OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

JonasM
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Cuyahoga Co, OH

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by JonasM »

One must remember that entering someone else's private property is OPTIONAL. You either accept the restrictions, or you do not enter.

I appreciate that some see that as an infringement, and I applaud their desire for basic liberty. I ask them, however, to rethink whether their interpretation is correct in this case. The only infringement that can occur on private property is initiation of force. All else is under the domain of the property owner.
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by WestonDon »

There is an interesting debate going on here but in my opinion over a low priority issue. Based on the recent poll taken on this board we have more urgent issues to address. Like notification, duty to retreat, government CPZ"s to name a few.

For what it's worth I used to be in the camp that wanted to straight up outlaw all CPZ's, then I realized that one of the reasons we cherish the 2nd amendment is because it is the last line of defense of our other rights, including private property rights.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by JediSkipdogg »

WestonDon wrote:There is an interesting debate going on here but in my opinion over a low priority issue. Based on the recent poll taken on this board we have more urgent issues to address. Like notification, duty to retreat, government CPZ"s to name a few.

For what it's worth I used to be in the camp that wanted to straight up outlaw all CPZ's, then I realized that one of the reasons we cherish the 2nd amendment is because it is the last line of defense of our other rights, including private property rights.
I place my priorities for what should be pushed on what generates the most arrests or could jam someone up the most. IMO, walking past a private business CPZ jams up less people than a handful a year. It hits more, but those are the ones that want to argue over refusing to leave and well, at that point deserve arrest.

Notification leads to arrest time and time again. Of all CCW laws, it generates the most arrests currently from personal experience. My department treats CHLers pretty decently, but there have been quite a few notification arrests time and time again. I have cases of arrests where the person honked their horn after the officer got back in his vehicle to run the person and the officer said that was too late and it stuck, cause technically, it was a violation.

I would say duty to retreat jams up some people each year. I'd be curious at numbers for that, but each court case for a homicide would have to be looked at individually to see if a person had the opportunity to retreat. That would take hours upon months of research.

Government CPZs is huge and while most know what a government building is, there are some exceptions that people truly had no idea on. Cincinnati Union Terminal is one. Sure, it's privately run, but it's owned by the City of Cincinnati I believe. Most don't realize that and therefore the posted signs take it from a misdemeanor to a felony. I'm also of the believe that of all places, the 2nd amendment should apply to is government buildings. After all how can we argue the 2nd says they can't restrict our rights yet we let them do so at the very buildings we put them in?
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
Liberty
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:38 pm
Location: Akron

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by Liberty »

schmieg wrote: The Second Amendment was not federal pre-emption until it was applied to the States through the 14th Amendment. This is only a recent legal development and is still getting sorted out. Do not apply evil to the courts in a general statement like you did here. Most judges are trying to do a balancing act to protect individuals and give government the ability to function at the same time. Some are better than others. Yes, some judges have agendas and they are not generally good judges. However, in a society where 30 to 40% of the population thinks that the First Amendment should be repealed, we are not going to be able to do much about those judges.

Regarding your point about the amendment process being a potential tool for the destruction of our freedom, this is the main reason that I truly fear a Constitutional Convention.

The "usurpation" of power that you refer to on nuclear weapons has been going on for a long time, more than 150 years, though it didn't come into its present form until the 20th century. Regarding nuclear weapons, I disagree as they are not weapons ordinarily used for common defense or individual defense. If I had my druthers, no one, not even the governments of the world, would have them, but trying to accomplish that would work as well as banning guns did in Chicago.
You have to think outside of the box that law school places people in. I clearly said that I know how the courts have ruled. What you have laid out is the situation that the courts have put us into by building on Marbury v. Madison, i.e., changing the constitution via usurpation of the judiciary. McDonald v. Chicago used the incorporation doctrine in order to keep the power to change the constitution with the judiciary. And make no mistake, their interpretations change it.

The text of the second amendment is not in french or some archaic dialect that us modern people cannot comprehend so we need judges to tell us the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We can read it for ourselves. Arms are guns, knives, clubs, swords, axes, armor etc... Keep means own, have, possess. Bear means have and bring with you when you need them. And the words "weapons ordinarily used for common defense or individual defense" are not there. Antonin, the father of textualism, made it up so as not to have the second amendment apply to nuclear weapons and such.

Using your legal skills to understand the English language and how the courts rule for rights that they like, while applying the general rules of statutory and constitutional interpretation that are discussed ad nauseam in case after case, if a constitution or a statue says the federal legislature shall make no law about one thing and then plainly says another thing shall not be infringed, how can one conclude that both only limit the federal legislature? The second amendment was clearly intended to ensure that the citizenry remains armed anywhere, whereas the first amendment's intention was, in part, to prevent a national religion, but not to reverse some states' official religions. In order to accomplish keeping an armed citizenry, the amendment had to apply everywhere in the United States, and thus the wording. If the framers wanted to limit the application of the second amendment to the federal government, it would have done it with language that it had already used in the first amendment, i.e., congress shall make no law... And again, I know how the court have ruled. They are wrong. They are outside the law. The constitution provides a way to change it via the amendment system. That is the rule of law. Usurpation by nine people dressed in black robes in a palace is not rule of law; it is rule of the ultra elite, and if it continues, they will eventually take, or try to take, all of our rights.

I am making this point because it is how we lost our rights, and I think it is the only way to get them all back. It was how the framers preserved the freedoms after fighting for them. A constitutional convention would never have enough votes to curtail our right to keep and bear arms, nor would there ever be enough votes for all of the other things that democrats were able to get judges to add to the constitution such as eminent domain, affirmative action, murder of the unborn, forcing christian bakeries to make wedding cakes for homosexuals, taking our money to facilitate murder of the unborn.
Liberty
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:38 pm
Location: Akron

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by Liberty »

JustaShooter wrote:I frankly find it abhorrent when someone claims any right of theirs supersedes the most fundamental of all rights, that of private property. Yes, you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - but not on my property, regardless of whether I'm operating a business on that property, unless I allow it.
WOW! The last time someone said something like that was from behind a prison cell by a person who was criminally insane. It was in 1989 in the old Mansfield prison. The person was convicted of raping a woman who knocked on his door to sell products; I think it was Avon. His lawyer pleaded him guilty, but he was litigating in an attempt to withdraw his plea. His ramblings looked a lot like what I have just seen here. His contention was that the most fundamental right in the constitution was the right to do what he want to do on his private property and how it outweighed a woman's right to refuse his sexual advances. He even had a sign in his window warning that those who enter were subject to rape. I was unable to correct his thinking errors. The furthest I could get with him was that our current society would not tolerate that behavior (thus his situation of being in a prison cell) regardless of what the constitution says.

Let me make this very clear. The rights you have to do things in your business that is open to the public DO NOT include depriving me or my family of the right to life!

And as I explain in constitutional law class, "property" as discussed by the framers in their writings and in the constitution is not limited to real estate; it includes arms, personal effects and documents.

Please point us to the founding documents or the constitutional provision that place a business owner's right to deprive another of the means to preserve life, i.e., arms.

It is clear to me now why the legislators do not respect you guys and why we still have the mess we have with Ohio firearms laws.
Liberty
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:38 pm
Location: Akron

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by Liberty »

WestonDon wrote:There is an interesting debate going on here but in my opinion over a low priority issue. Based on the recent poll taken on this board we have more urgent issues to address. Like notification, duty to retreat, government CPZ"s to name a few.

For what it's worth I used to be in the camp that wanted to straight up outlaw all CPZ's, then I realized that one of the reasons we cherish the 2nd amendment is because it is the last line of defense of our other rights, including private property rights.
Repeal notification: 22%
Decriminalize private CPZ's: 19%
Eliminate government CPZ's: 6%

Do you reasonably expect government employees to eliminate their power to disarm you in their buildings while many of you demand the power for yourselves to disarm anyone you please in your businesses that are open to the public?
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by JediSkipdogg »

Liberty wrote:Let me make this very clear. The rights you have to do things in your business that is open to the public DO NOT include depriving me or my family of the right to life!

And as I explain in constitutional law class, "property" as discussed by the framers in their writings and in the constitution is not limited to real estate; it includes arms, personal effects and documents.

Please point us to the founding documents or the constitutional provision that place a business owner's right to deprive another of the means to preserve life, i.e., arms.

It is clear to me now why the legislators do not respect you guys and why we still have the mess we have with Ohio firearms laws.
There is first of all a huge reason the founders and Supreme Court for centuries has found the Bill of Rights only applies to the government and not a restriction on the people. You have to remember, and most recently as 2010, the Supreme Court has ruled that a business = person. So the Constitution is a set of guidelines for federal, state, and local governments when interacting with people or businesses. There is nothing in there and no court case has ever come close for it to being a document or guidelines between people and business.

It does not matter that the business is open to your or not. The only difference between the Coco Cola factory and Kroger is "privilege" to be there. You have NO right to be at either place. The courts have long ruled that privilege can be taken away via trespass cases.

Also, if Kroger wants to ban you from carrying in the store how are they depriving you of your right to life? Are they injecting you with a poison when you enter the store? Are you saying Kroger is liable for EVERYTHING that happens to your life while inside their store? They cannot be responsible for anything they cannot directly control. Freddy Krueger is responsible for his actions and you made a CHOICE to enter the store without your firearm. And if you look at where case laws are starting to go now, they are coming into the 21st century now. The old case of "well that's the only way I can get my groceries" is no longer working when you can have nearly everything delivered or do all your shopping from home and pick up without entering the store. I've seen more "stay away" orders issued by courts over the past year than ever before.

If the framers wanted private property to have more restrictions, they would have placed some on them and made it so business is not equal to people.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
docachna
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:26 am
Location: Mount Juliet TN

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by docachna »

A lawyer I worked with many years ago up near Canton had a young associate who had previously clerked for an Ohio Supreme Court justice who became famous for the video of her DUI arrest by the Ohio State Highway Patrol. This justice had been chosen to write the Court's opinion in a case which would have major impact on the insurance industry if the decision was unfavorable to them.

The clerk wrote her draft brief and sent it to the Justice. A day or two later, the Justice walked into her office, sat down and proceeded to compliment her on her writing style, her composition, her efficient and accurate citation of case law, and the development and logic to her argument in favor of her expressed position.

Then she said, "But there's just one problem. Your draft rules in favor of the Appellee [insurance company]. We're going to rule in favor of the Appellant [plaintiff/litigant]".

The clerk was dumbfounded, and asked the Justice why. She just smiled and said, "You were right about everything; it's just your outcome that was wrong. We'll have to change that. No opinion going out over my name will rule in favor of an insurance company".

So when anybody tells you that the courts are not result-oriented entities ----- I beg to differ. They make their decision, and then formulate an opinion to support their position.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by JustaShooter »

Nice ad hominem, by the way. I expected more from you. You seized on the one statement where my typing got out in front of what I was trying to say - and I suspect you knew it. Regardless:
Liberty wrote:Please point us to the founding documents or the constitutional provision that place a business owner's right to deprive another of the means to preserve life, i.e., arms.
Not so fast. It is you who made the claim that the 2nd Amendment was written to restrict government and individuals and extends itself to business that are open to the public, so it is incumbent on *you* to support that claim with more than your own conjecture. I challenge you to produce writings of our founders to support those claims, as well as your apparent belief that you have the right to enter that property without adhering to the conditions of the property owner. I'll not hold my breath, as nowhere in their writings that I've read have I seen anything remotely resembling what you are claiming.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by schmieg »

Liberty wrote:
schmieg wrote: The Second Amendment was not federal pre-emption until it was applied to the States through the 14th Amendment. This is only a recent legal development and is still getting sorted out. Do not apply evil to the courts in a general statement like you did here. Most judges are trying to do a balancing act to protect individuals and give government the ability to function at the same time. Some are better than others. Yes, some judges have agendas and they are not generally good judges. However, in a society where 30 to 40% of the population thinks that the First Amendment should be repealed, we are not going to be able to do much about those judges.

Regarding your point about the amendment process being a potential tool for the destruction of our freedom, this is the main reason that I truly fear a Constitutional Convention.

The "usurpation" of power that you refer to on nuclear weapons has been going on for a long time, more than 150 years, though it didn't come into its present form until the 20th century. Regarding nuclear weapons, I disagree as they are not weapons ordinarily used for common defense or individual defense. If I had my druthers, no one, not even the governments of the world, would have them, but trying to accomplish that would work as well as banning guns did in Chicago.
You have to think outside of the box that law school places people in. I clearly said that I know how the courts have ruled. What you have laid out is the situation that the courts have put us into by building on Marbury v. Madison, i.e., changing the constitution via usurpation of the judiciary. McDonald v. Chicago used the incorporation doctrine in order to keep the power to change the constitution with the judiciary. And make no mistake, their interpretations change it.

The text of the second amendment is not in french or some archaic dialect that us modern people cannot comprehend so we need judges to tell us the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We can read it for ourselves. Arms are guns, knives, clubs, swords, axes, armor etc... Keep means own, have, possess. Bear means have and bring with you when you need them. And the words "weapons ordinarily used for common defense or individual defense" are not there. Antonin, the father of textualism, made it up so as not to have the second amendment apply to nuclear weapons and such.

Using your legal skills to understand the English language and how the courts rule for rights that they like, while applying the general rules of statutory and constitutional interpretation that are discussed ad nauseam in case after case, if a constitution or a statue says the federal legislature shall make no law about one thing and then plainly says another thing shall not be infringed, how can one conclude that both only limit the federal legislature? The second amendment was clearly intended to ensure that the citizenry remains armed anywhere, whereas the first amendment's intention was, in part, to prevent a national religion, but not to reverse some states' official religions. In order to accomplish keeping an armed citizenry, the amendment had to apply everywhere in the United States, and thus the wording. If the framers wanted to limit the application of the second amendment to the federal government, it would have done it with language that it had already used in the first amendment, i.e., congress shall make no law... And again, I know how the court have ruled. They are wrong. They are outside the law. The constitution provides a way to change it via the amendment system. That is the rule of law. Usurpation by nine people dressed in black robes in a palace is not rule of law; it is rule of the ultra elite, and if it continues, they will eventually take, or try to take, all of our rights.

I am making this point because it is how we lost our rights, and I think it is the only way to get them all back. It was how the framers preserved the freedoms after fighting for them. A constitutional convention would never have enough votes to curtail our right to keep and bear arms, nor would there ever be enough votes for all of the other things that democrats were able to get judges to add to the constitution such as eminent domain, affirmative action, murder of the unborn, forcing christian bakeries to make wedding cakes for homosexuals, taking our money to facilitate murder of the unborn.
We can think outside the box all we want. If the place we arrive at is to be the law of the land, there will be no law as you would have 325 million different conclusions. Remember, the Constitution was not written with the intent of controlling people, but to establish the framework within which the federal government and the states would co-exist and operate. The idea was to place restrictions on the federal government to prevent it from overreaching and taking over state functions and powers. Even back then, states had restrictions on many things that the federal government had no control over and many of those restrictions remained until the last century. Subsequently, the states have voluntarily surrendered much of that power and authority to the feds and more has been taken through Constitutional amendment. At the time the document was ratified, most of the states wanted the right to keep and bear arms protected against the feds, but many state subdivisions restricted the carry of arms within their limits. This became more widespread after the Civil War when many of the prohibitions against concealed carry were implemented, essentially as a way to protect the Klan from running into armed blacks that might inhibit a planned lynching. Those with power and connections were rarely, if ever charged under those laws. Even when the 14th Amendment was passed, very few thought that the Bill of Rights extended to state power until the Supreme Court began using that Amendment to make the states subject to parts of it.

While a brilliant document, the Constitution is not written with enough specificity to cover all the possible events, many of which were unforeseen at the time, and this was intentional to allow flexibility.

You are correct that Marburg v. Madision established judicial authority over the other branches of government. This, in and of itself, was not a bad thing. What is bad is the trend over the last 75 years of the courts to rewrite or, even worse, to create law. This development came about through the Progressive movement within the US which began with Teddy Roosevelt and continued until the present time. We are starting to see pushback against that development, but it will take time to stop it, if it is possible considering the control that the Progressives have over the educational system and the resultant mindset of the younger portion of the population. As the Progressives said in the 30's, Mussolini made the trains run on time and the Progressives praised him highly until WWII when they dropped the outward love for the Fascist model, instead silently moving to implement it through bureaucratic regulation and control with the assistance of the judges they were able to appoint with the use of forum shopping and setting up cases that would build upon one another.

Finally, rights go both ways. Taking the Libertarian saw that your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose as a guide, we must look at all rights this way, even those that are not enumerated within the Bill of Rights.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
troy bilt
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:53 pm
Location: Norwalk
Contact:

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by troy bilt »

Chuck wrote:
Javelin Man wrote:That's about my only focus, repeal notification.

A lot of the other items we'd like step on property owners' rights, we're doing a nice balance there right now.
One of my favorites last session that we couldn't get life to in the Senate was HB 233, Representatives Becker's DEFEND bill, which decriminalized carrying past most no gun signs unless the actor refused to leave when asked. In other words, one couldn't get the trespassing charge as long as one complied when asked to leave.

Does anyone think that bill would step on property owner's rights?
I do Private property is just that private. It is only open to the public that chooses to follow the rules set by the owner. The free market should destroy a business that does not extend constitutionally protected rights to its customers. Not the governments laws.

The posting of a sign is asking you to leave. Do as the sign ask or you are trespassing.
I have struggled with dyslexia my entire life. I know it's spelled wrong but thanks for pointing it out.
troy bilt
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:53 pm
Location: Norwalk
Contact:

Re: OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

Post by troy bilt »

WestonDon wrote:There is an interesting debate going on here but in my opinion over a low priority issue. Based on the recent poll taken on this board we have more urgent issues to address. Like notification, duty to retreat, government CPZ"s to name a few.

For what it's worth I used to be in the camp that wanted to straight up outlaw all CPZ's, then I realized that one of the reasons we cherish the 2nd amendment is because it is the last line of defense of our other rights, including private property rights.
Well said. I would say government CPZ's are the true infringements on all of are rights well above private property owners. Duty to retreat is insane and only protects the predators.
I have struggled with dyslexia my entire life. I know it's spelled wrong but thanks for pointing it out.
Post Reply