Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

https://tinyurl.com/ycsrzv9u

This link has the press release with all of the 2018 General Election endorsements.

We have not (yet) endorsed for governor or judicial races. Judges can be tough since they don't take public positions on issues that might come before them. Obviously, there is current litigation that could get appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Stay tuned.

For those not on Facebook, here's an alternate link:

OFCC endorsements for 2018 general election.pdf

Thanks!

Its not much, but to help with the judges I found this: https://ballotpedia.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It will at least show the party affiliation of each. I HATE having to vote along party lines, but often if you are unsure, then the republicans often, not always, are more conservative.

Sadly theres no easy way to dig into ruling records of these judges for those of us with limited time.

For the licking county ballot I selected the following for judges due to being republican:
Craig Baldwin
Mary Degenaro
Andrew king

For issue 1, one of the most compelling arguments for or against was this one against: Paul Pfeifer, a retired justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, said, "I think it is misguided on the policy itself. This is something for the General Assembly to deal with. Putting anything other than your basic constitutional rights into the constitution just doesn’t belong there."[17]

Hope this might help some others

kSetuni wrote:Its not much, but to help with the judges I found this: https://ballotpedia.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It will at least show the party affiliation of each. I HATE having to vote along party lines, but often if you are unsure, then the republicans often, not always, are more conservative.

Sadly theres no easy way to dig into ruling records of these judges for those of us with limited time.

For the licking county ballot I selected the following for judges due to being republican:
Craig Baldwin
Mary Degenaro
Andrew king

For issue 1, one of the most compelling arguments for or against was this one against: Paul Pfeifer, a retired justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, said, "I think it is misguided on the policy itself. This is something for the General Assembly to deal with. Putting anything other than your basic constitutional rights into the constitution just doesn’t belong there."[17]

Hope this might help some others

Nice! Thanks for posting that link.

Just filled out my AB...thanks

re:
[For issue 1, one of the most compelling arguments for or against was this one against: Paul Pfeifer, a retired justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, said, "I think it is misguided on the policy itself. This is something for the General Assembly to deal with. Putting anything other than your basic constitutional rights into the constitution just doesn’t belong there."]

I agree. Simply stating ''But, but, it's a good idea...'' doesn't stand constitutional muster in my book.

Pity they weren't that consistent with the smoking ban.

WhyNot wrote:re:
[For issue 1, one of the most compelling arguments for or against was this one against: Paul Pfeifer, a retired justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, said, "I think it is misguided on the policy itself. This is something for the General Assembly to deal with. Putting anything other than your basic constitutional rights into the constitution just doesn’t belong there."]

I agree. Simply stating ''But, but, it's a good idea...'' doesn't stand constitutional muster in my book.

It may not be as bad as I think, but don't like seeing two Democrats get onto the Ohio Supreme Court. It may be enough to stir up the liberal cities to start demanding "home rule" on gun laws again.

Brian D. wrote:It may not be as bad as I think, but don't like seeing two Democrats get onto the Ohio Supreme Court. It may be enough to stir up the liberal cities to start demanding "home rule" on gun laws again.

Well, there are still five Republicans on the court. Might be more worrisome at the next election though.

An FYI about Frank LaRose for a future date:

On a separate matter, the Hudson lawmaker was asked whether he sees an urgency in getting two controversial bills passed by the House — the Heartbeat Bill, which would make abortions illegal once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, and Stand Your Ground legislation, which increases gun rights — LaRose said, “Neither of those are on my top priority list.”

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20181121/ ... y-of-state

kcclark wrote:An FYI about Frank LaRose for a future date:

On a separate matter, the Hudson lawmaker was asked whether he sees an urgency in getting two controversial bills passed by the House — the Heartbeat Bill, which would make abortions illegal once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, and Stand Your Ground legislation, which increases gun rights — LaRose said, “Neither of those are on my top priority list.”

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20181121/ ... y-of-state

Keep it in context. Of course its not on his "top priority list", he's preparing to become the Secretary of State. What's the Secretary of State going to do for gun owners? (Other than mandate CHL are acceptable voter ID. You heard it here first)
Other are carrying OUR water on these issues, but the senate works as a team. I'd say his vote is reliable on both issues.