Common sense gun laws; Changes in Ohio

[JustRalph]

http://10tv.com/live/content/onnnews/stories/2008/09/07/Conceal_Carry.html?sid=102

Ohio does some things right.............. not many........but some........I am posting this as a follow up to a thread from way back on Concealed weapons. FYI


Concealed weapons permit holders can now keep a gun hidden in a car as long as they're carrying it in a secure holster, one of several changes to Ohio's conceal carry law taking effect Monday.

The law previously required the gun to be in plain sight.

Permit holders also may bring a gun onto school grounds as long as they are in a car picking up or dropping off a child.

Law enforcement officials say the changes are common sense.

"The more law-abiding people that have guns the better off we are," said Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said.

"Because the bad guys always have guns," he said. "You look at these school shootings or church shootings, the ones that have been stopped, it was because someone there had a gun."

The changes also allows holders of valid liquor licenses who are also concealed weapons permit holders to carry a hidden gun on their premises.

In addition, the new law removes the burden of proof from a person who hurts or kills an intruder. The law now includes the presumption that a resident acted in self defense or in defense of another if an intruder has entered unlawfully or without permission.

During debates over the burden of proof change, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence expressed concerns that the change would lead to more people taking the law into their own hands regardless of the circumstances.

Most county sheriffs said they have not had any trouble with concealed-carriers.

"By far, the vast majority of permit holders are law-abiding people," said Sgt. Monte Mayer, spokesman for the Butler County Sheriff's Office.

"They are getting the training, doing things the way they should under state law."

Between 2004 and 2007, more than 108,000 people received carry licenses in Ohio. Last year, the third full year of the law, Ohio sheriffs issued 22,103 licenses, an increase of nearly 18 percent from the previous year.

Permit holders can't be felons, must undergo a criminal background check, safety training course and pass a test. People who carry a concealed weapon without a license can be prosecuted.

~more at the link~

[boxcar]

I'm bowled over! See, there is a God in heaven who performs miracles. :jump:

Boxcar

[equicom]

I can see problems with both the new law and the old one. For one thing, just because people don't have a conviction doesn't mean that they are not crooks... they may simply not have been caught yet.

Another thing is that it will make it more difficult for police to catch the bad guys, plus could put people at risk if the police get jumpy during a stop (they might think somebody is going for a concealed gun when they're not... this already happens sometimes, but it would probably increase the chances).

Finally the old law requiring the gun to be in plain sight was also problematic, as it may increase the chances of a child, carjacker, or other unauthorized person getting hold of that weapon.

I don't think there is any perfect answer. One thing I do know is that in places where people are required to carry guns, there is virtually no violent crime. On the other hand, the temptation to misuse a gun when angered must be greatly increased simply by the fact that a person has a gun.

The only way that gun control makes sense is if the guns are taken off all the criminals first. Otherwise the only people who have guns are the bad guys, and it's not good to be outnumbered.

[boxcar]

I can see problems with both the new law and the old one. For one thing, just because people don't have a conviction doesn't mean that they are not crooks... they may simply not have been caught yet.

Surely, you're not suggesting that the government or any society should presume that everyone is a crook and ban guns on that kind of assumption, are you?

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

My father was an expert on the U.S.Cavalry and had a large collection of firearms. A lifelong NRA member, he quit abut 10 years before his death claiming that the organization had been taken over by crazy zealots who missed the point totally.

Crazies abound nowadays

[Tom]

Uh....so what?
Who was talking about the NRA?

[46zilzal]

Uh....so what?
Who was talking about the NRA?
synonymous with Gun Worship

[JustRalph]

He just had to jump in here and take a dig at me......... business as usual.

[46zilzal]

He just had to jump in here and take a dig at me......... business as usual.
No a dig a the stupidity of the gun culture

[boxcar]

Crazies abound nowadays

We know. You and several others here are testaments to this fact.

Boxcar

[Tom]

synonymous with Gun Worship

Uh, who was talking about gun worship...besides you?
Ralph was talking about legal possession. You should look into Phonics. Your reading skills are lacking. Harry Truman said walk softly and carry a big gun.

[wonatthewire1]

Holsters? Concealed?

I like to let people know where I stand

Here's a "shot" going into the 7-11 on Coney Island - I hate lines for the register so I just clear 'em out. Works every time

(source: http://www.thinkchristian.net/index.php/2007/03/29/rambos-back-and-hed-like-to-tell-you-about-the-four-spiritual-laws/)

[wonatthewire1]

Uh, who was talking about gun worship...besides you?
Ralph was talking about legal possession. You should look into Phonics. Your reading skills are lacking. Harry Truman said walk softly and carry a big gun.


Kickback on that sucker would prob dislocate a few shoulder blades

:eek:

[JustRalph]

Uh, who was talking about gun worship...besides you?
Ralph was talking about legal possession. You should look into Phonics. Your reading skills are lacking. Harry Truman said walk softly and carry a big gun.


you gotta love Photoshop............ check out the size of that guys right forearm.......... :lol: :lol:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3761&stc=1

[equicom]

Boxcar, I thought your weapon of choice was a bible... do those come in 9mm these days?

Also your comment about criminal checks, you missed the point totally. I was saying the opposite.... firstly that the checks themselves are not an indication of honesty. Maybe they could make you jump through a few more hoops, but all said and done, I don't think perfection is possible in any system and especially not in deciding who should be allowed to have a gun and who not.

So, if you read a bit more of my post, you'll see that I am against banning guns until they manage to get all of the guns from the bad guys first (which will never happen, and therefore....)

Even then, there are many legitimate uses for guns beyond shooting people, so totally banning guns is not a workable idea. Maybe restricting the possession (storage) of guns is something that could be looked at in the very distant future, but for now there are too many very angry and desperate people wandering the streets in your country for it to work.

[boxcar]

Boxcar, I thought your weapon of choice was a bible... do those come in 9mm these days?

Also your comment about criminal checks, you missed the point totally. I was saying the opposite.... firstly that the checks themselves are not an indication of honesty. Maybe they could make you jump through a few more hoops, but all said and done, I don't think perfection is possible in any system and especially not in deciding who should be allowed to have a gun and who not.

And earlier you wrote this:

Originally Posted by equicom
I can see problems with both the new law and the old one. For one thing, just because people don't have a conviction doesn't mean that they are not crooks... they may simply not have been caught yet.

Then why did you state the obvious, especially since the absence of a conviction could just as well mean that someone isn't a crook. Also, what makes you think all crooks get caught?

And what makes you think I can't have multiple weapons of choice at my disposal?

So, if you read a bit more of my post, you'll see that I am against banning guns until they manage to get all of the guns from the bad guys first (which will never happen, and therefore....)

And you know when that's going to happen -- realistically? When Hell itself freezes over!

Even then, there are many legitimate uses for guns beyond shooting people, so totally banning guns is not a workable idea.

Yeah...I bet you're the sportsman extraordinaire and you'd use yours for shooting fish in a barrel.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/saf-applauds-ohio-supreme-court/story.aspx?guid=%7BDD31C922-0A45-4A11-914B-374F44A3EDAA%7D&dist=hppr

In a 4-3 ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court has rejected the City of Clyde's appeal in OFCC v. Clyde and ruled that Clyde's ban on concealed carry in their parks is unconstitutional!

The issue presented in this case concerns whether Clyde Ordinance 2004-41, which prohibits licensed handgun owners from carrying concealed handguns in Clyde city parks, is a valid exercise of the municipality’s home-rule power according to Section 3, Article XVIII, of the Ohio Constitution. Because the ordinance is an exercise of the municipality’s police power that conflicts with a general law, the ordinance is unconstitutional. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

The courts analysis of the law seems to be a refreshing change of tactic from our earlier efforts in the Supreme Court. For instance, on page five, the court acknowledges that the State of Ohio Legislature has authorized carrying a firearm "unless otherwise prohibited" by federal or state law. This is huge:

Simply put, the General Assembly, by enacting R.C. 9.68(A), gave persons in Ohio the right to carry a handgun unless federal or state law prohibits them from doing so. A municipal ordinance cannot infringe on that broad statutory right.