Can I594 happen in OH and how do we preempt it?

[davcar45]

What can we do in OH to make sure what just happened in WA Tuesday does not happen here?

I am talking about I594 "universal background check" measure that banned all private transfers of firearms even between family in WA state.

Bloomberg comes in dumps millions of dollars and spread a bunch of misinformation. The 59% gullible even many gun owners vote to pass this thing and it is a monstrosity. Can our legislature head this off at the pass somehow?

It is clear that Bloomberg and his shill "gun safety" groups know they are not going to get any federal gun control for the foreseeable future so they are going to go state to state and use a ballot initiative where they can. We don't want something as misunderstood as background checks up for a popular vote. It's basically tyranny of the majority. Billed as common sense when there is no sense to it at all.

[djthomas]

Can our legislature head this off at the pass somehow?

No.

[rickt]

What can we do in OH to make sure what just happened in WA Tuesday does not happen here?

Raise $10 million between now and 2016. On a positive note, perhaps this looming threat will motivate OFCC, BFA, Ohio Carry and the Ohio Rifle & Pistol Association to work together. Remember the Ben Franklin quote? "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

They should agree to create a campaign fund specifically to combat any referendum and start NOW to ask for donations, both online and at gun shows. I'd be happy if they could collect one million in the next year and a half.

[djthomas]

Raise $10 million between now and 2016. On a positive note, perhaps this looming threat will motivate OFCC, BFA, Ohio Carry and the Ohio Rifle & Pistol Association to work together. Remember the Ben Franklin quote? "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

They should agree to create a campaign fund specifically to combat any referendum and start NOW to ask for donations, both online and at gun shows. I'd be happy if they could collect one million in the next year and a half.

The problem with soliciting donations like that is they are being asked for in advance of something that may not come for five, ten years, or ever. It would kind of be like seeking contributions today to block an initiative that would allow for recreational marijuana in Ohio. Politically speaking, places like Washington, Oregon, and Colorado are states where the other side can potentially rack up some wins in the hippie space (anti-gun, pro-weed).

It's extremely tough, and expensive, to get a referendum on the Ohio ballot. I just don't see Ohio having a serious threat in this space right now. There's plenty of other states to pick on. Point being, I'm not going to donate money to a hypothetical cause and I doubt many others would either. If we reach the point that there is a certified referendum coming to the ballot then I'll be involved as all get out. But until then you're better keeping your money in the bank earning interest or spending it on more general second amendment causes (that I already support anyhow).

[Tweed Ring]

If the anti's can have the ballot language approved by the AG, and can obtain the required number of legitimate signatures, it can go on the ballot. If memory serves, the number of signatures for a referendum is approximately a bit over 300K.

[Whirlwind06]

The only thing I can think of would be some kind of preemptive amendment. Something to the effect: "That Ohio law will be no more restrictive then the federal back ground check requirements"

[davcar45]

It's extremely tough, and expensive, to get a referendum on the Ohio ballot.

You're talking about a guy who doesn't care what it cost, money is no object. He has proved, he can and will by gun control, and if he looses some fights along the way, so be it. In WA, you had Bloomberg, Bill Gates and 3-4 other billionaires dumping money into this unenforceable POS measure that will now be law. Next up, the banning of sport utility rifles and "hi-cap" mags. Cause "universal" BG checks are common sense...followed by nobody needs a machine gun and banana clips they can shoot 30 school kids with before reloading.

The only thing I can think of would be some kind of preemptive amendment. Something to the effect: "That Ohio law will be no more restrictive then the federal back ground check requirements"

That would be awesome, I'd like to see that passed.

I'm sure this forum has a few or many "gun owners" that think BG checks for all is A-Ok and nobody needs an assault rifle and a 30 round mag.

In 1994, NICS was the camels nose under the tent slippery slope. 20 years later, more restrictions on the lawful, at least in some states so far.

[davcar45]

How about updating our ballot initiative law to say for the measure to become law, must get a super majority. 67% to approve. Shouldn't be a problem since Bloomberg thinks 90% of the people want this crap.

[JediSkipdogg]

What can we do in OH to make sure what just happened in WA Tuesday does not happen here?

Raise $10 million between now and 2016. On a positive note, perhaps this looming threat will motivate OFCC, BFA, Ohio Carry and the Ohio Rifle & Pistol Association to work together. Remember the Ben Franklin quote? "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Who is ORPA? I haven't heard of them yet. OFCC and Ohio Carry will gladly work together. No issue there. The last one that i haven't mentioned, won't work with anyone. We've tried, they refuse. They even fight us on changing language in the bills they created that have bad language in them. We've proposed changes to HB203 and they have fought us on it. But rest assured, OFCC is taking the suggestions that have shown up on here and proposing them to the legislature for possible amendments.

They should agree to create a campaign fund specifically to combat any referendum and start NOW to ask for donations, both online and at gun shows. I'd be happy if they could collect one million in the next year and a half.

That could be extremely hard. None of us really have the outreach. Combine all of our groups together on Facebook and we are only 40,000 voices strong if the NRA doesn't get involved. If we got the NRA, we could get the millions easily. And as djthomas pointed out, we would be asking for something that may never come. So say OFCC got the million, what do we do with it? How long do we hold on to it before we can spend it for other items? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? A million can take a state firearm group far on other legislative issues at hand. That buys a lot of power so to speak but just holding it buys nothing.

[JediSkipdogg]

How about updating our ballot initiative law to say for the measure to become law, must get a super majority. 67% to approve. Shouldn't be a problem since Bloomberg thinks 90% of the people want this crap.

Do you want that really to apply to everything? I'm sure I could find some gun bills that may not meet that threshold.

[davcar45]

How about updating our ballot initiative law to say for the measure to become law, must get a super majority. 67% to approve. Shouldn't be a problem since Bloomberg thinks 90% of the people want this crap.

Do you want that really to apply to everything? I'm sure I could find some gun bills that may not meet that threshold.

No just ballot initiatives. When was the last thing that is pro gun enacted by ballot initiative? I think never.

The ballot initiative is largely for 51% of people who vote, to vote away the rights of the other 49% who voted and all the rest who didn't vote. I don't want my constitutional rights up for a vote by people who are largely idiots. Reality TV and The View watchers. Who do you think Mom's Demand Action is?

So yeah, if it's important enough to get an initiative together, then you ought to have to convince 67%+ of the voters.

[Curzyk]

How about updating our ballot initiative law to say for the measure to become law, must get a super majority. 67% to approve. Shouldn't be a problem since Bloomberg thinks 90% of the people want this crap.

This is a great start. I also think that the short verbiage on the ballot for WA Initiative 594 was entirely misleading. Perhaps both support and opposition should have the ability to include a 1-2 short sentence summary that must be verified as true before it can go on the ballot.

All this needs to be followed up with truthful education about the use case consequences if it passes versus if it doesn't.

[rickt]

Who is ORPA? I haven't heard of them yet.

They are the official NRA affiliate in Ohio.

http://www.orpa.net/

[DontTreadOnMe]

My main objection to 594, and this applies to other recent initiatives, isn't even the content. It's the length. I can disagree with content but still realize that 51% of people may vote for it, but a ballot initiative that's over 10 pages long? Voters aren't going to read that, so they'll just be voting on the high level summary. It's like Nancy Pelosi's "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" ... it's bloatage designed more to deceive voters than to inform them.

[djthomas]

If the anti's can have the ballot language approved by the AG, and can obtain the required number of legitimate signatures, it can go on the ballot. If memory serves, the number of signatures for a referendum is approximately a bit over 300K.

Plus needing to reach signature levels in at least half of Ohio's counties. A lot of referendum drives fail on this point. They get the volume of signatures by hitting up the college campuses and urban centers but because they can't get support in at least 44 counties it's a no go.

Since we just had a gubernatorial election the signature requirements will be adjusted once the final vote counts are in.