Page 2 of 2

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:14 pm
by Klingon00
techguy85 wrote:Also keep in mind that unless something has changed, this bill would currently greatly expand the number of prohibited persons by removing the restoration of rights Ohio currently extends to those who complete community control for non-violent offences.
I have a problem with that.
That's the basic explanation I heard and I don't like the way it currently is (the way I understand it). It seems to me that if Ohio has a process to restore rights, that should extend to all rights, including firearms.

Hopefully this can get fixed, if 203 can ever get moving...

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 1:27 pm
by color of law
I voluntarily left this forum and I am voluntarily returning. The length of the stay will all depend.

Though Werz and I on occasion butt heads, this issue of HB 203 dealing with the incorporation of federal law is a dangerous move for the citizens of this State. And dangerous in all realms of subject matter.

As Werz has said, this is unsettled law in the federal courts and now we are going to allow our state courts to attempt to weigh in with their opinion, not good. I'd rather see this bill die than allow this annexation of federal law.

Overtly or covertly OFCC and Buckeye need to get together and get this federal intrusion stopped.

Just my 2ยข worth.

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:03 pm
by WhyNot
Let us all presume sometime in the future there's a state of OH legislature shift and NOT Conservative. Let us all chant the liberal chant...'' oh! great gov't! Cometh and saveth us from this state CHL, using Fed regulations to hinder, hamper, supresseth!"

I will also presume there's left/liberal think tanks inside the bypass Ohio already plotting, scamming, scemeing this scenario.....
.....
Now for something completely 8) unrelated;Oh look! Inside the beltway! Senator Feinstein is asking Prez. Obama to ''just do it'' re: gun restrictions. Do exec things, regulations. Just ''wave that majik wand'' 8) .

WAIT TILL AFTER MIDTERMS , probably right around January for the next clog-the toilet with nasties, as is the normal course in politik timing.

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:14 pm
by Tweed Ring
Due to the control of decennial redistricting of state senate/house districts, the OGA will rest comfortably in Republican hands for the rest of this decade. Due to the influence of down state Republicans, the OGA will continue to lean right for that time.

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:44 pm
by mreising
Tweed Ring wrote: Due to the influence of down state Republicans, the OGA will continue to lean right for that time.
You're welcome. :wink:

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:42 pm
by curmudgeon3
Go down-state Republicans !!

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:56 pm
by mreising
curmudgeon3 wrote:Go down-state Republicans !!
That's better than "Go down, state Republicans" :wink:

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:42 pm
by curmudgeon3
mreising wrote:
curmudgeon3 wrote:Go down-state Republicans !!
That's better than "Go down, state Republicans" :wink:
Yeah, punctuation can be critical in some cases.

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:04 am
by WhyNot
(D)Sherod Brown(D) who? And(D)when was it that S.Brown was (D)Sec. of State Ohio? Brunner (D)got Sec State.

Gov Strickland (D)got in although he was a middle roader pro gun. But alas, this new crop with pro-NRA ratings have pushed anti-gun legislation. Think Virginia. How's your ammo prices? How's those 22's??

Who was the Att General? Well, no never mind suffice to say 4 of the last 7 AG's have been (D).

Must be ''middle state''...maybe ''state of mind'' OGA perhaps; but what about the chief LEO of the state, the AG????

Well ppl in Ohio do elect (D)'s...from time to time...for various reasons & seasons, enough to point out that no dynasties last forever regardless how many time we recycle Blackwell,DeWine, Husted, Blackwell, what ever happened to Bachelder . And, where's Cordray(D) these days 8)

Out of Ohio Political History 203...back to topic...I dont want to have them obtain office, then hook up wit their buddies from sickle & hammer land, and say...''JUST DO IT" like DiFi. Because we gave them inroads to areas they already want to change. For a hiccup of a reciprocity issue....

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:25 am
by Tweed Ring
I cannot comment on all of the above, but I do know Former Ohio AG Cordray is now Director of the Consumer Financial Protection with the Obama Administration, and Speaker Batchelder has been tagged by those pesky Ohio term limits.

I believe Batchelder may retire into the private sector, and Director Cordray may have political ambitions in the future, if the political winds are more favorable in Ohio.

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:20 am
by Werz
Tweed Ring wrote:I believe Batchelder may retire into the private sector ...
I wish he would come back to the Ninth District Court of Appeals. He always fed me good questions during oral argument.

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:51 pm
by color of law
I wish Judge Mark P. Painter would come back to the first district. You always knew where he stood.

Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537, 2003-Ohio-4779 http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/ ... o-4779.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.judgepainter.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:46 pm
by sd790
Does this still need to be a sticky?

Re: Why HB 203 Must Not Incorporate Federal Law

Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:40 pm
by djmac1964
sd790 wrote:Does this still need to be a sticky?
Probably not.