bignflnut wrote:Chuck wrote:In the legislative session before we got concealed carry in Ohio, there was a bill that had only one poison pill in it.
OFCC stood firm in rejecting the bill, sure we could do better the next session.
What would you have done?
Took the first bill or stood on principle?
Chuck, I have no quarrel with you. I wasn't directing any of my comments at you personally.
I'll engage the conversation, but know that I'm not blaming you for the past poison pills.
Very little anyone says is taken "personally", so please quit worrying about that
bignflnut wrote:A) OFCC stood firm in rejecting the first bill, calculating that a better bill was imminent.
I would applaud that effort. I'm in that camp. Stand for the best, accept no substitutes.
EXACTLY what we thought,,, at that time
bignflnut wrote:So the next bill comes down the pipe and it's worse.
Chuck wrote:What should we do? Continue standing firm while folks STILL can't carry legally, or take what we could and get busy on removing the crap?
We obviously choose to take the crap and get busy removing it.
B) OFCC does not stand firm after having stood firm for less. The miscalculation that there was a better bill forthcoming caused fear and trepidation which gave rise to another miscalculation.
--At this point, hasn't OFCC demonstrated that they will accept less acceptable bills? Why is anyone motivated to improve legislation, when it will get the endorsement of the org in it's shabby condition? The right play in the second session was to oust the people who had injected the poison pills, not reward them with a legislative win.
And how long until that happens, and what do we do about defending ourselves in the meantime?
Rolling a republican legislature isn't going to happen, unless you replace all of them with democrats.
Once the democrats are in, you have to get THEM, then start all over.
Getting the whole of the electorate to change parties that many times isn't going to happen in a general election or two, but rather over DECADES.
I would rather carry with asinine conditions attached than not carry at all; how about you?
Are you carrying concealed under all the conditions you condemn us for accepting or are you the purest, who only carries openly as is your right in this great state?
bignflnut wrote:They can then continue to undermine RKBA in Ohio with further legislation that can't be opposed on any principled basis.
Such as?
I know of no new restrictions on gun rights in the last fifteen years, but I am getting old and forgetful
bignflnut wrote:Hence my call for public repentance. OFCC has to serve notice to the swamp and the donor base that they recognize and have learned from the past errors. #NeverForget
If the org continues to proudly sell the notion that they did the right thing in both instances (I agree with A, not B) any proclamation that they're a "no compromise" / "give no quarter" type of org is undermined. That is the type of org that citizens trust and financially support. Not one which accepts the poison pills from the swamp, believing that they can spend the next decade plus undoing the poison pills (the believed lie that gives comfort when legislation is miserable). I'll retract "eager" if it helps. We are where we are today due to the acceptance of the poison pills.
We do what we think is best for our membership and the gun community at large. Sub HB 142 is no improvement at all since cities will be able to raise the MM to an M1 anyway. They actually said to me "At least now there won't be licenses being suspended". This trickle is well offset by the undermining of ORC 9.68 by allowing localities to make their own penalties. Someday, a city will point to this as a reason for allowing "home rule" with gun rights.
It sets a VERY bad precedent.
IMO, we could still be working on the perfect bill. It was far better to take what we could and work on more in the future, than to only accept a perfect bill, no exceptions.