privilege for the law abiding citizen to posses/carry a firearm...but rather a right.
Is it possible that the 'anti' establishment has used the 'privilege' wording crap for so long when speaking of firearm ownership that some of us pro people are getting 'right' and 'privilege confused ?


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

" Privilege " implies its only due to the whims and good nature of the powers that be that we are able to bear arms. Our masters are gracious enough to allow us or something.

Privileges are often temporary and subject to the discretion of those who grant them.

When our rights become privileges all is lost.


----------



## one3 (Dec 1, 2015)

As far as I am concerned. People that work in some jobs must pass a back ground check and be finger printed about every 5 years, at the tune of about $50.00. Why do we need to pay for finger printing? Your prints do not change. I garentee you if you change ins. companys for you auto you will get a lerrer from the state wanting you to show proff of ins. If the Ins. companys can report you with no Ins. the courts can red flag you too. Some of this is becomming a money grab.


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

This is interesting. I haven't read all the responses and do have a ccw myself.
I like the background check every 5 years. Why? I know some yahoos with some mental issues with no felonies that would be turned down to CC under the current licensing law when a background check is done. Now they would be allowed to carry? How would they be stopped before something regrettable happened?


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

PapawSmith said:


> Have you ever sped in your car, or had an open beer while driving? Have you ever smoked weed, or beat someone’s ass at a bar, {which is assault}? Are you a spotless citizen? If their only crime was having a weapon on their person or their vehicle without a CCW, and they had committed no other crime involving that piece, you are opposed to “letting them off the hook” if the State now deems that a CCW should not be a requirement? Seems a bit petty of anyone to hold that stance as reason to oppose a law like this.
> 
> Let me add this is not a personal attack on you, I don’t know you, it is a response to the reasoning behind your position that I’m sure is shared by many others.


They broke the law with a concealed weapon without a permit. It’s a law right now. PAY the price. I never said I didn’t like the bill. I said I don’t like the way it is now written. If a person willingly chooses to break the law they don’t deserve a free pass later. They had other options and chose to go the illegal route instead. People need to be held accountable for their illegal actions. When I got a speeding ticket I paid the price with points and cash. My choice to speed and I paid the consequences of that choice.

The bill says it’s for legal citizens 21 and over. Adding that you get a free pass for breaking the weapons law is a sad deal.

I have to renew my license in a couple months and I won’t complain about it one bit as some seem to think it’s a money issue.

It’s not a perfect country we live in but it’s not New Zealand either.

This thread has gone way off the original topic. Kinda funny how that always happens here.

I don’t take anything personal here. We all have our opinions on subjects discussed here. Time to go out for a walk and enjoy the sunshine. Heck I might even ring some steel to relax later today.

I got sucked in like a vortex. I told myself I wouldn’t get involved in this discussion. Lol. I’m staying out now.


----------



## joebertin (Mar 26, 2010)

bbsoup said:


> BTW, that means I agree with yonderf. You see, I believe that the founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they say "shall not be infringed". So, if the right "shall not be infringed", who gave the right in the first place? Not the founding fathers, they are saying the right already existed at the time they wrote that. So who gave that right? The British? Certainly not. Then who? The right was given by whoever makes all laws on what is right and wrong. It just is. It exists by any measure of humanity. I am a Christian (OM that is going to get flagged by a bot), so you know who I believe gave that right. But nonetheless, the fathers knew the right existed naturally. And they wrote it into law. For our country. Anything that infringes on our ability to defend ourselves against threats of violence, whether it be from criminals or arms of government (bot flag), is against the laws of the universe. End of story.


Yes. It' commonly referred to as "Natural Law" and recognized as such.


----------



## ducknut141 (Apr 26, 2017)

People still don't get it it's NOT a CCW in OHIO it's a CHL and there is a VERY VERY BIG difference. If you don't know the difference you don't need to be carrying a handgun. Get caught carrying something other than a handgun because you think you have a CCW and you will figure it out the hard way. My finger prints have changed so many times in my life I can't count. As a welder, carpenter and firefighter my fingers have been burnt and had to be stitched multiple times changing my prints.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Good night Charlie Brown.


----------

