Constitutional Carry Bill

[Mr. Glock]

That's fine with me but there's still is a provision for private businesses to restrict firearms from their premises. While I don't agree with that it is THEIR right to do that.

In our current world, we restrict private businesses from curtailing the rights and also the desires of many and in many different ways. Restricting a civil, moral and Constitutional right like 2A may not be ok any longer for a private business under Bruen, and your position may also be based on old thinking in the times of collectivism. See cake decorating et al,

Kind of like the old quaint days when folks said Twitter is just a private company....oh wait, we know what happened there now. Biden 2020-4-8

Different world now.

[bignflnut]

Yes,

Do I lose my bodily autonomy when i step onto your parking lot?
May I be detained without cause?
Why do I no longer possess the ability to defend myself with a firearm? What prevents you from harming my body, if the business owner get to set the rules? Are these not each violations of my inalienable Rights?

7. The traditional American philosophy requires a Republic's constitutionally limited form of government for the security of Man's unalienable rights against violation by The Majority, by government, as well as by others. This philosophy was well understood in America in 1776 but was imperfectly practiced by the States in the post-1776 period, during which rights were violated. This correct understanding was exemplified by the previously noted (Par. 8, Principle 2) town-meeting petition of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, addressed to the legislature of Massachusetts in May, 1776. It urged the adoption by the people--as "the fountain of power"--of a Constitution as their fundamental law, to fill the void created by the end of royal rule, as "the first step to be taken" by the people in order to guard against despotism--against "the wanton exercise of power"--and it asserted, that the only safeguard is "the formation of a fundamental constitution" by the people. Their aim was to safeguard their liberties. This was accomplished by the people of Massachusetts in 1780, by their creating the first true Constitution and Republic in the world. They utilized successfully, for the first time in history, a constitutional convention--which is America's great, if not greatest, contribution to the mechanics of self-government through constitutional government.

The Rights of the individual, not the business owner, are paramount.

Clarity brings conviction.

[Brian D.]

Do I lose my bodily autonomy when i step onto your parking lot?
May I be detained without cause?
Why do I no longer possess the ability to defend myself with a firearm? What prevents you from harming my body, if the business owner get to set the rules? Are these not each violations of my inalienable Rights?

The Rights of the individual, not the business owner, are paramount.

Clarity brings conviction.

I wish you'd been there when OFCC made Statehouse visits as a group. This topic came up every time, and also whenever I visited ony own. Invariably there were senior, leading Republican Reps and Senators who could NOT be swayed away from their belief that the rights of businesses superceded the rights of individuals who came to the businesses. These were the office holders that their fellow Republicans came to for guidance on the issues.

Maybe you could have convinced them. No, I'm not being a wise guy.

[Mr. Glock]

When government is small and competent, the old arguments of private property have tremendous merit.

The current problem is not that was wrong, but rather government has become overwhelming and incompetent and inconsistent. Thus, the time has passed for that point of view. It is no longer valid as the government controls too much of the economy and other areas. And private businesses will wade into politics in many ways. And private businesses colluding with government to push an opinion (it doesn’t matter good or bad, it matters that it is a private business usurpation of citizen’s rights). Sad, but true.

So, if a private business restricts a natural, civil and constitutional right in a way that is a political statement…well, good for the goose, good for the gander (or whatever).

[bignflnut]

The current problem is not that was wrong, but rather government has become overwhelming and incompetent and inconsistent. Thus, the time has passed for that point of view. It is no longer valid as the government controls too much of the economy and other areas. And private businesses will wade into politics in many ways. And private businesses colluding with government to push an opinion (it doesn’t matter good or bad, it matters that it is a private business usurpation of citizen’s rights). Sad, but true.

You've just defined and shrugged in accepting fascism.
Your spirit has been broken - just as the bulk of the citizenry is being red pilled via attempted depopulation. (My tinfoil hat protects better than your needles)
May God have mercy on you and your family.

[Mr. Glock]

The current problem is not that was wrong, but rather government has become overwhelming and incompetent and inconsistent. Thus, the time has passed for that point of view. It is no longer valid as the government controls too much of the economy and other areas. And private businesses will wade into politics in many ways. And private businesses colluding with government to push an opinion (it doesn’t matter good or bad, it matters that it is a private business usurpation of citizen’s rights). Sad, but true.

You've just defined and shrugged in accepting fascism.
Your spirit has been broken - just as the bulk of the citizenry is being red pilled via attempted depopulation. (My tinfoil hat protects better than your needles)
May God have mercy on you and your family.

“I have a phone and pen” No one did anything, over a decade ago, game has changed.

[Chuck]

Okay serious question here, I just renewed my membership to OFCC, but my question is since we now have the CC Law what exactly is this organization going to do?

So you're saying "constitutional carry" would be the freedom to carry anywhere you want? That's fine with me but there's still is a provision for private businesses to restrict firearms from their premises. While I don't agree with that it is THEIR right to do that.

My original question was what's OFCC plans, now that we don't need a permit!

You will get a refund
https://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=96411" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Brian D.]

Personally I'd like to see the prohibition against carry in "government" buildings removed, or seriously curtailed. As some of you know I go to northern Kentucky a lot, and that state's legislature has done a pretty good job. Am I worried about getting physically attacked in a library or city hall? No, not much, but the walk to and from such places still concerns me.

Doing that very thing today, to pursue information about a VERY old restaurant in northern Kentucky. Nobody there knows how old, so it's straight to the city and county government buildings for research, lawfully armed.

[M-Quigley]

Personally I'd like to see the prohibition against carry in "government" buildings removed, or seriously curtailed. As some of you know I go to northern Kentucky a lot, and that state's legislature has done a pretty good job. Am I worried about getting physically attacked in a library or city hall? No, not much, but the walk to and from such places still concerns me.

It's been a long while since I've been to any of the Dayton Metro libraries, but back when before their downtown location moved, there were occasionally patrons who were robbed or assaulted going to or from the library. Also at a few of the branch locations. Since the main library moved IDK if it's any safer or not, but it's still downtown.

[Brian D.]

Mission accomplished.

[Bearable]

Personally I'd like to see the prohibition against carry in "government" buildings removed, or seriously curtailed. As some of you know I go to northern Kentucky a lot, and that state's legislature has done a pretty good job. Am I worried about getting physically attacked in a library or city hall? No, not much, but the walk to and from such places still concerns me.

Can you carry in a federal building that is open to the public? Yes you can. I have done it. 18 U.S.C. § 930 says you can’t carry a firearm in a federal facility. But that is based on an exception of which is the Second Amendment. The “Interagency Security Committee” acknowledges this prohibition by saying “Firearms or similar devices (i.e., 3D or Ghost Guns, etc.) that expels a projectile through the action of an explosive, unless meeting the exemptions listed in 18 U.S.C. § 930(d);”

The “Interagency Security Committee”, part of the “Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency” under the “U.S. Department of Homeland Security”, sets standard procedures for establishing control of prohibited items in federal facilities. Prohibited items include items that are dangerous, unlawful, or otherwise determined to create vulnerabilities to the occupant agencies or visitors, whether the federal facilities have a screening checkpoint or not. Items Prohibited in Federal Facilities can be found at https://www.archives.gov/files/location ... d-2022.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

18 U.S. Code § 930. “Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities.”
“(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”

Subsections (a), and subsection (b) and (c) of section 930 lays out the criminal penalty for the possession or the possession and criminal use of a firearm in government buildings. Subsection (d) lists the exclusions to subsection (a) as to carrying firearms in federal facilities.

Subsection (d)(3) says:
“(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.”

Cruikshank, Heller, McDonald and Bruen all make it clear that “lawful Purpose” is the bearing of arms for self-defense.

[Brian D.]

What sort of federal building was it?

[Brian D.]

I continue to marvel at the ability for folks legally armed in Kentucky to visit government buildings. I was all over the Kenton County administration building, which houses most everything the county runs except courts and the jail. Those facilities are elsewhere and are off limits to carry.

[Bearable]

What sort of federal building was it?

Many post offices. Long story short, two years ago sent a 5 page notice to the post office addressing 18 USC 930. They acknowledge receipt. The post office is not a sensitive place. Federal court houses is a different subject. There is only one case where the feds prosecuted an employee for violating 18 USC 930. The feds lost.