The video says it all.
https://youtu.be/3z2Pxy_b5mE
Here's a link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/d ... o-2787.pdf
Here's another article on the opinion: https://courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2024/SC ... 230293.asp
Support The Forums:
The forums have been hosted for some time now out of my pocket. We are coming up on the annual domain renewal for ohioccwforums.org and I pay roughly $20/month to keep the forums online. I do this to maintain the long-standing history of discussions here indexed in Google, and so that people have a place to discuss this topic outside of modern social media censorship. If you enjoy the forums and you'd like to help offset the cost, please consider a venmo donation hereIf They Can Change the Definition of "Boneless" They Can Change the Definition of "Shall Not Be Infringed."
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
- High Power
- Posts: 2561
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:03 pm
If They Can Change the Definition of "Boneless" They Can Change the Definition of "Shall Not Be Infringed."
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
-
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
- Location: SW Ohio
Re: If They Can Change the Definition of "Boneless" They Can Change the Definition of "Shall Not Be Infringed."
OK, I'll bite er, nibble.... what law existed in 1791 re: boneless fowl serving



Acquisitions thus far:
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
Yeah, I'm that good
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
Yeah, I'm that good
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:36 pm
- Location: NE Ohio
Re: If They Can Change the Definition of "Boneless" They Can Change the Definition of "Shall Not Be Infringed."
I was at a local Republican meeting last night. The guest speaker was the Ohio Supreme Court chief justice, Sharon Kennedy.
She explained the ruling in detail. Basically, if Ohio had allowed the suit to go forward, we would be out of step will the other 49 states. There is the condition of a natural object possibly in the food, or a foreign object. Bones are not foreign objects. You have to assume there may be a naturally occurring object in the food.
It's no different than buying a can of pitted cherry pie filling and finding a pit. The pit is not a foreign object. You can't sue over that.
I disagree with the video mentioned in the OP. Ohio would have been a laughingstock if we had sided with the plaintiffs, and out of step with the rest of the nation.
She explained the ruling in detail. Basically, if Ohio had allowed the suit to go forward, we would be out of step will the other 49 states. There is the condition of a natural object possibly in the food, or a foreign object. Bones are not foreign objects. You have to assume there may be a naturally occurring object in the food.
It's no different than buying a can of pitted cherry pie filling and finding a pit. The pit is not a foreign object. You can't sue over that.
I disagree with the video mentioned in the OP. Ohio would have been a laughingstock if we had sided with the plaintiffs, and out of step with the rest of the nation.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
- Location: Western Ohio
Re: If They Can Change the Definition of "Boneless" They Can Change the Definition of "Shall Not Be Infringed."
The sliver of bone was longer than the wing?injuries Berkheimer suffered after swallowing a 1 3/8-inch sliver of bone found in a 1-inch boneless wing.
As far as the definition of "shall not be infringed" being changed, the courts below SCOTUS have been arguing that issue for over a hundred years.
It's politicians saying "I support the 2nd amendment but" There are all kind of things that I and many others think are infringements to the 2nd amendment that cities and states and the federal government apply, or try to apply in court cases. Sometimes even when SCOTUS makes a decision on something, some city or state tries to ignore it, and gun rights groups have to take them to court again.
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:16 pm
- Location: Central Ohio
Re: If They Can Change the Definition of "Boneless" They Can Change the Definition of "Shall Not Be Infringed."
Feds changed the definition of "gasoline" long ago. More recently, they changed the definition of "vaccine." I am sure there are others.