Fehrmann69
Regular Member
imported post
It is my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an individual has the right to posess a handgun for personal protection in thier home. Wouldn't this allow any state that has a Castle Doctrine, to allow open carry in a vehicle with the firearm loaded. In Ohio the weapon not only has to be unloaded, the clip has to be unloaded. In effect this rendors the weapon useless for it's intended purpose of self defense, as the U.S.S.C. authorized. Sort of like you can have a burglary alarm system in your home, but it must be downpowered until you need it. Then you can power it up. Wouldn't a person be able to make a case for preemption of a U.S. court decision over the state law?.
It is my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an individual has the right to posess a handgun for personal protection in thier home. Wouldn't this allow any state that has a Castle Doctrine, to allow open carry in a vehicle with the firearm loaded. In Ohio the weapon not only has to be unloaded, the clip has to be unloaded. In effect this rendors the weapon useless for it's intended purpose of self defense, as the U.S.S.C. authorized. Sort of like you can have a burglary alarm system in your home, but it must be downpowered until you need it. Then you can power it up. Wouldn't a person be able to make a case for preemption of a U.S. court decision over the state law?.