Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

If Ohio can license concealed carry because citizens have the option for unlicensed open carry, how do we get the same level of permissions as a CHL holder?

I personally don't care a whit that concealment requires a license. That isn't the Right.

The fact that I need a license to carry in my car, in a school zone, etc is an infringement.

Worse yet, some consider the licensing laws a step forward because it gave the folks who got the licenses ways around some infringements that had been built into the law before licensed carry. That a rightful activity was illegal before and is now legal when licensed is not a restoration of the Right. It is a codification of the government's illegal power over you. Licensing is arguably worse than outlawing!

The solution is a repeal of every law that in any way limits the ability to carry handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, clubs, etc.--except when such carry would infringe on the Rights of another (e.g., their property Rights).

I am not an Ohioan for Concealed Carry. I am not an Ohioan for Open Carry. I am an Ohioan for Unlicensed Carry.

eye95 wrote:I am not an Ohioan for Concealed Carry. I am not an Ohioan for Open Carry. I am an Ohioan for Unlicensed Carry.

That would make you an Ohioan for Constitutional Carry. Same acronym as this site. *nudge*

At the state level, the answer is to bypass the legislature with an initiative petition.

A law or amendment passed by initiative cannot be changed by the legislature. Only another initiative can change it.

But how do we afford the expense of collecting enough signatures WITH the risk that we don't get enough votes to pass the initiative?

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:At the state level, the answer is to bypass the legislature with an initiative petition.

A law or amendment passed by initiative cannot be changed by the legislature. Only another initiative can change it.

But how do we afford the expense of collecting enough signatures WITH the risk that we don't get enough votes to pass the initiative?

And that's why I think it's never been done. We don't have enough Ohioans that support it as is nor the funding. At least with concealed carry 12 years ago they could say there would be background checks, places people can't carry, etc. If you throw something on the ballot now, Bloomytunes and gang will outfund both OFCC and BFA on what they can do and as far as I know, the NRA has not helped in funding any petitions in terms of marketing campaigns. After seeing what the Marijuana people spent for a failure, it will take ALOT of marketing money to get a win.

The pot bill failed because it was terrible bill. I've heard a lot of people say they support legalizing marijuana, but voted against the initiative because there were major flaws with it.

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:At the state level, the answer is to bypass the legislature with an initiative petition.

A law or amendment passed by initiative cannot be changed by the legislature. Only another initiative can change it.

But how do we afford the expense of collecting enough signatures WITH the risk that we don't get enough votes to pass the initiative?

It doesn't matter if you don't get enough votes. You just do what the progressives do, and keep bringing it up until it does.

JediSkipdogg wrote:

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:At the state level, the answer is to bypass the legislature with an initiative petition.

A law or amendment passed by initiative cannot be changed by the legislature. Only another initiative can change it.

But how do we afford the expense of collecting enough signatures WITH the risk that we don't get enough votes to pass the initiative?

And that's why I think it's never been done. We don't have enough Ohioans that support it as is nor the funding. At least with concealed carry 12 years ago they could say there would be background checks, places people can't carry, etc. If you throw something on the ballot now, Bloomytunes and gang will outfund both OFCC and BFA on what they can do and as far as I know, the NRA has not helped in funding any petitions in terms of marketing campaigns. After seeing what the Marijuana people spent for a failure, it will take ALOT of marketing money to get a win.

Don't mean to sound so negative, but just going on the gun show in Medina.......and please don't get me wrong, I thought we had a "fair" number of people stop and talk to us at the table.......but how many just walked by without saying a word, (they HAD to see our banner on the wall and know what we were about and were trying to accomplish for them), and there were those who had never even heard of us! (:shock: .....well , not really) Would I be correct in thinking that the majority of "gun owners" in Ohio DON'T have a lic and the issue isn't important enough to THEM whether we who do, can carry w/o a lic or not and even some of them would be against it. And I'm not so sure the NRA is truly in favor of licensless carry either.......and I'm a life member.


.....And I think this thread is getting off topic in regards to what MWSY was really saying, (or asking). If OC'ers could get all the "permissions", yes , permissions, that having a lic gets us , how do we go about doing it? If OC is a right, ( no lic. ), then why does a lic give you more permissions? It should be the other way around, logically speaking?

You have to have money to do that. Since we actually have to work for ours, and aren't given money by a Bloomberg-like gunlover, we will be hampered by lack of funding.

eye95 wrote:It doesn't matter if you don't get enough votes. You just do what the progressives do, and keep bringing it up until it does.

Mustang380gal wrote:You have to have money to do that. Since we actually have to work for ours, and aren't given money by a Bloomberg-like gunlover, we will be hampered by lack of funding.

This is exactly the issue. The progressive liberal antis, though they would like you believe differently, are backed by some of the most wealthy people on the planet. They can, and do, pay nice salaries to their activists and community organizers and then call it "grass roots". Those of us who would like to see our rights strengthened and restored do not have such backing. For crying out loud, our organization can barely even get enough people to volunteer to have a presence at two gun shows a month - TWO! - and that's with giving volunteers free admission and other perks.

Finally, our cause isn't even backed by a majority of gun owners, as 3FULLMAGS+1 pointed out. "Constitutional / Unlicensed Carry? You mean *anyone* could carry a gun, even without training?! I don't like that at all, that's a bad idea..." You wouldn't believe how often I hear that sort of thing from gun owners who are supposed to be 2A supporters.

That is why the incremental approach is, here in Ohio at the moment at least, our best option in my opinion. The all or nothing approach espoused by some will likely only achieve option #2 - nothing.

JustJack wrote:

eye95 wrote:I am not an Ohioan for Concealed Carry. I am not an Ohioan for Open Carry. I am an Ohioan for Unlicensed Carry.

That would make you an Ohioan for Constitutional Carry. Same acronym as this site. *nudge*

I disagree with the term "Constitutional Carry". The SCOTUS has never ruled there was an unrestricted right for unlicensed carry of firearms. In fact, when one reviews the Supreme Court rulings on this subject, there are frequent restrictions that have been upheld. Calling it "Constitutional Carry" is an inaccurate label when there is no such constitutional right established in the law.

It is also juvenile and naive if people thing "shall not be infringed" means absolute and unrestricted. In fact, every single item in the Bill of Rights has limits based upon SCOTUS rulings and this makes sense. Consider that every case that appears before the SCOTUS for a ruling on rights is considered BECAUSE it is a case of confict between competing rights. For example, the First Amendment protects my right to free speech, but yelling "Fire!" In a crowded movie theater is a well-established exception because my right to speech does not outweigh your right to not have the risk of being trampled and killed in a mob panic. My right to exercise religion does not include my right for religious human sacrifice, as my right conflicts with the other person's right to not be murdered. Every 4th and 5th Amendment case is balancing the right of the accused versus the rights of the community to prosecute criminal acts.

There are no "absolute" rights. Every right we have can conflict with another person's competing right. A final example is my right to carry for self protection does not trump the property rights of an owner who wants me to get the hell off his property.

It may go without saying, but for the record I do support "Unlicensed Carry". I object to the term "Constitutional Carry".

3FULLMAGS+1 wrote:...they HAD to see our banner on the wall and know what we were about...

Nope.

I believe over 90% of the people that see our banner at a gun show think we are just another training company.

3FULLMAGS+1 wrote:...Would I be correct in thinking that the majority of "gun owners" in Ohio DON'T have a lic...

Without registration, there is no way to know.

3FULLMAGS+1 wrote:...and the issue isn't important enough to THEM whether we who do, can carry w/o a lic or not and even some of them would be against it.

There are LOTS of gun owners who are against guns, in some way, shape or form.

3FULLMAGS+1 wrote: And I'm not so sure the NRA is truly in favor of licensless carry either.......and I'm a life member.

Depends on the particular board of directors in power at the time.

3FULLMAGS+1 wrote:...And I think this thread is getting off topic in regards to what MWSY was really saying, (or asking).

I think this is one of those threads that will benefit from topic drift.

3FULLMAGS+1 wrote:If OC is a right, ( no lic. ), then why does a lic give you more permissions? It should be the other way around, logically speaking?

An astute observation.

If we can't get rid of notification, why not push for vehicle open carry with notification?

BobK wrote:...There are no "absolute" rights. Every right we have can conflict with another person's competing right...

Vehicle carry.

Which right of another person would my RKBA conflict with while I'm in my car?

BobK wrote:...There are no "absolute" rights. Every right we have can conflict with another person's competing right. A final example is my right to carry for self protection does not trump the property rights of an owner who wants me to get the hell off his propert.

It may go without saying, but for the record I do support "Unlicensed Carry". I object to the term "Constitutional Carry".

I would disagree with the first paragraph. There are absolute Rights and these Rights cannot conflict with each other. If you think that two Rights conflict, one is not a Right.

For example, one might say that your Right to carry conflicts with a property owner's Right to restrict your carry on their property. One of those two is not a Right. You don't have a Right to carry on the property of another.

In the case of the wedding cakes the Right to not serve someone is claimed to be in conflict with the "right" of two homosexuals to "marry." The "right" to "marry" does not include a "right" to demand the services of another.

When two seeming Rights conflict, how do you determine which is not a Right? The one which, if exercised, would actually stop another from exercising his Rights is not a Right. Forcing someone to bake a cake stops him from exercising his Rights. Not baking a cake does not stop the "wedding." Nor does it stop the participants from eating a cake. Telling someone you will carry on his property, his sign notwithstanding, violates his property and association Rights. Telling a carrier that he cannot come onto your property does not stop him from carrying.

The most common example of "all Rights have limitations" is saying that you cannot shout "Fire!" In a crowded theater. You absolutely have a Right to do so. You just don't have the Right to do so IF it unreasonably puts others in danger of having their Rights literally and figuratively trampled in the ensuing panic when there is no fire.

Saying that Rights have limitations means that the courts can impose these limits using whatever "test" they deem appropriate as opposed to applying a test to determine that some action is actually not a Right. It leads to silly outcomes like the creation of "public accommodations" and some groups of people getting Rights over other groups.

I do agree completely with the second paragraph I quoted above. In fact, I use the term "unlicensed carry" as opposed to "constitutional carry" quite deliberately. It is a Right, not granted by, but protected by, the Constitution and cannot be licensed. Once an activity is licensed, we have accepted governments infringement on that Right, making it a privilege that can be taken away on a governmental whim!

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:

BobK wrote:...There are no "absolute" rights. Every right we have can conflict with another person's competing right...

Vehicle carry.

Which right of another person would my RKBA conflict with while I'm in my car?

Great example of what I am trying to say in my above post!