Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Don't have the funds for a project of that magnitude. It would be interesting though, to see some poll results from the 26 states that already have employer immunity from civil liability for employee property stored in their private vehicles. Don't recall seeing any complaints from employers or their legal-eagles.

In Ohio, I am sure the Chamber of Commerce, and various lobbyists representing employers will share their “poll “results with the OGA leadership.

Poll results from the 26 freedom states ?? Can't wait for that legal-eagle secret negotiating weapon to hit the big screen so people can get a look at it out in the open daylight.

And if we were a democracy, your poll would be valid and acceptable. We are however a republic; one founded on protecting the rights of the people not trampling them. Or at least we are supposed to be. By your "logic" if the vote was 76% to 24% to put all blonds to the sword, you'd be fine with that.

curmudgeon3 wrote:Yes, it is ......

"Employees of a private business should be allowed to safely keep any legally owned items in their vehicle while parked on company property while on the clock.
65
76%
Private business owners should retain the right to dictate what their employees possess in their vehicles while on their private lot
20
24%"

Implementation of SB180 will proably carry along with it a clause to ameliorate civil liability for the employers' legal-eagles.

curmudgeon3 wrote:Poll results from the 26 freedom states ?? Can't wait for that legal-eagle secret negotiating weapon to hit the big screen so people can get a look at it out in the open daylight.

Second Amendment!

Vermont!

Alas, Ohio is not Vermont, nor is Ohio one of the 26 states which so allow.

The game is in Columbus, Ohio.

WY_Not wrote:And if we were a democracy, your poll would be valid and acceptable. We are however a republic; one founded on protecting the rights of the people not trampling them. Or at least we are supposed to be. By your "logic" if the vote was 76% to 24% to put all blonds to the sword, you'd be fine with that.

curmudgeon3 wrote:Yes, it is ......

"Employees of a private business should be allowed to safely keep any legally owned items in their vehicle while parked on company property while on the clock.
65
76%
Private business owners should retain the right to dictate what their employees possess in their vehicles while on their private lot
20
24%"

Implementation of SB180 will proably carry along with it a clause to ameliorate civil liability for the employers' legal-eagles.

... and if the dog didn't stop to take a dump he'd have caught the rabbit...

Don't be silly. It's a poll, not a ballot. No more, No less. It is valid. It is acceptable. Don't like the results...? My deepest apologies...

Correct, it is just a poll and not the ballot. What is so disheartening though is that so many are ready and willing to infringe on the rights of their neighbor over a simple convenience. And to do it with force/color of law even. One would hope/think that in this community of all places that protection of rights would not be so flippantly dismissed.

WY_Not wrote:Correct, it is just a poll and not the ballot. What is so disheartening though is that so many are ready and willing to infringe on the rights of their neighbor over a simple convenience. And to do it with force/color of law even. One would hope/think that in this community of all places that protection of rights would not be so flippantly dismissed.

Probably the best I have heard anyone say it since I heard Benner say it last year at TDI when him and I talked about it.

WY Not, it's like I said..Those wanting this law are only concerned with what affects them ..It isn't what the founding fathers wanted..They held property rights as just as sacred as the 2nd Amendment...The second amendment was written to protect all of the other rights.And no one still has answered how they will prove they were fired for having a firearm in their car and not some other reason if this law passes.

WY_Not wrote:And if we were a democracy, your poll would be valid and acceptable. We are however a republic; one founded on protecting the rights of the people not trampling them. Or at least we are supposed to be. By your "logic" if the vote was 76% to 24% to put all blonds to the sword, you'd be fine with that.

curmudgeon3 wrote:Yes, it is ......

"Employees of a private business should be allowed to safely keep any legally owned items in their vehicle while parked on company property while on the clock.
65
76%
Private business owners should retain the right to dictate what their employees possess in their vehicles while on their private lot
20
24%"

Implementation of SB180 will proably carry along with it a clause to ameliorate civil liability for the employers' legal-eagles.

Polls don't make/change laws (never said they should), Politicians and quid pro quo does. Is that what you mean by a "Republic" ?

WY_Not wrote:Correct, it is just a poll and not the ballot. What is so disheartening though is that so many are ready and willing to infringe on the rights of their neighbor over a simple convenience. And to do it with force/color of law even. One would hope/think that in this community of all places that protection of rights would not be so flippantly dismissed.

"rights flppantly dimissed" ??

That came right out of the blue. Were you aware SB180 will probably HELP your employer's cause by incorporating a clause removing any and all employer civil liability for guns locked up in employee's private vehicles while parked on employers' private property ??

WY_Not wrote:Correct, it is just a poll and not the ballot. What is so disheartening though is that so many are ready and willing to infringe on the rights of their neighbor over a simple convenience. And to do it with force/color of law even. One would hope/think that in this community of all places that protection of rights would not be so flippantly dismissed.

You make the point that cannot even find agreement on this issue within the gun community. That is exactly why I do not believe it is should be a legislative priority. How in the world would one expect to pass it against determined opposition when there is profound, principled disagreement on this issue within the gun community?

There are other legislative priorities that matter more to me and I believe could find unified support within the gun community. For just one example, how about being able to carry in the buildings that we paid for? Being unable to carry into an ordinary government building is ridiculous, and I would expect everyone to be unified on that score. How about taking a red sharpie and lining out most of RC 2923.126(B)?

RC 2923.126(B) A valid concealed handgun license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun in any manner prohibited under division (B) of section 2923.12 of the Revised Code or in any manner prohibited under section 2923.16 of the Revised Code. A valid license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun into any of the following places:

(1) A police station, sheriff's office, or state highway patrol station, premises controlled by the bureau of criminal identification and investigation, a state correctional institution, jail, workhouse, or other detention facility, an airport passenger terminal, or an institution that is maintained, operated, managed, and governed pursuant to division (A) (C) of section 5119.14 of the Revised Code or division (A)(1) of section 5123.03 of the Revised Code;

(2) A school safety zone if the licensee's carrying the concealed handgun is in violation of section 2923.122 of the Revised Code;

(3) A courthouse or another building or structure in which a courtroomis located, in violation of section 2923.123 of the Revised Code;

(4) Any premises or open air arena for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code if the licensee's carrying the concealed handgun is in violation of section 2923.121 of the Revised Code;

(5) Any premises owned or leased by any public or private college, university, or other institution of higher education, unless the handgun is in a locked motor vehicle or the licensee is in the immediate process of placing the handgun in a locked motor vehicle;

(6) Any church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, unless the church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship posts or permits otherwise;

(7) A child day-care center, a type A family day-care home, or a type B family day-care home, except that this division does not prohibit a licensee who resides in a type A family day-care home or a type B family day-care home from carrying a concealed handgun at any time in any part of the home that is not dedicated or used for day-care purposes, or from carrying a concealed handgun in a part of the home that is dedicated or used for day-care purposes at any time during which no children, other than children of that licensee, are in the home;

(8) An aircraft that is in, or intended for operation in, foreign air transportation, interstate air transportation, intrastate air transportation, or the transportation of mail by aircraft;

(9) Any building that is a government facility of this state or a political subdivision of this state and that is not a building that is used primarily as a shelter, restroom, parking facility for motor vehicles, or rest facility and is not a courthouse or other building or structure in which a courtroom is located that is subject to division (B)(3) of this section;

(10) A place in which federal law prohibits the carrying of handguns.

Essentially, leave jails, prison, courtrooms, facilities for the criminally insane, and commercial airplanes off limits. Strike everything else.

49/51'ers (on internal issues), previously known as the GOP.

Roads, Columbus.

Thereat, go.

Leadership, lobby.

Lesson, endeth.

curmudgeon3 wrote:49/51'ers (on internal issues), previously known as the GOP.

So GOPe stands for GOP electronic?