Werz wrote:OhioPaints wrote:... my car is MY property and no one has the right to search it, no matter where it is, without a court ordered search warrant?
Where did you get that idea?
OhioPaints wrote:Okay, you guys that want to champion "property rights", how about we support property rights: my car is MY property and no one has the right to search it, no matter where it is, without a court ordered search warrant?curmudgeon3 wrote:Let's try sea to sea state CHL reciprocity again, just like driver's and vehicle licenses.
I'm not sure if you are asking for federal legislation (which driver's and vehicles licenses are not) or just broader reciprocity.
Tweed Ring wrote:Fine, as long as you remember Ohio has employment at will, and at a minimum, I'll fire you (if you are not a member of any protected class) and you refuse my request to look inside the vehicle.
rickt wrote:As I said in another thread:
"Notwithstanding the Republican dominance of the Ohio General Assembly, I don't expect to see any pro-gun bills passed in 2013. The political atmosphere has become so poisonous since the Newtown massacre that I think the legislators are going to want to keep their heads down for a while and defer any pro-gun legislation."
There is one thing that could possibly be passed in 2013 and that is adding some teeth to 9.68. I haven't been able to think any spin the cities and the news media could inject to oppose that. What are they going to say, "Hey, we want to continue to enforce our illegal laws"?
Atilla wrote:I'd like to see notification go, but more important for me personally is the right to carry my gun(s) in my car no matter where it is. If an employer wants to restrict employees why can't they ban bibles in cars, or bumper stickers, or certain types of music. It's just plain discrimination. If a business wants to control employees and customers like that they can move to Saudi Arabia or England.
jabeatty wrote:"Parking lot protection" laws are just a way of getting "conservatives" to sign on to the idea that government has the right to dictate which privileges can be included in an employment arrangement. Once you sign on to that line of thinking, what possible argument can you have in the future when those privileges are reversed, and firearms are prohibited in *every* employee parking lot?
Users browsing this forum: slowquest and 3 guests