Carrying a concealed handgun is a privilege in Ohio

uperrsc · Post by **uperrsc** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:09 am

I'm a bit surprised that Jim Petro has quite so much support on this forum seeing as his own intro he wrote for the booklet handed out in every class required for getting a CHL stresses that concealed carry is a privilege.
I assume that the pamphlet had to be agreed to by a group of both REPs and DEMs, so stressing that Ohio provides the "privilege" of self-defense by means of concealed carry was probably a concession agreed to by the folks who still think the 2nd amendment is a "right", that Ohio has affixed restrictions and red tape upon.

All that said, he wrote a little "personal note" which he concludes with his signature that I take as HIS personal belief and his official position, before the Table of Contents and before the introduction in which is stated that the contents of the booklet is not Jim Petro's formal or informal opinion. In his personal letter he uses the word privilege twice, and the word "right" zero times. If it were me, and I could not use the words "exercise your rights" in some fashion, I would leave out the little letter, since it would be a dishonest expression of my feelings. If you guys still have the little booklet pull it out and see for yourself. I wonder if this note doesn't reflect the TRUE feelings of Petro, instead of what he says to particular constituent groups at certain times.

I still think I'd prefer Blackwell to have my back on this issue.

Petrovich · Post by **Petrovich** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:18 am

For Pete's sake dude!!! Don't get all hung up on a single sentence!! Chances are he didn't want that statement in the pamphlet either.

Judge the man for his actions!! He's been behind CC for the long haul!! He spoke at the OFCC gathering....jeesh...waddaya want...a kiss? Give the man the credit he has earned.

Here's your challenge mister....if you want to know what Mr. Petro thinks why don't you just go ask him??? Post the results here.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the brush.

Sheesh...some people's kids...

Ursus americanus · Post by **Ursus americanus** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:46 am

Petrofergov wrote:For Pete's sake dude!!! Don't get all hung up on a single sentence!! Chances are he didn't want that statement in the pamphlet either.

Judge the man for his actions!! He's been behind CC for the long haul!! He spoke at the OFCC gathering....jeesh...waddaya want...a kiss? Give the man the credit he has earned.

Here's your challenge mister....if you want to know what Mr. Petro thinks why don't you just go ask him??? Post the results here.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the brush.

Sheesh...some people's kids...

PFG - we all know from your screen name alone you're Petro nut - lighten up. Not everyone is going to like Petro. uperssc has a point and he is allowed his opinions. You may not agree but when you respond the way you do it appears your responses are so emotional they appear personal rather than objective.

Petro will be coming into a lot more critisizm as the elections draw closer - you best get used to it now.

G

Petrovich · Post by **Petrovich** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:28 am

Ursus americanus wrote:
Petrofergov wrote:For Pete's sake dude!!! Don't get all hung up on a single sentence!! Chances are he didn't want that statement in the pamphlet either.

Judge the man for his actions!! He's been behind CC for the long haul!! He spoke at the OFCC gathering....jeesh...waddaya want...a kiss? Give the man the credit he has earned.

Here's your challenge mister....if you want to know what Mr. Petro thinks why don't you just go ask him??? Post the results here.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the brush.

Sheesh...some people's kids...
PFG - we all know from your screen name alone you're Petro nut - lighten up. Not everyone is going to like Petro. uperssc has a point and he is allowed his opinions. You may not agree but when you respond the way you do it appears your responses are so emotional they appear personal rather than objective.

Petro will be coming into a lot more critisizm as the elections draw closer - you best get used to it now.

G

He draws an entire conclusion about a man's stand on an issue based on one sentence in a trifold pamphlet, when other words and deeds are multiple and indicate otherwise.........and I'm going off half cocked???

Okay....I stand humbly corrected.

Post by **TunnelRat** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:04 pm

Petrofergov wrote:He draws an entire conclusion about a man's stand on an issue based on one sentence in a trifold pamphlet, when other words and deeds are multiple and indicate otherwise.........and I'm going off half cocked????

While I don't care for the remarkably uncomfortable position of having to defend P4G

, the facts remain that Petro has done as much for concealed carry in this state as any other elected official, and frankly, more than most. Due entirely to Petro's aggressive stance on reciprocity, the Ohio CHL can be carried quite widely -- in nearly as many states as the licenses from Florida, Utah, and Texas. Had he not been detemined to do a good job for us license holders, we might be limited to Michigan, Indiana, and Vermont.

While I have to give some credit to uperrsc regarding his viewpoint about "privilege", there are many who are not at all clear about the distinctions between constitutional rights, civil rights, and privileges. We frequently hear someone yammering about how there is a God-given, constitutionally protected right to carry a concealed weapon. Unfortunately, such a "right" is reflected neither in law nor in history -- not in this country, nor in any other.

Our rights are many and non-specific. Those protected by the constitutions of Ohio and of the United States are fewer, and more clearly delineated. The right to carry a concealed weapon is protected by neither.

Recently the Ohio State Legislature has granted us a civil right to carry a concealed handgun. It is a right in that the sheriff must issue a license to those who qualify. It is a privilege in that those who don't make it through all the hoops don't get one. It may be further considered a privilege in that the legislature can change the law at some future time. What the legislature grants, the legislature can take away....

Perhaps we should cut Petro a little slack. The prodigious work he has done on our behalf ought not to be diminished simply on the basis of a few words of arguable meaning.

Petrovich · Post by **Petrovich** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:10 pm

tommcnaughton wrote:
While I don't care for the remarkably uncomfortable position of having to defend P4G

Thanks Tom....I think.

toddhill · Post by **toddhill** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:58 pm

I think Klien -vs- ??? stated that the prohibition of concealed carry is not unconstitutional. We can have guns and we can carry guns, but the type of gun and the way it's carried can be regulated.

...I think.

Post by **TunnelRat** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:51 pm

toddhill wrote:I think Klien -vs- ??? stated that the prohibition of concealed carry is not unconstitutional. We can have guns and we can carry guns, but the type of gun and the way it's carried can be regulated.

Klein v. Leis said that the mode of carry can be constitutionally regulated. It did not say that the type of gun may be regulated.

Post by **jgarvas** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:26 pm

tommcnaughton wrote:
toddhill wrote:I think Klien -vs- ??? stated that the prohibition of concealed carry is not unconstitutional. We can have guns and we can carry guns, but the type of gun and the way it's carried can be regulated.
Klein v. Leis said that the mode of carry can be constitutionally regulated. It did not say that the type of gun may be regulated.

I believe what you two are thinking of is the part where the court ruled that "legislative control" of how or when a firearm is carried is considered a "police power" of the State. It was a very crafty way to deny us what we were trying to prove in Klein. (That there was an inalienable individual right).

They came to that conclusion, but said that since you could "carry one openly" that constitutional right wasn't entirely obliterated/eliminated. I was there when the justices said they knew many people who carried openly, and I could barely control my laughter. (But I did)

If anyone would like to see the Klein case I believe we have it on video hidden away where only members of OFCC can get to it.

-Jeff

Post by **TunnelRat** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:29 pm

jgarvas wrote:I was there when the justices said they knew many people who carried openly, and I could barely control my laughter.

Of course, those they know who carry openly all are uniformed officers, but I digress...

Willy P · Post by **Willy P** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:47 pm

Doesn't the wording have to do with the fact we have to take training and apply to buy a license? So as driving is a privilege and hunting is a privilege so then is CCing. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE WORDING I'm just stating the legal bullhockey about it as I think I have it in my head. The Common Law guys at work don't have licenses they all carry the entire HB12 bound and paid for from the state and claim deep in it some place ( I forget right off where ) it says they are not granting us anything we don't already have the right too??? I read it 6 months ago but that was a whole lot of pain and pain killers and a surgery ago so I forget a lot of how he explained it. I know I didn't feel real good about what it said and carrying without the piece of plastic with my picture on it that I paid 45 bucks for. This is a fella that eats lunch with the guy that had the viles of small pox/hoof and mouth/plague what the heck ever it was several years ago and went to court over it. These guys push the envelope some!

Post by **jgarvas** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:03 pm

Willy P wrote:Doesn't the wording have to do with the fact we have to take training and apply to buy a license? So as driving is a privilege and hunting is a privilege so then is CCing. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE WORDING I'm just stating the legal bullhockey about it as I think I have it in my head. The Common Law guys at work don't have licenses they all carry the entire HB12 bound and paid for from the state and claim deep in it some place ( I forget right off where ) it says they are not granting us anything we don't already have the right too??? I read it 6 months ago but that was a whole lot of pain and pain killers and a surgery ago so I forget a lot of how he explained it. I know I didn't feel real good about what it said and carrying without the piece of plastic with my picture on it that I paid 45 bucks for. This is a fella that eats lunch with the guy that had the viles of small pox/hoof and mouth/plague what the heck ever it was several years ago and went to court over it. These guys push the envelope some!

Almost anything "given" to you with stipulations that allow for it ot be taken away, or if you have to meet certain requirements to get it, make it a privilege.

People think they have a "right" to drive a car in Ohio. The list of things you can have your license taken away for is rather insane.

While it didn't ring well with most of us (I make a big point out of it in our classes that we teach) the fact is, it is a privilege in Ohio to have and maintain a CHL, and some people need that point made to them -- if you screw up, you will lose your license.

If it was a right, it wouldn't be a license

Linda · Post by **Linda** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:04 am

jgarvas wrote: it is a privilege in Ohio to have and maintain a CHL, and some people need that point made to them -- if you screw up, you will lose your license.

If it was a right, it wouldn't be a license

I agree that it is a privilege and not necessarily a right. It is my privilege to carry a CHL, because all my life I have been an upstanding, law abiding citizen. I have earned that privilege. Those who have violated the "rights" of others by getting themselves arrested for any number of reasons, have lost their "privilege" to apply for a CHL!

Post by **NavyChief** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:33 am

Ah, life as it is v. life as it oughta be. No, CCW is not a privilege, it is a right. And yes, it is supported both in the Constitution and God-given rights. I'm sure ya'll remember the part that says "The right of the people ... to keep and bear..." Doesn't say anything in the world about how one bears those arms. Nor does it say anything about "unless having been convicted of..." All such confabulations have been added or interpreted after the fact. Sadly, over the years we have allowed our rights to be nibbled away bit by bit until we reach "life as it is" today and we believe we've achieved some sort of victory when the state allows us to exercise one of those rights - provided we've jumped through the proper hoops. And, in a way, we have. It shows we've taken at least one step back in the right direction. May we not forget the journey is far from ended.

Petrovich · Post by **Petrovich** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:05 am

Linda wrote:
jgarvas wrote: it is a privilege in Ohio to have and maintain a CHL, and some people need that point made to them -- if you screw up, you will lose your license.

If it was a right, it wouldn't be a license
I agree that it is a privilege and not necessarily a right. It is my privilege to carry a CHL, because all my life I have been an upstanding, law abiding citizen. I have earned that privilege. Those who have violated the "rights" of others by getting themselves arrested for any number of reasons, have lost their "privilege" to apply for a CHL!

Hi Linda!!! Your post takes me back to my Navy days.....I earned a bunch of privileges.....but I seldom got them.