W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 16, 2012 1:52pm
Bill introduced by Dems to effectively kill concealed carry in Ohio.
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_595
Good news is the Ohio General Assembly is controlled by Republicans. Also, this late in the year, it will be a DOA bill.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."
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_595
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Nov 16, 2012 1:59pm
BUT WHY DO YOU EVEN NEED A GUN?!?!
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Nov 16, 2012 2:18pm
So now when you walk into a restaurant, you can't carry a gun because it's private property. But if you want to light up a smoke, then it's a public property? :laugh:
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Nov 16, 2012 2:45pm
So the person that owns the property gets to decide whether you can have a gun on their property? Oh, the horror.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 16, 2012 2:48pm
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.
They already can.
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Nov 16, 2012 2:49pm
Then what is the bill changing?LJ;1321630 wrote:They already can.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 16, 2012 2:51pm
2kool4skool;1321631 wrote:Then what is the bill changing?
That instead of them saying you can't, they have to say you can. Many places don't care enough either way, so it would cut down the places you can carry tremendously.
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Nov 16, 2012 2:55pm
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;1321633 wrote:That instead of them saying you can't, they have to say you can.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 16, 2012 2:57pm
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.
Renters would have to get written permission from a landlord is probably the worst part of it.
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Nov 16, 2012 3:06pm
Seems a decent chunk of gun nuts think only property owners should be allowed to vote, so taking away a renters' right to carry a gun on their landlord's property seems logical.LJ;1321641 wrote:Renters would have to get written permission from a landlord is probably the worst part of it.
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Nov 16, 2012 3:07pm
link?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.
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Nov 16, 2012 3:10pm
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.FatHobbit;1321648 wrote:link?
Pick6
Posts: 14,946
Nov 16, 2012 3:11pm
guess we will just have to be like black people and carry them around illegally.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 16, 2012 3:13pm
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.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
Posts: 16,351
Nov 16, 2012 3:15pm
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.
LOL.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Nov 16, 2012 3:15pm
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.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.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Nov 16, 2012 3:18pm
So ask.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.
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Nov 16, 2012 3:19pm
I'm on board. But if we're going to take away their right to vote, they certainly shouldn't have the automatic right to carry a gun on their landlord's property either.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.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 16, 2012 3:19pm
:rolleyes:queencitybuckeye;1321668 wrote:So ask.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Nov 16, 2012 3:21pm
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?WebFire;1321670 wrote::rolleyes:
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 16, 2012 3:22pm
Do you know the difference between private and public property? This isn't limited to just citizen property.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
Posts: 1,804
Nov 16, 2012 3:23pm
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?queencitybuckeye;1321668 wrote:So ask.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 16, 2012 3:23pm
All you have to do is post it at your driveway, and I cannot legally carry my gun onto your property. So, you're covered.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?
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 16, 2012 3:24pm
Not sure where you get that equation. Good grief, educate yourself.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?
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Nov 16, 2012 3:24pm
I'm pretty sure I do know, but don't understand the point of the question.WebFire;1321675 wrote:Do you know the difference between private and public property? This isn't limited to just citizen property.