Plain Dealer article

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

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
mdad
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:17 pm
Location: Franklin County

Plain Dealer article

Post by mdad »

ballistic
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:06 am

Re: Plain Dealer article

Post by ballistic »

mdad wrote:who is the reporter??
No reporter specifically is named. However, Brent Larkin has gone on record saying he'll take responsibility for it.
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Weapons bills insult the public

Post by TunnelRat »

The Plain Dealer wrote:Weapons bills insult the public
Thursday, September 29, 2005

Nearly 18 months ago, the Ohio legisla ture unwisely voted to give most Ohi oans the opportunity to carry concealed weapons. Since then, almost 45,000 permits have been issued.

The effect has been negligible, neither substantiating the claims of proponents that it would improve public safety, nor validating opponents' fears of increased mayhem.

The measure appears simply to have brought Ohio into line with the 45 other states that allow some form of concealed carry. Now, two Republican members of the House are spoiling to make a bad law worse.
More at:
http://tinyurl.com/85moj
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.
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Post by TunnelRat »

The Plain Dealer wrote:One particularly onerous portion of a measure sponsored by Cincinnati Republican Rep. Tom Brinkman would end the ban on carrying concealed guns on university campuses and at day-care centers. It would also remove the requirement that motorists with concealed-carry permits keep their guns in a locked box in their vehicles.
Is this true? I am not familiar with Brinkman's bill.

Would it allow concealed carry on campus? Somehow I doubt that.
Or at day-care centers? Is that right?
The last one -- that motorists with concealed-carry permits now must keep their guns in a locked box in their vehicles -- is false. So am I to assume that the ditzy reporter doesn't understand the proposed change here either?
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.
eweeks
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:05 pm

Post by eweeks »

This has to be the most ignorant article I have ever read. According to the following, I take it that this paper believes all information about everyone that the government has, or has access to should be public? I wonder if they feel that way about their info, or their childrens information. It just seems so silly to me.

"The permit information belongs to the public, which pays for its collection and storage, as well as the salaries of those who do the work. That lawmakers would show such flagrant disregard for the public's rights is reprehensible."

I apologize for ranting, I just never heard such ignorance before. It's shocking in a way.
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Post by TunnelRat »

The Plain Dealer wrote: Now lawmakers are seeking to close off public access completely.
No, they are seeking to end the abuse of the system by newspapers....
The Plain Dealer wrote: The permit information belongs to the public, which pays for its collection and storage, as well as the salaries of those who do the work.
No, this information does not belong to the public, and our lawmakers have specifically said that it does not. There is a lot of private information gathered by public officials that is not made public. Since when has this been the criteria for releasing personal data?
The Plain Dealer wrote: That lawmakers would show such flagrant disregard for the public's rights is reprehensible.
No, rather that newpapers and their sloppy reporters would show such flagrant disregard for the public's rights is reprehensible.
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:

Brinkmann's bill is the "Alaska/Vermont" bill....

Probably not a chance.

There's also the Democrat's bill that takes back "lock the gun in your car on University campuses" and does a few other nice things for us.... Probably no chance....

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
NavyChief
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 11621
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Greene County
Contact:

Post by NavyChief »

I guess I'm just easily confused. If this is so:
The effect has been negligible, neither substantiating the claims of proponents that it would improve public safety, nor validating opponents' fears of increased mayhem.
...then what's the justification for this statement:
The measure appears simply to have brought Ohio into line with the 45 other states that allow some form of concealed carry. Now, two Republican members of the House are spoiling to make a bad law worse.
Do people even read what they write anymore?
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
Post Reply