Constitutional Carry hearing after action report

[Bearable]

Lower courts, federal and state, keep quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) for the proposition that keeping and bearing arms only applies to the home and the second amendment is not absolute.

Let’s be clear, Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. And, congressional law (statutory law) and treaties are only lawful if they pass constitutional muster. In Heller, Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.” Scalia’s opinion is directed towards two sovereigns, the fed and the states, not the citizens.

Scalia, speaking for the court, specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute. Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period. And, that is why “only in the home” was struck down because it infringed on a preexisting right.

Just like the lower courts saying the Supreme Court proclaims that: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. The case they rely on is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself. The actual sentence from Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” The panic is the crime, the tort.

Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum; ex nigro, album; ex curvo, rectum; ex recto, curvum

The 2A says “shall not be infringed.” It does not say shall not be infringed except for what the Supreme Court says. The manner of carry cannot be regulated because it is an infringement.

The Supreme Court told you what the 2A says, the law of the land says it shall not be infringed.

[Bearable]

The bottom line is that DeWine and Yost both believe that concealed carry is protected by the 2A. And that needs to be exploited.

[bignflnut]

I’ve sent a message to C.D. about this and all I heard was crickets. We have the top law enforcement officials of this state making it clear that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed and the gun community has no interest in pointing this out to the legislators, pathetic.

Please clarify. Who is C.D.?
We must allow for the concept that these pieces of testimony were formed in order to curry favor with a political constituency as opposed to reflecting a deep and abiding conviction.

I'm all for putting DeWhine to the test and putting Constitutional Carry on his desk. Pressure him to stand and deliver. Agreed.

Many gun groups vigorously defend having their speed set to "Incrementalism" as opposed to "Victory in the Current Term".

[Bearable]

I’ve sent a message to C.D. about this and all I heard was crickets. We have the top law enforcement officials of this state making it clear that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed and the gun community has no interest in pointing this out to the legislators, pathetic.

Please clarify. Who is C.D.?
We must allow for the concept that these pieces of testimony were formed in order to curry favor with a political constituency as opposed to reflecting a deep and abiding conviction.

I'm all for putting DeWhine to the test and putting Constitutional Carry on his desk. Pressure him to stand and deliver. Agreed.

Many gun groups vigorously defend having their speed set to "Incrementalism" as opposed to "Victory in the Current Term".

Chris Dorr, the no compromise gun rights take no prisoners guy.

Your statement: “We must allow for the concept that these pieces of testimony were formed in order to curry favor with a political constituency as opposed to reflecting a deep and abiding conviction” is in direct conflict with Chris Dorr’s philosophy.

Then you say: “I'm all for putting DeW[h]ine [sic] to the test and putting Constitutional Carry on his desk. Pressure him to stand and deliver. Agreed.” Only pressure DeWine IF our legislators pass some form of constitutional carry is analogous to showing up at a gun fight with a knife. Why wouldn’t you, up front, put the legislators on notice that the DeWine and Yost support constitutional carry?

As to your statement: “Many gun groups vigorously defend having their speed set to "Incrementalism" as opposed to "Victory in the Current Term".” And that is the problem.

Again, the bottom line is that DeWine and Yost both believe that concealed carry is protected by the 2A. And that needs to be exploited up front. Not after the fact.

[bignflnut]

We have no disagreement, tell the Statehouse that the Governor will support it so that they do their part.
Tell the Governor that the Statehouse is sending it and that he needs to uphold his previous comments.
I have no quarrel with any of what you said.

Again, the bottom line is that DeWine and Yost both believe that concealed carry is protected by the 2A.

I'm not certain that they believe it, but they did state it. Indeed we should test their resolve on the matter.

This hairsplitting about a Right to keep and bear vs a privilege to do so outside the home needs to end. We agree that there's a lack of political leadership on this issue.

[JustaShooter]

Did you catch that? Governor DeWine says that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed. Did anybody point this out to the legislators as to Governor DeWine’s support for Constitutional Carry? I bet not.

...

Again, did you catch that? AG Yost also says that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed. Did anybody point this out to the legislators as to AG Yost’s support for Constitutional Carry? I bet not.

...

We have the top law enforcement officials of this state making it clear that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed and the gun community has no interest in pointing this out to the legislators, pathetic.

Perhaps the better question is, as a member of the gun community, why did *you* not point this out to the legislators in the committee, whether in person or by written testimony? We, as volunteers for this organization, do what we can. We rely on everyone else to do what they can as well - it sounds like you have information that others might no have had at hand, and could possibly have helped advance the cause. If the committee meets again on this or similar bills, can we count on you to join us at the Statehouse to advocate for the cause?

[Bearable]

Did you catch that? Governor DeWine says that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed. Did anybody point this out to the legislators as to Governor DeWine’s support for Constitutional Carry? I bet not.
...
Again, did you catch that? AG Yost also says that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed. Did anybody point this out to the legislators as to AG Yost’s support for Constitutional Carry? I bet not.
...
We have the top law enforcement officials of this state making it clear that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed and the gun community has no interest in pointing this out to the legislators, pathetic.

Perhaps the better question is, as a member of the gun community, why did *you* not point this out to the legislators in the committee, whether in person or by written testimony? We, as volunteers for this organization, do what we can. We rely on everyone else to do what they can as well - it sounds like you have information that others might no have had at hand, and could possibly have helped advance the cause. If the committee meets again on this or similar bills, can we count on you to join us at the Statehouse to advocate for the cause?

Excuse me, did you not read the whole thread? I said I’ve sent a message to Chris Dorr about this and all I heard was crickets. Did you miss that?

[JustaShooter]

Did you catch that? Governor DeWine says that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed. Did anybody point this out to the legislators as to Governor DeWine’s support for Constitutional Carry? I bet not.
...
Again, did you catch that? AG Yost also says that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed. Did anybody point this out to the legislators as to AG Yost’s support for Constitutional Carry? I bet not.
...
We have the top law enforcement officials of this state making it clear that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed and the gun community has no interest in pointing this out to the legislators, pathetic.

Perhaps the better question is, as a member of the gun community, why did *you* not point this out to the legislators in the committee, whether in person or by written testimony? We, as volunteers for this organization, do what we can. We rely on everyone else to do what they can as well - it sounds like you have information that others might no have had at hand, and could possibly have helped advance the cause. If the committee meets again on this or similar bills, can we count on you to join us at the Statehouse to advocate for the cause?

Excuse me, did you not read the whole thread? I said I’ve sent a message to Chris Dorr about this and all I heard was crickets. Did you miss that?

Excuse *me*, did you not read *my* post? This isn't about you notifying Chris Dorr of OGO, Jeff Garvas of OFCC, Jim Irvine of BFA, or anyone else in positions of leadership with an Ohio gun rights organization. This is about *you* providing written or verbal testimony to *our legislators* for committee hearings on firearms related bills in the Ohio General Assembly. Did you miss that?

[Bearable]

Excuse *me*, did you not read *my* post? This isn't about you notifying Chris Dorr of OGO, Jeff Garvas of OFCC, Jim Irvine of BFA, or anyone else in positions of leadership with an Ohio gun rights organization. This is about *you* providing written or verbal testimony to *our legislators* for committee hearings on firearms related bills in the Ohio General Assembly. Did you miss that?

Seriously? Based on that logic then there is no need for OFCC or OGO. If "we" are all on our own then there would be no need for coordination of a group effort.

So, instead of embracing an opportunity to fortify the effort in getting legislation passed, OFCC would rather attack the person offering that information, brilliant.

[JustaShooter]

Excuse *me*, did you not read *my* post? This isn't about you notifying Chris Dorr of OGO, Jeff Garvas of OFCC, Jim Irvine of BFA, or anyone else in positions of leadership with an Ohio gun rights organization. This is about *you* providing written or verbal testimony to *our legislators* for committee hearings on firearms related bills in the Ohio General Assembly. Did you miss that?

Seriously? Based on that logic then there is no need for OFCC or OGO. If "we" are all on our own then there would be no need for coordination of a group effort.

So, instead of embracing an opportunity to fortify the effort in getting legislation passed, OFCC would rather attack the person offering that information, brilliant.

You came into this thread with an attitude from the word "go" and started giving us grief for not giving the committee some information during testimony for the bill that you knew about but apparently we, OFCC, did not. Chris Dorr is not affiliated with OFCC, what he does with information presented to him is none of our business nor is it our fault. I suggested that you might try getting directly involved yourself, and you copped an attitude with that. In fact, pretty much every post you've made in this thread has been brimming with negative attitude. So, you reap what you sow. Had you come into this conversation and offered the information in a different way, you would have gotten a different response.

[schmieg]

Excuse *me*, did you not read *my* post? This isn't about you notifying Chris Dorr of OGO, Jeff Garvas of OFCC, Jim Irvine of BFA, or anyone else in positions of leadership with an Ohio gun rights organization. This is about *you* providing written or verbal testimony to *our legislators* for committee hearings on firearms related bills in the Ohio General Assembly. Did you miss that?

Seriously? Based on that logic then there is no need for OFCC or OGO. If "we" are all on our own then there would be no need for coordination of a group effort.

So, instead of embracing an opportunity to fortify the effort in getting legislation passed, OFCC would rather attack the person offering that information, brilliant.

OFCC, OGO, GOA, NRA, CCRKBA and the others all depend on its members to participate in the process. When we go to a committee meeting, it is not just the moderators and board members that attend, it is also the individual members who testify or provide written testimony. That is where we derive our influence. It is easy to criticize and complain, but your complaints don't carry much weight if you aren't willing to participate in the process.

[WhyNot]

https://youtu.be/f7gc7oHPfs0?t=47

[Bearable]

You guys are funny. I directed my comment to one guy who, by the way, is the Director of OGO not OFCC, yet, you all act like he is. But now that I think about, I have observed Chris Dorr and Chuck LaRosa gushing over the close relationship there is between OGO and OFCC.

Mad Mommies present themselves as a coordinated army of many and OFCC promotes a disorganized and fragmented individualized approach. Mad Mommies get gun bills watered down and Gun groups complain about how did that happened.

OFCC has access to attorneys as members or otherwise; Culley, Werz, Schmieg and DeBrosse, yet no legal team to dig-up whatever is necessary to win. And, when someone offers information that may help win, it’s attack the messenger, OFCC’s modus operandi from their inception.

I wish you luck with your endeavors.

[schmieg]

Bye.

[Mr. Glock]

Mad Mommies present themselves as a coordinated army of many and OFCC promotes a disorganized and fragmented individualized approach. Mad Mommies get gun bills watered down and Gun groups complain about how did that happened.

I'm not dipping into the merits of the legal discussion here, nor commenting on tone, but I do think it is important to point out that Moms Demand is fully-funded and resourced by a select group of extremely wealthy totalitarians (Bloomberg et al). They present as a coordinated army because they are coordinated via these resources. Shannon Watts, the head of Moms Demand, has a partial "public" origin story, she forgets to mention her time working in state government, as well as her time as a PR person working with large multi-national companies. When she protests at the NRA Convention, she has a bevy of armed guards who aren't working for free, for example.

All the gun rights organizations of any size are funded in the majority by individuals. And, for state level organizations, their actions are driven largely by volunteers (which any organization in any field knows can be difficult to find).

I'd suggest this plays a major part in how both organizations present, rather than any formal strategy decisions.