Dayton Daily News article about changes to carry law

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Dayton Daily News article about changes to carry law

Post by M-Quigley »

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/cri ... KZiwEmMuM/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are three sides in the article. There is the pro CCW and pro private property rights, pro CCW, and anti CCW. On the anti gun side there is the same old tired worn out arguments made when concealed carry became licensed, like what if somebody gets angry?, blah blah. Also the same tired argument about whether concealed carry makes society in general safer or not. It's not a valid question anyway, because that is not the reason for concealed carry. Also a link entitled "Hundreds killed by guns in workplace" Assuming that hundreds are killed with guns at the workplace, those people that did the killing were murderers, who could care less about an employer or a law prohibiting having a gun in the workplace. If they cared about a penalty they wouldn't be murdering people. This sounds like a logical reason for an employer to allow concealed carry, not prohibit it.
Last edited by M-Quigley on Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
techmike
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1595
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Toledo

Re: Dayton Daily News article about changes to carry law

Post by techmike »

I was pretty much OK with the article until:
the December 2015 workplace shooting at a holiday party in San Bernardino, Calif. — which killed 14 and injured 22 — led to a renewed push among gun advocates to expand where permit holders can bring their weapons.
So the horrible terrorist massacre of un-armed Christians at a Christmas party by rop terrorists is now a "workplace shooting". After seeing that I quit reading. Really tired of the way 'reporters' attempt to control the dialog instead of simply reporting the news.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Dayton Daily News article about changes to carry law

Post by M-Quigley »

techmike wrote:I was pretty much OK with the article until:
the December 2015 workplace shooting at a holiday party in San Bernardino, Calif. — which killed 14 and injured 22 — led to a renewed push among gun advocates to expand where permit holders can bring their weapons.
So the horrible terrorist massacre of un-armed Christians at a Christmas party by rop terrorists is now a "workplace shooting". After seeing that I quit reading. Really tired of the way 'reporters' attempt to control the dialog instead of simply reporting the news.
It's even worse than that. In the link about "hundreds killed" it also includes cops and security out on the street, robberies of a business, etc, even suicides. All the theater shootings would count. The shooting at the army reserve center, or Fort Hood even. Basically any shooting that happens to be anything where one person is working. I would guess a good percentage of shootings insides homes can technically be connected to a "workplace" if you count illegal work, like drug dealing. :roll:

The shootings run the gamut from robberies and other crimes, to police officers and security forces killed in the line of duty, to suicides, to disgruntled employees or spouses coming in and killing people.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Dayton Daily News article about changes to carry law

Post by bignflnut »

But House Minority Leader Fred Strahorn, D-Dayton, said he doesn’t believe “proliferation of guns everywhere is the answer.”

“The straw that broke the camel’s back is the personal property issue,” Strahorn said. “That was about usurping private property rights. We should not be in the business of telling private property owners that they don’t have the right to determine what will be brought on their property.”
Clearly.
You're in the business to telling private citizens that they don't have the right to determine where they can effectively defend their lives. You're in the business of making private citizens apply for their God-given Right to Keep and Bear Arms in a commercial manner. You're in the business of erecting barriers to and taxes on the exercising of the rights enumerated in the Ohio Constitution.
“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.”
Tell me, what other Constitutionally protected object am I not allowed to carry on my person onto a commercial property?

Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, which advocated for the new law, said the U.S. Constitution clearly protects a person’s right to bear arms, and restricting that right endangers society.

“For any business that tells you they don’t like this, ask them, ‘Are you willing to take the liability for the 25-year-old single mother who gets car-jacked on the way home?’” Irvine said. “There is no right to be free of guns. There is no right to be free of stupid people. We don’t have the right to be free of danger.”

SNIP

Irvine said he thinks companies have the right to keep guns out of their buildings.

“Absolutely,” he said. “Because it is inside their private property.”
HUH? For it or against it? Ok to be disarmed at work, but not in the parking lot? Illuminate where rights begin and end, particularly the right to be free of guns/stupid people/danger?
Liability isn't on the table. There's an exemption for that.
Muddy at best.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
techmike
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1595
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Toledo

Re: Dayton Daily News article about changes to carry law

Post by techmike »

bignflnut wrote:
Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, which advocated for the new law, said the U.S. Constitution clearly protects a person’s right to bear arms, and restricting that right endangers society.
Heh. The judicious use of the size attribute is some real funny stuff! Well done bignflnut, well done. :D
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Dayton Daily News article about changes to carry law

Post by M-Quigley »

bignflnut wrote:
But House Minority Leader Fred Strahorn, D-Dayton, said he doesn’t believe “proliferation of guns everywhere is the answer.”

“The straw that broke the camel’s back is the personal property issue,” Strahorn said. “That was about usurping private property rights. We should not be in the business of telling private property owners that they don’t have the right to determine what will be brought on their property.
Clearly.
You're in the business to telling private citizens that they don't have the right to determine where they can effectively defend their lives. You're in the business of making private citizens apply for their God-given Right to Keep and Bear Arms in a commercial manner. You're in the business of erecting barriers to and taxes on the exercising of the rights enumerated in the Ohio Constitution.
You're not the only one to make that observation. He read that same comment, and he thought it was very hypocritical. He also said, "Seriously? What party is famous for telling businesses and other private property owners what they can and cannot do. They've been doing that on other issues for decades. And now all of a sudden they allegedly want to stick up for the rights of business owners?"
Post Reply