Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Constitutional carry is the long term goal for OFCC. At first we called it Vermont carry and then Alaska style carry and now it's called Constitutional Carry. It all means the same thing; no license is required to own or carry firearms in any manner deemed safe.
Every legislative session Representative Ron Hood sponsors constitutional carry legislation and every session it goes nowhere. In our member polling it has dropped in priority as more reasonable (smaller) goals were sought.

Ohio Speaker of the House Larry Householder (my representative) is a fan of Constitutional Carry, having spoken with me about it personally and cosponsoring Ron Hood's bill last session. Now that he is Speaker, I expect this legislation to move. He had to make some concessions to the democrats to get elected speaker, and I think he will avoid that next time by moving a conservative agenda, including sweeping pro gun legislation.

Constitutional Carry allows everyone to carry a gun who is allowed to own a gun. All ancillary laws are still in effect, CPZ's and carrying under the influence, etc., still apply, but no licensing required. Uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.

Constitutional Carry will benefit more legal gun owners than Stand Your Ground, hands down. If we had both, literally EVERY law abiding citizen in the state could carry concealed for his defense and protection, and any time, without any waiting for classes or licensing under Constitutional Carry, but only on rare occasions would the SGY law actually make a difference.
What's more, in this land of "incremental steps" in regaining our rights, we have run into a brick wall with SYG. Red Shirts come out of the woodwork, and both legislators and right wing activists all seem to cringe at the term. We have even been asked to use other language in it's stead. "Repealing duty to retreat" or "codifying rules for self defense" or crap like that. What it means is we are losing.

Constitutional Carry can be pushed as not that much of a change, people can already own guns and carry them openly; criminals are going to conceal carry anyway; and if a situation comes up where a person who might not ordinarily carry might have a need to, they have the freedom.
Freedom, remember that word? Not a term we need defined by attorneys like a " non duty to retreat" is, but the right to keep and bear arms, as our state and national constitutions say it is.

That said, I wonder if anyone of you guys want to change your vote on the poll.
There's a bandwagon firing up, and I want to get on it.
What say you?

Anything that is beneficial to the cause should be pursued, whether it is deemed a priority or not.

Constitutional carry is what I have always hoped for.

I think it's admirable. OK, under Const. Carry, how do I enter a school zone while armed. Would that section of ORC need changed also , oops, we missed that part at the last minutes of the sausage, so sorry. Wait another 2 years, vote for me. Also other portions of law that have been crafted to mesh along with CHL i.e. how firearms are carried inside a vehicle as there are 'perks' to a CHL vs. non permittee. I would add, those perks being added and working fine now for years lends evidence to...

I've mentioned this several times in the past, is this too easy. And the end game is so very much the same. After 2nd CHL permit being issued, NewsFlash, the carrier is a good citizen and has proved it (by doing nothing extra), 2nd CHL is issued for life.

If there's a problem i.e. felony or misdemeanor violation, permit is still revoked.
Which doesn't happen but a minute amount.
Because CHL permitees are good folk.
And new CHL permitees / renewals now go thru the super duper NICSXYZ microscope.

After several years of Life CHL history, once again, Ohio good citizens will be proven to be A-Ok, which we already know,and that new info would and should add weight to Const. Carry attempts in the future.

Yes, the way the bill is written is critical, and there is always the possibility of it going through the lame-duck session sausage grinder and getting mangled. As to the first, I'm hoping OFCC can be a part of the review process like we were for the proposed amendment for 228. The constitutional carry (actually, unlicensed carry) bill I saw last session covered all the bases pretty well except for one: Notification. Mandatory proactive notification *must* be removed as a part of any unlicensed carry bill or it will cause no end of trouble for those who exercise it.

I'll jump on that bandwagon Chuck. I did not vote for constitutional carry in the poll because I thought it would be unattainable. Turns out repeal of notification and duty to retreat was unattainable so what the heck, we might as well go for the whole enchilada. We have nothing to lose. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread there are certain advantages to having a CHL so I can envision having a voluntary license available to cover things like reciprocity, loaded mags, etc. unless solutions to those issues can be crafted into the legislation.

However it shakes out I am certainly behind the effort.

...there are certain advantages to having a CHL so I can envision having a voluntary license available to cover things like reciprocity, loaded mags, etc. unless solutions to those issues can be crafted into the legislation.

Or just as easily, crafted out of current ORC. If it ever is determined that we GOOD CITIZENS are just that, well, coffee is Ok and by default the choice of cups, creamer vs. sweetner etc. all goes with it. So to speak.

At least ways this effort should expose who in the OAG is small vs. big Gov. ; deleting any of Gov is very very bad to Big G types, regardless of party or ranking.

However it shakes out I am certainly behind the effort.

Yes ALL IN

Under true constitutional carry, rifle magazine's, knives, bayonets, throwing stars ect. Should not matter.

machinegunkelly wrote:Under true constitutional carry, rifle magazine's, knives, bayonets, throwing stars ect. Should not matter.

Agreed. Assuming this moves forward I suspect what we are likely to end up with in Ohio - at least to start - will be "unlicensed carry" where sections are added to relevant areas in Ohio law that treat persons not prohibited from possessing firearms as if they have a concealed handgun license.

Most cops I have dealt with refer to our "license to carry a concealed hand gun" as a CCW (carry concealed weapon). It really should be called a "license to conceal a handgun".

WestonDon wrote:Most cops I have dealt with refer to our "license to carry a concealed hand gun" as a CCW (carry concealed weapon). It really should be called a "license to conceal a handgun".

I don't think we'll ever unring that bell.

machinegunkelly wrote:Under true constitutional carry, rifle magazine's, knives, bayonets, throwing stars ect. Should not matter.

Using common sense, no it should not matter. Unfortunitely many anti gun politicians are more scared of how something looks than reality. In fact the basis of almost all so called assault weapons legislation is based on stupid things like whether it has a bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc. Take any 10/22 or mini 14 with a wooden stock and dress it up, put something bigger than a 10 rd magazine in it, and suddenly it's an evil assault weapon.