Two Ohio Democrat State Representatives, Bill Patmon and Ted Celeste, are co-sponsoring a bill "to generally prohibit a person from having a firearm on privately owned land or premises unless the person owns, controls, or resides on or in the land or premises, has permission of the owner or person who controls the land or premises and, if the land or premises is rental property, of the tenant when required, or is the tenant with respect to those premises." The bill specifies that it "applies to any person, including a concealed handgun licensee."

2kool4skool;1321627 wrote:So the person that owns the property gets to decide whether you can have a gun on their property? Oh, the horror.

LJ;1321630 wrote:They already can.

2kool4skool;1321631 wrote:Then what is the bill changing?

LJ;1321633 wrote:That instead of them saying you can't, they have to say you can.

2kool4skool;1321638 wrote:Fucking LOL. Should have known it would be outrage over something incredibly stupid. God forbid I have to go out to dinner without my gun.

LJ;1321641 wrote:Renters would have to get written permission from a landlord is probably the worst part of it.

2kool4skool;1321647 wrote:Seems a decent chunk of gun nuts think only property owners should be allowed to vote, so taking away their right to carry a gun(on property they don't own) doesn't seem so bad.

FatHobbit;1321648 wrote:link?

2kool4skool;1321638 wrote:Fucking LOL. Should have known it would be outrage over something incredibly stupid. God forbid I have to go out to dinner without my gun.

2kool4skool;1321652 wrote:I said "seems" meaning based in my experience, there's a correlation there. As far as corroborating evidence, the founder of the tea party, a movement many gun nuts strongly identify with, is on record as saying only property owners should have the right to vote. I also recall discussions on this very forum about it.

2kool4skool;1321652 wrote:I said "seems" meaning based in my experience, there's a correlation there. As far as corroborating evidence, the founder of the tea party, a movement many gun nuts strongly identify with, is on record as saying only property owners should have the right to vote. I also recall discussions on this very forum about it.

WebFire;1321660 wrote:It basically would limit you to your house and car. Otherwise you would have to seek explicit permission EVERYWHERE you went. So fucking LOL, it is a big deal.

gut;1321662 wrote:Not that I necessarily agree, but there's some logic to the position. Namely, property taxes are a popular source of state & local revenues (i.e. levies), and as such 30-40% of people voting on these measures have no skin in the game. They do, theoretically, as a renter who's monthly rent will increase with the levies but most don't make the connection. All goes back to the fact that people don't generally oppose spending someone else's money. Young people, in particular, won't think twice about raising property taxes until they start writing those big checks on their first home.

queencitybuckeye;1321668 wrote:So ask.

WebFire;1321670 wrote::rolleyes:

queencitybuckeye;1321672 wrote:Why do you believe you should be able to come onto my property, and make me be the party to assert my rights, as opposed to vice-versa?

queencitybuckeye;1321668 wrote:So ask.

queencitybuckeye;1321672 wrote:Why do you believe you should be able to come onto my property, and make me be the party to assert my rights, as opposed to vice-versa?

2kool4skool;1321677 wrote:These are people who are so awkward they feel the need to carry a gun everywhere, you seriously think they have the social courage to go talk to strangers?

WebFire;1321675 wrote:Do you know the difference between private and public property? This isn't limited to just citizen property.