The drinking age for beer would be 19, it would still be 21 for 'intoxicating liquor'. Still stupid. If you're an adult for the purposes of voting, being drafted, joining the military voluntarily, and legally as far as ownership of personal property, then 18 should be adult for EVERYTHING. Drinking, owning a handgun, etc.MyWifeSaidYes wrote:http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4301.691
There is a clause in Ohio law that will reduce the drinking age to 19 (not 18) if the federal requirement is removed.
THAT would be an issue we can take up in Ohio.
18+, but under 21, any restrictions on pistol carry?
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
- JustJack
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
- Location: Findlay
- Contact:
Re: 18+, but under 21, any restrictions on pistol carry?
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
-
- Posts: 1295
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:52 pm
Re: 18+, but under 21, any restrictions on pistol carry?
On a slightly different tack, this law is a good example of how NOT to write something that is easily comprehensible. For example,
the structure of "No person shall do any of the following:
...
(2) Subject to division (B) of this section, sell any handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age;
(3) ... subject to division (B) of this section, furnish any handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age, except for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes, including, but not limited to, instruction in firearms or handgun safety, care, handling, or marksmanship under the supervision or control of a responsible adult; "
can be reduced, grammatically, to:
"No person shall do any of the following: furnish any handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age, except for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes, including, but not limited to, instruction in firearms or handgun safety, care, handling, or marksmanship under the supervision or control of a responsible adult;"
further reduced to :" No person shall furnish any handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age, except for purposes not limited to the supervision or control of a responsible adult;"
Grammatically, the 'not limited to" clause means the purposes are not limited by adult supervision.
If the intent were to limit the situation to adult supervision, the "not limited to" phrase should be altered to read 'limited to'.
Not saying what the law is but I can say what it isn't, and that is , 'clear'.
the structure of "No person shall do any of the following:
...
(2) Subject to division (B) of this section, sell any handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age;
(3) ... subject to division (B) of this section, furnish any handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age, except for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes, including, but not limited to, instruction in firearms or handgun safety, care, handling, or marksmanship under the supervision or control of a responsible adult; "
can be reduced, grammatically, to:
"No person shall do any of the following: furnish any handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age, except for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes, including, but not limited to, instruction in firearms or handgun safety, care, handling, or marksmanship under the supervision or control of a responsible adult;"
further reduced to :" No person shall furnish any handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age, except for purposes not limited to the supervision or control of a responsible adult;"
Grammatically, the 'not limited to" clause means the purposes are not limited by adult supervision.
If the intent were to limit the situation to adult supervision, the "not limited to" phrase should be altered to read 'limited to'.
Not saying what the law is but I can say what it isn't, and that is , 'clear'.
-
- Posts: 9557
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
- Location: Youngstown OH
Re: 18+, but under 21, any restrictions on pistol carry?
Shadow:
Go stand in the corner.
The lawyers will have you assassinated for suggesting that a law should be clear, concise, and logical.
And that's the good part....
Vogon poetry....
Regards,
Go stand in the corner.
The lawyers will have you assassinated for suggesting that a law should be clear, concise, and logical.
And that's the good part....
Vogon poetry....
Regards,
Stu.
(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)
(Why do those who claim to wish to protect me feel that the best way to do that is to disarm me?)
יזכר לא עד פעם
(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)
(Why do those who claim to wish to protect me feel that the best way to do that is to disarm me?)
יזכר לא עד פעם
-
- Posts: 1295
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:52 pm
Re: 18+, but under 21, any restrictions on pistol carry?
All right, Voice,
but not limited to, instruction in... marksmanship under the supervision or control of a responsible adult;
The problem isn't the list or what's in it, the problem is that it says 'not' limited to, which modifies everything in the list that follows, which means the list in not limited by what's in it.
It should have said something like "Adult supervision is required for all handgun use by a person over 17 and under 21.
Given the problem of defining "adult", I wonder how anyone can understand anything in this piece of legalese.
I'm a pretty good writer but I checked this with an English major (grad student) and an English teacher and they just shook their heads...
It's just a poor way to write a sentence.
The real problem with all legislation is that it evolves and is the product of endless strikeouts and fill ins and eventually becomes unreadable.
The history of firearms law in Ohio is replete with it.
Philip
but not limited to, instruction in... marksmanship under the supervision or control of a responsible adult;
The problem isn't the list or what's in it, the problem is that it says 'not' limited to, which modifies everything in the list that follows, which means the list in not limited by what's in it.
It should have said something like "Adult supervision is required for all handgun use by a person over 17 and under 21.
Given the problem of defining "adult", I wonder how anyone can understand anything in this piece of legalese.
I'm a pretty good writer but I checked this with an English major (grad student) and an English teacher and they just shook their heads...
It's just a poor way to write a sentence.
The real problem with all legislation is that it evolves and is the product of endless strikeouts and fill ins and eventually becomes unreadable.
The history of firearms law in Ohio is replete with it.
Philip
- MyWifeSaidYes
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
- Location: Central Ohio
- Contact:
Re: 18+, but under 21, any restrictions on pistol carry?
Nice Hitchhiker's reference.SMMAssociates wrote:...Vogon poetry....
MyWifeSaidYes