background checks.

[Six Shooter]

If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm, he/she should not be free. Why would we trust them with a knife or bow and arrow or a car? These are great offensive weapons. Firearms are great defensive weapons. Moreover, such prohibitions have not ever been effective at actually keeping bad people from obtaining firearms.

The "legitimate concerns" are thinking errors resultant from the propaganda spewed from the television. The constitution provides a remedy; imprison or execute them. The same people who support ways to release violent criminals are the ones supporting firearms bans on them. Common sense clearly indicates that such bans will not prevent violent people from committing violent acts, so the next logical step is to remove all firearms from society because that is the only way to keep them away from the bad people. Then we will have an unarmed society and ripe for enslaving. This had happened over and over again. See Death by "Gun Control" (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). We need to wise up and stop believing myths propagated on the television through false arguments, selective reporting, and false dramatizations.

Uh..

Tweed Ring, has spent a Lifetime and Career, dealing with convicted felons. (Right ?)

If he is confident with Recidivism not being an issue, I will change my opinion.


I take exception, with being lumped in with convicted felons (who have served jail time) as lawful firearms owners.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

...

I take exception, with being lumped in with convicted felons (who have served jail time) as lawful firearms owners.

You DO realize that there is a fairly simple process (R.C. 2923.14) for a released felon to own firearms, right?

[MyWifeSaidYes]

And two misdemeanor convictions within a year may qualify as a felony.

White-collar felons may take exception to YOU lumping them in with VIOLENT felons.

[Tweed Ring]

If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm, he/she should not be free. Why would we trust them with a knife or bow and arrow or a car? These are great offensive weapons. Firearms are great defensive weapons. Moreover, such prohibitions have not ever been effective at actually keeping bad people from obtaining firearms.

The "legitimate concerns" are thinking errors resultant from the propaganda spewed from the television. The constitution provides a remedy; imprison or execute them. The same people who support ways to release violent criminals are the ones supporting firearms bans on them. Common sense clearly indicates that such bans will not prevent violent people from committing violent acts, so the next logical step is to remove all firearms from society because that is the only way to keep them away from the bad people. Then we will have an unarmed society and ripe for enslaving. This had happened over and over again. See Death by "Gun Control" (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). We need to wise up and stop believing myths propagated on the television through false arguments, selective reporting, and false dramatizations.

Uh..

Tweed Ring, has spent a Lifetime and Career, dealing with convicted felons. (Right ?)

If he is confident with Recidivism not being an issue, I will change my opinion.


I take exception, with being lumped in with convicted felons (who have served jail time) as lawful firearms owners.

In Ohio, recidivism is a big issue. Many ex-cons seem to enjoy the state's hospitality. Perhaps it's simply the cuisine.

I wasn't crazy about their being allowed to vote again, and I don't want felons granted restoration of firearms rights. In my mind, what seems to cut recidivism is longer prison sentences.

I did about 19+ years in the Ohio system, 10 months in Iraq, and about the last decade, as a volunteer, providing guidance to them.

[welshj]

per the original post- background checks...

I am correct in stating that current CHL holders are not required to go through the call and checks when purchasing another firearm?
I have yet to do so since getting licensed.
I seem to remember reading this here somewhere, and I haven't seen this mentioned in the thread yet.


Now- as far as felons and re-instating rights...

Off the cuff I'd say yeah, I don't want a felon having gun rights. However:

Let's say for the sake of argument- I pull my gun and shoot someone in what I firmly believed was in defense of another.
The court decides I was wrong, and I go to prison for manslaughter/murder...
I do my time, and complete my full sentence for my actions.

By society's standards, I've paid my due and paid for my actions, and learned a very valuable lesson for it.
I've never even been arrested before, never been in any other trouble before or since my "crime".
Would I not want to be able to go back to life as "normal" after I get out?
Would it not be reasonable to have my full rights re-instated?

What would be a reasonable time limit? or probationary term, or re-training before I would be re-instated?

Now, understanding a situation where someone is a third strike offender, or has been in trouble my whole life, or a career criminal...
those aside- what's fair?

- inviting discussion.

[BobK]

I'll also observe that felons did not have their gun rights stripped from them for the first 192 years, and both the Republic and its citizens seemed to flourish quite nicely with liberty. It wasn't until the Gun Control Act of 1968 that such this particular limitation was enshrined into law. I believe the entire GCA of 1968 should be repealed, along with the 1934 NFA and the 1986 Hughes Amendment, but that is never going to happen.

[mreising]

per the original post- background checks...

I am correct in stating that current CHL holders are not required to go through the call and checks when purchasing another firearm?
I have yet to do so since getting licensed.
I seem to remember reading this here somewhere, and I haven't seen this mentioned in the thread yet.

No this is not correct. Ohio will be performing NICS checks for licenses (issued? applied for?) after March 23, in which case the NICS call in does not have to occur for a purchase. If you were licensed before that, you did not have a NICS check run as part of your application. I believe this is when the checks start.

[JustaShooter]

per the original post- background checks...

I am correct in stating that current CHL holders are not required to go through the call and checks when purchasing another firearm?
I have yet to do so since getting licensed.
I seem to remember reading this here somewhere, and I haven't seen this mentioned in the thread yet.

No this is not correct. Ohio will be performing NICS checks for licenses (issued? applied for?) after March 23, in which case the NICS call in does not have to occur for a purchase. If you were licensed before that, you did not have a NICS check run as part of your application. I believe this is when the checks start.

That's my understanding as well. Another thing to keep in mind is that a dealer does not have to use a CHL issued after that date in place of calling in the NICS check, that is entirely up to the dealer to decide. They can do so, but do not have to. (And this is all assuming the ATF agrees the new law complies with their requirements.)

[Liberty]

You DO realize that there is a fairly simple process (R.C. 2923.14) for a released felon to own firearms, right?

Unless you live in the heavily populated counties where the judges don't agree with the 2nd Amendment.

[Six Shooter]

You DO realize that there is a fairly simple process (R.C. 2923.14) for a released felon to own firearms, right?

And ?

And two misdemeanor convictions within a year may qualify as a felony.

And ?

White-collar felons may take exception to YOU lumping them in with VIOLENT felons.

Convicted Felons "feelings" don't concern me.

In Ohio, recidivism is a big issue.

I have, and never will, advocate for Felons (who have spent time in prison).



I Trust Tweed's assessment of the situation.

[JediSkipdogg]

I have, and never will, advocate for Felons (who have spent time in prison).

So someone that stole my Macbook deserves to lose their gun rights? Someone that let their CHL expire and forgot and was pulled over deserves to lose their gun rights?


Both of those are felonies. Both can have prison time, although rare, but can.

[Liberty]

I take exception, with being lumped in with convicted felons (who have served jail time) as lawful firearms owners.

The same way that you take exception of being lumped in with "convicted felons" having 2nd Amendment rights, Bloomberg and his ilk take exception with being lumped in you, who he looks down upon as a peasant who is not intelligent enough to use firearms. The firearms community has to stop supporting the idea that the government can violate other people's 2nd Amendment rights. I don't get how so called firearms advocates understand that gun control does not reduce crime, but somehow, they believe that gun control that does not personally effect them does reduce crime. There is no evidence that laws against firearms ownership by former convicts does anything to reduce crime for the same reason that gun control that effects everyone does not reduce crime. It is not the gun! Evil people will do evil things with whatever tool they have at their disposal, including illegally obtained firearms. Believing that gun control works on "bad people" just legitimizes the gun control myths. Moreover, the Constitution does not authorize the government to infringe upon a free person's right to arms. The government has illegally usurped that power. The government cannot legally obtain that power through the amendment process because we the people won't give it to them--so it just took it.

[Tweed Ring]

Yes, indeed.

There should be consequences for those who are found guilty of committing a felony or committing felonies. Our prisons and jails have lots of recidivists. Our taxes pay for their keep.

Prohibited persons who want firearms seem to be able to find them. The prohibition, by law, doesn't seem to slow them down in their acquiring their tools of the trade...

[Liberty]

Yes, indeed.

There should be consequences for those who are found guilty of committing a felony or committing felonies. Our prisons and jails have lots of recidivists. Our taxes pay for their keep.

Prohibited persons who want firearms seem to be able to find them. The prohibition, by law, doesn't seem to slow them down in their acquiring their tools of the trade...

The Constitution provides authority for such consequences, i.e., deprivation of life, liberty and/or property, but it specifically denies authority for firearms prohibitions for free persons. The same people who want to enslave us are the ones that advocate for public policy resulting in releasing violent criminals from prisons so they have the excuse to ban private ownership of firearms.

If the government can make a law banning felons from possessing firearms, then slowly change the laws so that things like bouncing a check and having a hidden compartment in your car a felony, it can and will eventually find a way to classify all of us as "bad people" or "dangerous people" that cannot be trusted with firearms. The framers of our republic saw governments do this in Europe, and that is why they worded the 2nd Amendment like they did.

Moreover, as I said above, and as you seem to acknowledge, laws prohibiting evil people from possessing firearms does not prevent them from committing evil acts or from acquiring firearms. The only thing it does is perpetuate the myths behind gun control and brings us closer to banning all private ownership of firearms because that is the only way to keep firearms out of the hands of the bad people who they let out of prisons.

[Tweed Ring]

I do not support restoration of gun rights for persons who are ex-felons. If various levels of government want to approve relief from disability, that is their choice, but I am not in favor of same.

Of course, both state and federal bureaucrats and respective pols can try to make gun ownership illegal. That’s why people like me work to ensure these people are not elected, and if they are elected, their term is relatively short. That is why i support gun rights organization watching our pols for slippage.

One need only observe our court system or view the weekly new load climb off the grey bus to understand the problem with recidivism.

I do not want those people legally armed. I do not want them armed, illegally, as well.

If one believes the laws are too strict, all roads lead to Columbus, Ohio and to Washington D.C. Our First Amendment encourages lobbying to change our laws at both the state and federal levels.