Page 5 of 9

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:23 pm
by jabeatty
Michael0317 wrote:I would like to see the form 4473 requirement go away for a CHL holder, like some states already do.
The feds require an FBI background check for initial licensure and every renewal in exchange for this privilege.

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:29 pm
by JediSkipdogg
jabeatty wrote:
Michael0317 wrote:I would like to see the form 4473 requirement go away for a CHL holder, like some states already do.
The feds require an FBI background check for initial licensure and every renewal in exchange for this privilege.
So make an FBI check mandatory to get a CHL. As for the cost, I have always wondered if the FBI charges anything or if the sheriff's just want the extra money because it takes 2 seconds to read "NO RECORD" on an FBI return.

I amazed someone the other day on Facebook that it was harder to get a CHL than a firearm from an FFL. The CHL check is harder and more thorough than just a name run over the phone through an FFL.

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:50 pm
by djthomas
JediSkipdogg wrote:So make an FBI check mandatory to get a CHL. As for the cost, I have always wondered if the FBI charges anything or if the sheriff's just want the extra money because it takes 2 seconds to read "NO RECORD" on an FBI return.
This would also give us license recognition by at least two other decent states.

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:28 pm
by ohgary
WestonDon wrote:We do not want to weaken property rights at all. We may have our own battle over property rights coming soon.
Dont take it on as a property issue. take it on as as an employment issue. No rules that stop someone from exercising there rights? Use the correct legal mumbo jumbo.

I have no issue with my employer telling me what I can or cant do in there property, but in my car (even on there property) is another matter.

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:04 pm
by Tweed Ring
ohgary wrote:
WestonDon wrote:We do not want to weaken property rights at all. We may have our own battle over property rights coming soon.
Dont take it on as a property issue. take it on as as an employment issue. No rules that stop someone from exercising there rights? Use the correct legal mumbo jumbo.

I have no issue with my employer telling me what I can or cant do in there property, but in my car (even on there property) is another matter.
In Ohio, without a signed employment contract, and/or protected class status, employers enjoy employment at will ( a Term of Art.) Please believe your employer may terminate your employment: if said employer does not permit any activity in which you may engage, while in your vehicle, while said vehicle is parked on your employer's property.

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:48 am
by djthomas
Tweed Ring wrote:In Ohio, without a signed employment contract, and/or protected class status, employers enjoy employment at will ( a Term of Art.) Please believe your employer may terminate your employment
Exactly. I've always felt that special protections like this are worthless in a right to hire state. So I can't fire you for having a gun in your car. Fair enough. Nothing says I can't sack you a month later for no reason at all.

Trust me if you aren't part of a bargaining unit and management finds out you're doing something they don't like they'll fire at the first opportunity. The dumb employers will try to rationalize it and come up with some other unprotected basis to fire you. The smart ones will say nothing other than telling you that your services are no longer required.

Since we're talking about 2013-14 laws personally I'd favor chipping away at the enumerated CPZs.

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:11 am
by JediSkipdogg
djthomas wrote:
Tweed Ring wrote:In Ohio, without a signed employment contract, and/or protected class status, employers enjoy employment at will ( a Term of Art.) Please believe your employer may terminate your employment
Exactly. I've always felt that special protections like this are worthless in a right to hire state. So I can't fire you for having a gun in your car. Fair enough. Nothing says I can't sack you a month later for no reason at all.

Trust me if you aren't part of a bargaining unit and management finds out you're doing something they don't like they'll fire at the first opportunity. The dumb employers will try to rationalize it and come up with some other unprotected basis to fire you. The smart ones will say nothing other than telling you that your services are no longer required.

Since we're talking about 2013-14 laws personally I'd favor chipping away at the enumerated CPZs.
That's why I've always thought it's pointless. If those in a union want it for protection they can ask for it in their contract, no state law needed. Those without a union, it's just a symbolic law that has no teeth to it. 5 minutes late? Goodbye. Come into work while sick. Goodbye. Being an at-will employment state you don't need a reason at all. So they find a gun in your car they can still fire you. Then you have to prove they fired you because of the gun and they will just say it's for some other reason and all the employee ends up with is a {inappropriate language} off employer and huge court expenses.

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:54 am
by OhioPaints
Tweed Ring wrote:In Ohio, without a signed employment contract, and/or protected class status, employers enjoy employment at will ( a Term of Art.) Please believe your employer may terminate your employment: if said employer does not permit any activity in which you may engage, while in your vehicle, while said vehicle is parked on your employer's property.
So where is the line drawn? Obviously they can fire you if you refuse to allow a search of your car. What about the next step where they prohibit you from owning firearms period? They demand the right to search your home if you want to stay employed. They fire you for belonging to the NRA (you must be one of those "extremist gun nut terrorists") or for having a CHL. Or maybe they fire you for not supporting Obama.

Where does the line get drawn?

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:36 am
by Cynyster
OhioPaints wrote:
Tweed Ring wrote:In Ohio, without a signed employment contract, and/or protected class status, employers enjoy employment at will ( a Term of Art.) Please believe your employer may terminate your employment: if said employer does not permit any activity in which you may engage, while in your vehicle, while said vehicle is parked on your employer's property.
So where is the line drawn? Obviously they can fire you if you refuse to allow a search of your car. What about the next step where they prohibit you from owning firearms period? They demand the right to search your home if you want to stay employed. They fire you for belonging to the NRA (you must be one of those "extremist gun nut terrorists") or for having a CHL. Or maybe they fire you for not supporting Obama.

Where does the line get drawn?
I think we will find the line wont be drawn. I was fired from a place once because I refused to convert to be a newborn christian. The entire upper management was newborn christian ministers. The written down reason was: I refused to relocate to Pittsburgh. (chuckles they asked what religion I practiced and despite being a confirmed catholic I said I was a Druid.) :P

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:40 am
by Tweed Ring
djthomas wrote:
Tweed Ring wrote:In Ohio, without a signed employment contract, and/or protected class status, employers enjoy employment at will ( a Term of Art.) Please believe your employer may terminate your employment
Exactly. I've always felt that special protections like this are worthless in a right to hire state. So I can't fire you for having a gun in your car. Fair enough. Nothing says I can't sack you a month later for no reason at all.

Trust me if you aren't part of a bargaining unit and management finds out you're doing something they don't like they'll fire at the first opportunity. The dumb employers will try to rationalize it and come up with some other unprotected basis to fire you. The smart ones will say nothing other than telling you that your services are no longer required.

Since we're talking about 2013-14 laws personally I'd favor chipping away at the enumerated CPZs.
This is my favorite. "I am no longer satisfied with your level of performance." Employee...gone.

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:44 am
by Tweed Ring
OhioPaints wrote:
Tweed Ring wrote:In Ohio, without a signed employment contract, and/or protected class status, employers enjoy employment at will ( a Term of Art.) Please believe your employer may terminate your employment: if said employer does not permit any activity in which you may engage, while in your vehicle, while said vehicle is parked on your employer's property.
So where is the line drawn? Obviously they can fire you if you refuse to allow a search of your car. What about the next step where they prohibit you from owning firearms period? They demand the right to search your home if you want to stay employed. They fire you for belonging to the NRA (you must be one of those "extremist gun nut terrorists") or for having a CHL. Or maybe they fire you for not supporting Obama.

Where does the line get drawn?
In an employment at will state, e.g. Ohio, the line is drawn where each employer chooses to draw said line. The terminated employee has the option of filing a civil action.

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:48 pm
by jabeatty
The proper answer to employment issues of this sort used to involve employee initiative: starting one's own business, for example, or finding employment someplace where freedom is celebrated - maybe even organizing a boycott of the misguided employer.

Today we just get in line with the others and beg for government oversight.

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:39 pm
by WestonDon
Enhancing one's rights at the expense of another's rights is not the answer and can come back to bite us.

The conflict as I see it is that an employer by banning guns impacts an employees right to carry off the employers premises as a practical matter.

So how to resolve that conflict? The reality of the situation is that it will never be 100% resolved. There are several things that can be done to improve the situation.

Reduce the number of statutory CPZ's in an effort to normalize carrying firearms and to make no carry zones the exception rather than the rule.

Remove the part of the CC law that gives immunity from liability to businesses regardless of their position on CC. There are enough laws regarding liability issues already. Firearms should not be singled out for special treastment.

Education. Perhaps an educational program sponsored by the NRA or some other pro 2A group taylored specifically for the legal profession and HR professionals would be benificial.

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:05 pm
by Tweed Ring
jabeatty wrote:The proper answer to employment issues of this sort used to involve employee initiative: starting one's own business, for example, or finding employment someplace where freedom is celebrated - maybe even organizing a boycott of the misguided employer.

Today we just get in line with the others and beg for government oversight.
Whenever I had to deal with mediocre employees whining about the work rules, I would suggest they walk out the front door. I would tell them: look to the right; look to the left; look up; and, finally, look down. Realize it's a big, wonderful world out there. If you don't like working under my rules, then don't let that door strike you in the posterior, as you go to find gainful employment elsewhere.

Never had anyone take me up on my suggestion...

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:41 pm
by Imcrazy
Eliminate the criminal nature of no gun signs would be excellent. Private property rights don't trump the right to defend myself.

EDIT: I would like to hear from those who disagree why they feel that because someone owns a piece of land that it gives them the right to strip me of my god given right to self defense. ?