Here's what I just posted in the comments section of the Toledo Blade article:
It is unfortunate Ohio's amendment process leaves us at any time a mere one vote majority away from losing one of our rights. But we have to work with what we've got. As folks that care about fundamental civil rights - and what's more fundamental than the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones? - we need to take the high road here and refrain from name calling but educate others as to exactly why this is such a bad idea. You know Michael Bloomberg et al will give this their full-fledged support. Monetarily? Maybe, maybe not. Mr. Bloomberg did not amass his fortune by "throwing good money after bad." We need to show through a groundswell of opposition this will not fly.
Start with your friends: Ask them if it would make sense to have a different speed limit - that wasn't posted - for school zones throughout the state. Write letters. It's awfully easy to post something quickly on social media, but contrary to popular belief not everyone bothers with social media. Get letters to your local papers.
Do I think this stands a chance? Actually, no. But I'm also not willing to bet more than a cup of coffee against it. ...especially if we sit back and assume "somebody will do something."
I'm actually on a mission right now to post the above at as many papers as I'm able.
Update: Interestingly, so far few papers have I've found have enabled a "Comments" section on this. ...wonder why that is?
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
djthomas wrote:First and foremost I see this as nothing more than an attempt by an obscure candidate for statewide office to increase his name recognition on what has been an otherwise stagnant student-council-esque campaign . He's been campaigning for how long now? His name (and indeed his whole campaign) has been an irrelevant footnote up here in NE Ohio. And don't get me wrong, the Cleveland media aren't in love with his opponent either.
That's true enough. On the channel 10 story they were still pronouncing PG's name incorrectly. But, they spelled it right.
Down here he is all about forming blue ribbon committees, coalitions, cooperatives, and initiatives groups across the do-gooder, we need more nanny statism spectrum. Funny how the media covers the start up of these panels but never reviews them to track any actual progress made. Because there isn't any. If he sponsored a luncheon there would be no food, but his followers would still eat it up, pun intended.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!
********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
FormerNavy wrote:The only thing that concerns me about this is how easy it is to get something on the ballot. I can easily see this spun as one of those "common sense" gun measures... and people are stupid....
And thats the problem, its WAY TOO EASY to slap something on the ballot. Every election cycle there seems to be some kind of initiative on the ballot (smoking ban, Casinos, Marijuana....just to name a few). The key is to go after the root of the problem. Eliminating ballot initiatives in Ohio would probably be out of reach, but a constitutional amendment to require a "super majority" of voters for a ballot initiative to pass MAY be possible. The key would be to implement this before the anti's get their agendas passed.
gunsho11b wrote:. . . but a constitutional amendment to require a "super majority" of voters for a ballot initiative to pass MAY be possible.
I've long thought that. Problem is, next cycle they pass an amendment nullifying it with a simple one vote majority. Which is why the amendment process itself needs to be overhauled.
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
bsctov wrote:Does the Ohio Supreme Court have the authority to rescind an unconstitutional ballot initiative such as this were it to be passed?
I've never understood how a constitutional amendment could ruled as unconstitutional with respect to the constitution it amended. By definition everything in a constitution is constitutional with respect to that constitution. It can, however, violate another constitution.
But that raises the question, does the US Constitution hold sway over State constitutions?
Be a Madisonian.
It finally happened. I have now been accused on OFCC of both being a cop-hater and then a cop-lover! Therefore, anyone making either accusation must not be paying attention.
I wish these people would just let me/us live. I'm tired of writing letters, calling politicians who clearly do not want to hear from me, and attempting to educate people who simply cannot grasp the fact that ideas like this will do nothing to stop criminals, and only infringe upon the rights of law abiding gun owners. I'm gonna continue to do it, and do it with the same ferocity as before, but I am tired.
bsctov wrote:I wish these people would just let me/us live. I'm tired of writing letters, calling politicians who clearly do not want to hear from me, and attempting to educate people who simply cannot grasp the fact that ideas like this will do nothing to stop criminals, and only infringe upon the rights of law abiding gun owners. I'm gonna continue to do it, and do it with the same ferocity as before, but I am tired.
I hear you brother!
Boy, do I hear you,,,,
Ain't activism fun?
"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
gunsho11b wrote:. . . but a constitutional amendment to require a "super majority" of voters for a ballot initiative to pass MAY be possible.
I've long thought that. Problem is, next cycle they pass an amendment nullifying it with a simple one vote majority. Which is why the amendment process itself needs to be overhauled.
Navy chief
Have we looked into this. Not sure if this is possible but if we look into an interstate firearms compact with another state like what Arizona is trying to do, it might at least make it a little more difficult for a initiative regarding guns being put on the ballot. They have a similar flawed ballot initative process like Ohio's. Maybe try to contact someone over at the azcdl.org and find out further.
bsctov wrote:I wish these people would just let me/us live. I'm tired of writing letters, calling politicians who clearly do not want to hear from me, and attempting to educate people who simply cannot grasp the fact that ideas like this will do nothing to stop criminals, and only infringe upon the rights of law abiding gun owners. I'm gonna continue to do it, and do it with the same ferocity as before, but I am tired.
I agree with you. I read on another site (I wish now I had posted the link here) where an anti gun activist basically admitted the plan he advocated was to keep pressure on politicians to keep introducing legislation, even if it's not going to pass right now. Also continue to demonize the NRA and any politicians whenever a mass shooting occurs. One of the comments was that gun owners are typically old white guys, and eventually they will die off. Supposedly women, young people, and minorities overwhelmingly support gun control, even strict gun control, but the old white guys are keeping progress from happening.
This guy was on the Scott Sands show (WSPD in Toledo) Tuesday past - reminded me of Alan Colmes, talk fast, don't answer questions or speak the truth, just get your talking points out. He was full of... stuff. Kept using the fabricated "facts" that even NRA members wanted background checks, 40% of all gun show sales are "off the books", etc, etc.
"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
I learned of the signature petition drive to get this on the ballet as a constitutional amendment this fall at my CHL class at CJM Firearms this past weekend.
I agree with everything I've read in this thread. I fear this will easily make it on the ballot even if DeWine contests some of the signatures as he did with the marijuana amendments this past year. It will then become all about who can educate the Ohio voting public the best with a polarizing issue. In many cases the Ohio voting public has surprised my by actually voting down a lot of these bad constitutional amendments lately but I do not trust that they will continue on that trend. Any voting public can be duped with carefully crafted misleading ads and the ACTUAL wording of these constitutional amendments.
If I remember correctly last year there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot to make some changes to Ohio's ballot process but as I remember it was flawed and now I don't remember if it passed or not (I didn't take the time this morning to research so my apologies).
μολων λαβe
NRA Member
OFCC Member
BFA Member
dirt late model racer
18M_RWR wrote:
If I remember correctly last year there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot to make some changes to Ohio's ballot process but as I remember it was flawed and now I don't remember if it passed or not (I didn't take the time this morning to research so my apologies).
