Bill to remove ban on self-defense while dining drafted

[BB62]

Given how the legislative law drafting group (or whatever their name is) has previously given us (on multiple occasions) what we didn't want, and not what the legislators thought they were giving us, we best make d@mn sure the suggested text is to our liking.

OFCC drafted this bill. We forwarded the text to our legislators. They made some minor edits, then sent it back to OFCC for our approval.

Alrighty then - let's pick it apart, because I sure don't think we've had this kind of chance before - or if we did, the final version didn't reflect our carefully crafted/reviewed work.

[mrbone]

The current law is that no one (except cops) have any 2nd Amendment rights while in Applebee's. The proposed change will correct this problem for some people but not all of them, which is an improvement. The only way you can argue against this bill is if you think that tyrrany for everyone is better than tyrrany for some. And it's hardly even "some" since anyone can choose to get a CHL. That's far more generous than that bill restoring the 2nd Amendment for 18-year-old military enlistees.

The Shaker Heights commie I was thinking about, Armond Budish, is Speaker of the House. That's also a problem. Any predictions on him trying to stonewall?

[willbird]

The current law is that no one (except cops) have any 2nd Amendment rights while in Applebee's. The proposed change will correct this problem for some people but not all of them, which is an improvement. The only way you can argue against this bill is if you think that tyrrany for everyone is better than tyrrany for some. And it's hardly even "some" since anyone can choose to get a CHL. That's far more generous than that bill restoring the 2nd Amendment for 18-year-old military enlistees.

The Shaker Heights commie I was thinking about, Armond Budish, is Speaker of the House. That's also a problem. Any predictions on him trying to stonewall?

Not EVERYBODY can get an Ohio CHL. And some of the people who cannot it is a matter of residency time requirements, IE they have not lived in Ohio long enough.

The high school and college coaches who had the stones to not let ANY students eat where black students were prohibited knew all about the tyranny of all vs tryanny for just a few.

Bill

[mrbone]

The high school and college coaches who had the stones to not let ANY students eat where black students were prohibited knew all about the tyranny of all vs tryanny for just a few.

In a society where 99% of the people are plantation slaves, a bill that emancipates 50% of society is better than no bill at all. Nor does it mean you stop pushing for full emancipation after the bill is passed.

[willbird]

The high school and college coaches who had the stones to not let ANY students eat where black students were prohibited knew all about the tyranny of all vs tryanny for just a few.

In a society where 99% of the people are plantation slaves, a bill that emancipates 50% of society is better than no bill at all. Nor does it mean you stop pushing for full emancipation after the bill is passed.

Well you are speaking of a bill that emancipates WHAT percentage of society then ?? 5% or 10% ??

EDIT I have been advised I was WRONG about 5% to 10%....in fact this bill will emancipate 1.2% of Ohioans.

Bill

[mrbone]

Well you are speaking of a bill that emancipates WHAT percentage of society then ?? 5% or 10% ??

EDIT I have been advised I was WRONG about 5% to 10%....in fact this bill will emancipate 1.2% of Ohioans.

That is still superior to 0%. If the law bans doctors from curing cancer, would it be bad to pass a law letting doctors cure cancer for 1.2% of teh population? Or should that 1.2% be forced to die until you get everything you want?

Furthermore, it help anyone who is eligible for an Ohio CHL or Ohio reciprocity, which is far more than 1.2%.

[djthomas]

I realize that this bill hasn't been introduced yet, but I'm going to shoot a paper letter off to my newly elected rep (Baker) requesting that she consider co-sponsoring when it is introduced. Since she was just elected there's probably no better time than now to start letting her know we exist and hope to count on her as an ally for reasonable improvements.

[mrbone]

This bill has the same flaw as the existing CHL law: it does not apply to everyone. Concealed carry of unregistered handguns should be legal with no government licensing. I personally would like to see private ownership of tanks with no licensing nor registration legalized, but I still support this law.

Since the existing CHL law has the same problem as this proposed law, if anyone has an Ohio CHL or thinks that the passage of the existing CHL law worth doing but opposes the passage of this new bill then that person is a hypocrite.

[evan price]

This bill has the same flaw as the existing CHL law: it does not apply to everyone. Concealed carry of unregistered handguns should be legal with no government licensing. I personally would like to see private ownership of tanks with no licensing nor registration legalized, but I still support this law.

Since the existing CHL law has the same problem as this proposed law, if anyone has an Ohio CHL or thinks that the passage of the existing CHL law worth doing but opposes the passage of this new bill then that person is a hypocrite.

Sir: We all would absolutely L O V E to have Vermont-style carry in Ohio.

However we need SMALL STEPS- You can eat an elephant one bite at a time!

As things go, this is a good start, with room to improve over time. Which OFCC will do. This bill is easier for the CCW "layman" to understand than some others that could have been introduced- ("Oh, they want to be able to CCW while eating dinner but not drinking- makes sense to me!") and stands to actually pass because it does not break new ground- most other CCW states allow it.

CCW while under the influence is already a crime- why is it any different where you are not drinking while you carry a CCW?

[willbird]

This bill has the same flaw as the existing CHL law: it does not apply to everyone. Concealed carry of unregistered handguns should be legal with no government licensing. I personally would like to see private ownership of tanks with no licensing nor registration legalized, but I still support this law.

Since the existing CHL law has the same problem as this proposed law, if anyone has an Ohio CHL or thinks that the passage of the existing CHL law worth doing but opposes the passage of this new bill then that person is a hypocrite.

It is quite convenient to label anybody that disagrees with you a hypocrite . It will be hard to get a bill passed that only has the support of the 1.2% of Ohioans that benefit from it.

I agree Vermont style CCW is the best solution, many current CCW holders will disagree with me however. Some of those folks seem to feel that Ohio's training requirements are far too lenient.

Bill

[Daniel]

A tactic that we've been very successful with is using real-life proofs for our arguments. We first had to get a CHL law to show that the program would work. We got car carry removed using the fact that CHL holders weren't shooting cops. We got the Class D exemption for retail stores with wine tastings by showing that CHL holders weren't shooting up stores. Now, we're going after removing the restaurant ban by showing how safe we've been in other restaurants. This certainly isn't going to be the last step, and we'll continue to build on each success by getting more and more of our rights back. The next argument may very well be to use the fact that CHL holders are responsibly carrying guns in restaurants to extend that to open carry as well.

Yes, the process takes a long time. But, we've tried in the past to make large jumps in restoring rights and met a wall. We didn't lose our rights overnight, and we're not going to get them back overnight. Those of you who think that all "the People" have to do is ask for something and they'll get it are kidding yourselves. If that was the case, we'd have no CHL requirement and everyone could ccw whenever they wanted. There's a system that has to be worked within and rules that have to be followed to make real progress. Even considering all the rights we could lose under Obama, I still say that one day Ohio will be like Alaska and the CHL will be optional. But, that day isn't going to be tomorrow and we just need to keep plugging at it.

[Tweed Ring]

Making changes in existing and unpopular law can be doe successfully in increments. Before one challenges this statement, ask oneself the following: On which side did the print media fall prior to the passage of the CCW legislation? How many deals were cut to get the final bill passed? Is half a loaf better than none? Now is three-quarters of a loaf better than a half-loaf?

Any change for what most of us perceive to be for the better will be met with howls of anguish, and gales of laughter, followed by the most dire predictions of blood running in rivulets between and on restaurant serving carts. The anti's and their cronies buy ink by the barrel, and, they are dead set against us. We shall obtain changes in the law, only by moving incrementally, while providing cover for our allies in the legislature.

[MeanStreaker]

A tactic that we've been very successful with is using real-life proofs for our arguments. .... Now, we're going after removing the restaurant ban by showing how safe we've been in other restaurants.

That is correct. We submitted this bill to a specific Representative when her office called me after I contacted them regarding a recent shooting at an Applebees in Springfield, OH. Real-life proofs for our arguments and continually contacting Representatives really works!

As for the discussion about NH-style CCW, everyone agrees. That is ideal and what we're working towards. But our rights were stolen away a small bite at a time over a hundred years. Unfortunately, that is the only way to get them back. Hopefully nobody here wants to go back to Columbus AWB, posted rest area bathrooms, and "in plain sight" in a vehicle...... do they?

Those were all small steps, but good ones.

[willbird]

A tactic that we've been very successful with is using real-life proofs for our arguments. .... Now, we're going after removing the restaurant ban by showing how safe we've been in other restaurants.

That is correct. We submitted this bill to a specific Representative when her office called me after I contacted them regarding a recent shooting at an Applebees in Springfield, OH. Real-life proofs for our arguments and continually contacting Representatives really works!

As for the discussion about NH-style CCW, everyone agrees. That is ideal and what we're working towards. But our rights were stolen away a small bite at a time over a hundred years. Unfortunately, that is the only way to get them back. Hopefully nobody here wants to go back to Columbus AWB, posted rest area bathrooms, and "in plain sight" in a vehicle...... do they?

I guess it just DEPENDS what we would gain by doing so . Say we trade away "in plain sight" to gain class D with a grandfather clause for people who currently have a CHL . OR maybe we get class D but only for people over the age of 40 with no DUI or other alcohol related offenses in their past history.

Bill

[MeanStreaker]

... Say we trade away "in plain sight" to gain class D...

You're talking about a compromise? We lose something in order to gain something?

Maybe I'm missing it... but willbird, with this bill as written we're not losing anything. We're not taking any steps back. Only steps forward.