Next Governor: Blackwell, Montgomery or Petro

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

SMMAssociates
Posts: 9557
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
Location: Youngstown OH

Post by SMMAssociates »

Blackwell, Petro, Strickland, in that order....

Coleman and Montgomery barely justify spelling their names correctly....

(Except to warn people not to vote for them.)

It will be very important for us to help pro-2A folks into office next time, before the anti's can screw us up more.
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
uperrsc
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:56 pm
Location: Medina

Post by uperrsc »

Blackwell and Petro are both solid. I don't think Montgomery is going to be a player. If that continues to hold, I'd wait till either Petro or Blackwell wins the primary, then give the winner the cash. It is going to be a tough election, especially if the economy doesn't pick up. I sure hope the state republican apparatus doesn't start helping out Montgomery, I know that the Republican party movers and shakers in my area (Medina) seem to be lining up behind Petro....... but it is still early.
Scott Perrine
NRA Election Volunteer Coordinator
NRA Recruiter
OH 16th Congressional District
scottrperrine@gmail.com
foxmike
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:39 pm

Blackwell for Gov.

Post by foxmike »

Blackwell is our man!
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Re: Blackwell for Gov.

Post by TunnelRat »

foxmike wrote:Blackwell is our man!
Yes, that may well be. I think Petro has been bitten hard on the butt by the Taft and Noe coin improprieties. :?

He is my favorite for governor, but may have suffered irreparable damage. The primaries will tell.
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
Hermangotshisguns
Illegal Duplicate User
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:08 pm

Post by Hermangotshisguns »

collin wrote:From my point of view. I am a fan of Ken Blackwell, but also like Jim Petro. Betty Montgomery is no better than Toby Hoover. On the Democrat's side, Ted Strickland seems pretty good on the gun issue, while Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman makes Diane Feinstein look good. Personally, I support Ken Blackwell, as he is overall a better fit for me. Jim Petro is also very good, and I consider myself a fan. I will not vote for Betty Montgomery under any circumstance, nor would I vote for Michael Coleman under any circumstance. My personal order of preference:

Ken Blackwell, Jim Petro, Ted Strickland. My nightmares are Montgomery and Coleman, in no particular order.
I am looking to vote for Strickland myself. Because more than likely Ohio won't end up with a REPUBLICAN for GOV the next time around.
Rob-Black99RT
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:34 am
Location: West by golly Virginia

Re: Blackwell for Gov.

Post by Rob-Black99RT »

tommcnaughton wrote:
foxmike wrote:Blackwell is our man!
Yes, that may well be. I think Petro has been bitten hard on the butt by the Taft and Noe coin improprieties. :?

He is my favorite for governor, but may have suffered irreparable damage. The primaries will tell.
Petro lost any chance of me voting for him when he put out the pamphlet that says "Carrying a concealed handgun in Ohio is a privilege." Sorry, pal, but doing so is my right... Driving is a privilege, but protecting my life and my loved ones lives is my right.

IMO, Blackwell seems to understand that rights don't come forth from government entities, but are ours inherently... Petro seems to think otherwise sometimes.
- Rob
G30
SMMAssociates
Posts: 9557
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
Location: Youngstown OH

Post by SMMAssociates »

I'm still sitting on the fence, which, fortunately, isn't too pointy....

Strickland looks like the most likely at this point, but Ken Blackwell or Jim Petro wouldn't bother me at all....

It's still a little early for Coingate to be too much of a problem for the Republicans, but if the National situation stays as itchy as it is, we will have much bigger problems at the Federal level that may hurt us locally, too.

(Dunno if you guys remember Jack Hunter, who was Mayor in Youngstown some years ago. Banking guy. The local Republican Party needed a sacrifice - somebody to run against the favored Democrat just to show the flag. Nixon rolled about every Republican candidate in the country into office that year, including Jack. Surprisingly good Mayor, actually....)

About Petro's pamphlet. That rankled me the first time I read it. I consider all forms of self defense (which, of course, includes defending my family, friends, etc.) as a right. However, I get the feeling that if he'd run that by a few of us, it might not have come out that way. Seems like the guy is more "neutral" than "pro" for our purposes, but it's hard to say.

My own view is that we have to look at it like driving a car. We have a right to own a car - we have a right to own just about anything but slaves. Operating a motor vehicle on our own property is also unrestricted, and generally unrestrictable in my view. However, to take the thing out on the public road, we have to demonstrate proficiency.

I think (put down the guns, guys) that we are obliged to do the same thing with firearms, whether concealed or openly carried. We can own 'em at our discretion, but to take one outside requires that we be able to do so safely.

Time was that grandpa or dad would school you for a long time before the family blunderbuss came off the wall over the fireplace, or however that worked. Later, many people learned how to handle them in the military. Today, that's kind of unusual, if not downright unknown - either family or the military - and alternative means are necessary. (You'll note that recent military training is a pass on the OH training requirement....)

My dad, for example, although qualified with small arms, and a machine gunner back before WWII in a CCC camp, never touched any of my guns, disaproved of their presence in the house until I brought home a badge, and just wouldn't hear about having one of his own. (He did think about a shotgun during the riots of the late 60's, but decided against it....) An uncle was a pistol instructor during WWII, and wouldn't have 'em in the house either. (Go figure - another uncle bought me one....)

So, as long as the test is fair, and the system is structured so local anti's can't obstruct it, why not? Legislation has to be put in place (actually, what we have in HB12 in this area seems fairly good) to make sure that those who pass the course and the background check get their CHL's expediently, and that the course itself is fair, and that the anti's can't screw with it....

What we don't want (sorry if I've said this before) is a test like this:

"What's the name of the City the late Pope was from?"

"How many Catholics live there?"

"Name them...."

:twisted:

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
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Re: Blackwell for Gov.

Post by TunnelRat »

Rob-Black99RT wrote:Petro lost any chance of me voting for him when he put out the pamphlet that says "Carrying a concealed handgun in Ohio is a privilege." Sorry, pal, but doing so is my right... Driving is a privilege, but protecting my life and my loved ones lives is my right.

IMO, Blackwell seems to understand that rights don't come forth from government entities, but are ours inherently... Petro seems to think otherwise sometimes.
Do not confuse the right to bear arms with a "right" to concealed carry. Owning and bearing firearms in order to protect your life and that of your loved ones is a right guaranteed by the U.S. constitution and the state of Ohio, as well as the constitutions of many states (if not all...). However, the right to bear arms does not extend, and historically has not extended, to carrying concealed arms.

The governments of the several states (beginning with the original colonies) have not recognized any such right to carry a concealed weapon. While state after state has a constitutional provision protecting our right to bear arms, those same states have consistently, over periods of several hundred years, reserved the authority to regulate, restrict, or prohibit concealed carry. We may have different opinions about concealed carry, but we don't get to have our own facts.

There is some ground for discussion about whether our current concealed carry law amounts to a civil right, granted by the legislature. Because our law says the sheriff "shall issue" a CHL to those who qualify, one could argue that qualified persons have a civil right to such license. Unfortunately, one could make a similar argument about drivers licenses, which we tend to agree are a matter of privilege. Thus Petro, writing his pamphlet early after the passing of the law, is well within bounds in saying: "Carrying a concealed handgun in Ohio is a privilege." Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean that he is wrong.

Further, to be fair, in the context of the pamphlet Petro wasn't discussing fundamental constitutional issues. It might be very interesting to hear his point of view on such things, but this pamphlet was not the place for it. Rather this pamphlet had to do with a brand new law and with newly issued CHL's.

Nobody quite knew how to deal with this screwy law. It has been in place for a year and a half, yet we daily get posts asking questions about some of the simplest measures. Petro was pressed to understand the law, then to explain, and clarify it for us, and he had to do it in a hurry.

There are a lot of boobytraps in the law:
Do we have to tell every passing patrolman that we are licensed?
Can we take a whizz in a public bathroom?
Can we enter a park with a concealed firearm? How about a fairgrounds?
Who has to put up CPZ signs? What must they look like?
How must we carry in a car? How 'bout if we're not driving?
Vehicle carry alone could put us all in jail and cost us our CHL's!

So Petro's word in the pamphlet "Carrying a concealed handgun in Ohio is a privilege" was designed to let us know that we are dealing with a new and difficult (and poorly written) law, and if we screw up we can lose our CHL's. It was intended as a warning and it has served us well.
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
SMMAssociates
Posts: 9557
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
Location: Youngstown OH

Post by SMMAssociates »

Tom:

I generally agree with you....

However (here it comes :) ), I take issue with the concealed carry being a privelege view....

I feel that self-defense is a right, and that bearing arms in that defense is a right. Further, since the means for bearing such arms is simply not defined, the Founding Fathers appear to have left the choice up to us.

I don't think that how (or where, for that matter) we choose to carry our defensive tools is anybody else's choice to make except for the private property issues I mentioned earlier today.

I do see a need for proficiency, tested in a fair way, simply because there are too many people out there who don't have the good fortune to have mentors like our grandparents may have, and likely their parents did.

That the booklet was rushed out is evident, and to some extent excuseable, but I still think the AG could have provided guidelines for many of the really iffy areas. For example, "The courts have yet to define 'in plain sight'" really bothers me, especially since the courts have defined it in drug and contraband cases. The "rules" expressed there could have been quoted for our benefit but were not.

I wouldn't care if this was some silly "which side of the trunk do we put the gun in" question - it'd probably only come up when some LEO had a really bad day to pass along, but "in plain sight" may be the biggests poison pill in the whole bill. There's little excuse for not coming up with a plain English definition right there in the booklet. And, a year and a half later, the same booklet is in use....

That most LEO's don't care is great fallout, but it's costing us numbers....

Just IMHO, of course....

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
Rob-Black99RT
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:34 am
Location: West by golly Virginia

Re: Blackwell for Gov.

Post by Rob-Black99RT »

tommcnaughton wrote:Do not confuse the right to bear arms with a "right" to concealed carry. Owning and bearing firearms in order to protect your life and that of your loved ones is a right guaranteed by the U.S. constitution and the state of Ohio, as well as the constitutions of many states (if not all...). However, the right to bear arms does not extend, and historically has not extended, to carrying concealed arms.

The governments of the several states (beginning with the original colonies) have not recognized any such right to carry a concealed weapon. While state after state has a constitutional provision protecting our right to bear arms, those same states have consistently, over periods of several hundred years, reserved the authority to regulate, restrict, or prohibit concealed carry. We may have different opinions about concealed carry, but we don't get to have our own facts.
Whether government entities endorse my right to carry (concealed or otherwise) I particularly don't care... They historically haven't liked concealed carry because "Big Brother" doesn't know who can resist at a moment's notice and who can't. Being that the licensing for CCW is simply another form of gun control, IMO, since it regulates who is "worthy" to carry a firearm in public and who isn't, I don't agree with the licensing structure. Why should I have to go through 12 hours of "training" in order to exercise my right? I don't have to go through 12 hours of training to exercise my right to free speech or resist an illegal search. So, why the difference? We, as gun owners, have allowed the states and federal government to whittle away at our rights and now we look at this decreased amount of freedom we have and think "this is great". It's simply the frog in the pot syndrome... We're slowing cooking and everything looks fine because we're used to the heat...

Now, will I go through it to carry according to the laws of our state? Yes... do I like it? No way... Am I doing what I can to change things (writing to senators, reps, governor, attny general)? Yes.

Just as I have the right to practice whatever religion I wish, and this is protected by the BOR, and doesn't list a "you can practice this one, but not that one", the 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear arms" without any notation about how one does so... Given that, it's up to me, IMO, on how I can carry, and big brother should keep his nose out of my business of protecting my life and my family... I see how well the cops and military have "protected" the law-abiding from thugs in New Orleans... and am now more convinced than ever that nobody can protect me and my loved ones better than me.
- Rob
G30
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Re: Blackwell for Gov.

Post by TunnelRat »

tommcnaughton wrote:We may have different opinions about concealed carry, but we don't get to have our own facts.
stu wrote:I feel that self-defense is a right, and that bearing arms in that defense is a right.
What matters is the long history of the law and the development of the concept of human rights. Coming out of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the political thinkers in the Enlightenment began to consider the rights of man. Our Founding Fathers were grounded in that tradition. When they wrote such things as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", they weren't just making stuff up on the spot, but rather were following in the footsteps of men who had gone before and had developed these very principles.
stu wrote:Further, since the means for bearing such arms is simply not defined,
Okay, you've lost me here. Though the language seems a bit arcane to our modern ears, in fact the "keep and bear arms" of the Second Amendment means simply that we have the right to possess and we have the right to carry firearms.
stu wrote:the Founding Fathers appear to have left the choice up to us.
Perhaps in the U.S. Constitution they don't go into a lot of detail. That's because from their point of view the federal government had no business dealing with firearms. However, these same men went back to their respective states and produced constitutions there also. Further, these same men served in the governments of their several states. Yet by far the majority of states, beginning in the late 1700's restricted or even forbade the carrying of concealed weapons. The very men who wrote and discussed and debated and ratified the Second Amendment felt very free to regulate or ban the carry of concealed weapons. They saw no conflict whatever. Rather they thought (and wrote) that an honest man should have no need to conceal his firearm.
stu wrote:I don't think that how (or where, for that matter) we choose to carry our defensive tools is anybody else's choice to make except for the private property issues I mentioned earlier today.
I would like to go along with you, unfortunately both law and history disagree.
Rob-Black99RT wrote:Whether government entities endorse my right to carry (concealed or otherwise) I particularly don't care...
We probably should try to maintain our discourse on the level of honest and free men, rather than on the level of scoff-laws and felons.
Rob-Black99RT wrote:They historically haven't liked concealed carry because "Big Brother" doesn't know who can resist at a moment's notice and who can't.
I will grant that you may have an argument there, especially in regard to recent history. However, at the beginning of the Republic, those who were responsible for bringing this nation forth simply thought that honest men would carry their firearms openly.
Rob-Black99RT wrote:Being that the licensing for CCW is simply another form of gun control, IMO, since it regulates who is "worthy" to carry a firearm in public and who isn't, I don't agree with the licensing structure.
I can go with you about halfway: yes, the licensing scheme is a form of gun control; no, it doesn't regulate who can carry a firearm in public. You always have the right to carry openly (at least such is the argument of our Supreme Court Justices...).
Rob-Black99RT wrote:Why should I have to go through 12 hours of "training" in order to exercise my right? I don't have to go through 12 hours of training to exercise my right to free speech or resist an illegal search. So, why the difference?
The difference is that you have no right to carry a concealed weapon. That is not now, nor has it ever been, the law in this state nor in most others. The right to keep and bear arms protected by the BOR has never been read to include carrying concealed weapons. That is a fact. We may not like it. We may want to try to change it, but it is a fact that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.
Rob-Black99RT wrote:We, as gun owners, have allowed the states and federal government to whittle away at our rights
Yes, here I am in absolute agreement with you. As free men we have been granted by our Creator the right to carry arms for defense of ourselves and the state. The constitutions of the federal government and most (if not all) of the several states guarantee this right. Yet today you snort in disgust when I write that you could carry openly. It is not carrying concealed weapons that we've lost; it is carrying our weapons openly -- that is the constitutional guarantee. That is the right even recently affirmed (ever so obliquely) by our state supreme court. Carrying concealed has always been problematic and regulated. It has long been the law in Ohio that you cannot carry a concealed weapon even in the privacy of your own home!
Rob-Black99RT wrote:and now we look at this decreased amount of freedom we have and think "this is great". It's simply the frog in the pot syndrome... We're slowing cooking and everything looks fine because we're used to the heat...
Point taken.
Rob-Black99RT wrote:Now, will I go through it to carry according to the laws of our state? Yes... do I like it? No way... Am I doing what I can to change things (writing to senators, reps, governor, attny general)? Yes.
Yup, that's why we pay the big bucks to be members of this outfit.
Rob-Black99RT wrote:Just as I have the right to practice whatever religion I wish, and this is protected by the BOR, and doesn't list a "you can practice this one, but not that one", the 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear arms" without any notation about how one does so...
With the full understanding that, at the time it was written, apparently no one considered concealed carry as a right. Notations, by the way, tend to come later. We have freedom of religion, but we can't make human sacrifices. We have freedom of speech, but we can't yell "theater" in a crowded fire. We have freedom of the press, but you'll get your butt sued off if you libel someone. All of our most cherished rights come with restrictions. We aren't arguing for missile silos in our back yards, or tanks in our garages (cool though that may be...).
Rob-Black99RT wrote:Given that, it's up to me, IMO, on how I can carry, and big brother should keep his nose out of my business of protecting my life and my family...
I heard that!
Rob-Black99RT wrote:I see how well the cops and military have "protected" the law-abiding from thugs in New Orleans... and am now more convinced than ever that nobody can protect me and my loved ones better than me.
So we'd better write to our congresscritters and get this law straightened out. And we'd better select a governor who won't hide behind the very Big Brother who is causing us such concern. If we can get either Blackwell or Petro to run for the Pubbies and Strickland to run for the Dems, we've got a win-win situation.

Though I have a certain amount of concern about who is going to be the next Attorney General. We have been spoiled by Petro. He has been active and agressive on our part. The next AG may not do as well. Remember that both Lee Fisher and Betty Montgomery have been AG's in the past.
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
Redhorse
Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:26 pm
Location: Licking county

Post by Redhorse »

Just a little tid-bit I was curious about...
It has long been the law in Ohio that you cannot carry a concealed weapon even in the privacy of your own home!


Never heard of that one!! :shock:

Really?

Where...why...what the h#!! :?:
Freedom isn't free!
User avatar
jgarvas
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 3163
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Northern Summit County
Contact:

Post by jgarvas »

He's right. (Unless you have a CCW license)

Prior to HB12 becoming law it was illegal to carry a concealed firearm, period. However, there were four affirmative defenses (basically you could use them when you got to court) where you'd basically be admitting that you were doing what you were accused of, but that you had an "affirmative defense".

AD's are not guaranteed. Its like saying self-defense is an AD to murder, now you have to prove you had the right to use deadly force.

Technically, prior to HB12 you could be charged with CCW in your own home, but getting caught would be interesting.

-jeff

Redhorse wrote:Just a little tid-bit I was curious about...
It has long been the law in Ohio that you cannot carry a concealed weapon even in the privacy of your own home!


Never heard of that one!! :shock:

Really?

Where...why...what the h#!! :?:
Jeff Garvas, President
Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Contrary to a popular belief when I brag about OFCC accomplishments I'm not looking for your thank you or personal recognition. I'd much prefer you send me an email telling me when you are going to get involved in doing what I've been doing since 1999. We are only as effective as we make ourselves. We need the next generation of OFCC to step to the plate.

Is that you?

To Contact Me: Use This Form and pick my name.
SMMAssociates
Posts: 9557
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
Location: Youngstown OH

Post by SMMAssociates »

Redhorse:

Never saw that one....

Open carry got a gal in trouble in NE OH someplace. Can't remember the details, but the little Girl Scout selling cookies called it in....

There appears to be a little zinger in the law that says (absent a CHL) that if you transport a gun FOPA-style in the trunk, you can't conceal it while bringing it into your house. You can open-carry it in, of course, but in your own garage?

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
Linda
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: Central OH

Post by Linda »

Right vs Privilege?
Can't CCW be both? This subject has been beaten to death on this forum, and it is always going to boil down to a matter of opinion!

Another subject....,I hate to show my ignorance here, but I have learned SO much from reading the forums. Can someone explain what does "affirmative defense" mean? :?:
"Women must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself."
Susan B. Anthony~July 1871
Post Reply