• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Governor DeWine signs CC bill

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Today, Governor Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 215 into law. This makes Ohio the 23rd constitutional carry state, and the second to join that group in 2022
"The bill had been opposed by some members of law enforcement, who said it would contribute to the challenges of tackling rising violent crimes that involve firearms. In an interview last week, a top law enforcement officer in Cincinnati, Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey, said the new law would contribute to the wave of violence."

“To vote for people to be able to concealed carry without a license, without any training, without any documentation, it makes it exponentially harder for law enforcement to prevent gun crimes,” McGuffey said. 'It is going to promote lawlessness. I think that there will be people who carry weapons concealed for the purpose of being vigilantes.”
(excerpted from https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/598243-ohio-governor-signs-permitless-carry-bill/)

Sheriffette McGuffey's comments reflect a serious lack of understanding of the role of law enforcement in the U.S.; she wants to be able to "prevent gun crimes", but prior restraint is illegal and unconstitutional in this country. ("Prior restraint" consists of a limitation on a citizen's liberty in anticipation of wrongful behavior.) The only job of law enforcement is just that, enforcement. Their job is to detect criminal activity, gather evidence, apprehend criminals, and assist with prosecution. All that stuff about "community caretaker" is at best, a matter of volunteerism, since that is not their job. Moreover, her fears are merely an emotional reaction (or a cynical attempt to induce others to buy into that view by appealing to their emotions rather than their reason). Being afraid of what MIGHT happen is all about the boogeyman in the closet. (You can't buy stainless steel "chore boy" scrubbers in bulk anymore because BATFE is afraid that someone MIGHT turn 'em into silencer baffles.)

I have always been puzzled by the phrase, "constitutional carry". Presumably it means that one can carry a weapon in a way that fully exercises his rights under the applicable constitution. As a Constitutional Fundamentalist, my view is that, under the U.S. Const., there can be no interference at all with a citizen's right to be armed in any way he sees fit. "No infringement" means exactly what it says, and the plain language of the amendment would suggest that you can carry tactical nukes if you want to. But that's all because the Bill of Rights really only applies to the U.S. Congress - it was judicial lack of intellectual honesty (which they refer to as "interpretation") that made any of that apply to the States. So the question, what constitutes "constitutional carry" depends on the constitution of the state in question.

I just read the statute that's been enacted, and I wasn't impressed. §4 of Ohio's constitution simply states that "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; ..." That would suggest that the right is limited to those purposes. That is to say, one has no right to hunt with weapons is unconstitutional in Ohio (not that the legislature could not grant that power by statute), and that one's ability to carry a weapon may be subject to regulation by the State. So "constitutional carry" in Ohio don't mean much.

In Virginia, where I live, and whose "keep and bear arms" Constitutional language was the model for the U.S. provision, "no infringement" means "no infringement". So, in Virginia, "constitutional carry" would mean the same as for the U.S. Constitution: you can carry tactical nukes if you want to. As I see it, at least in Virginia, "constitutional carry" would mean simply repealing all the statutes that "infringe" with ownership and transport of weapons. Nothing in that would eliminate the police power of the states to enact statutes that punish criminal use of weapons, of course. But that would mean identification of a crime, probable cause to believe that a certain person committed the crime, apprehension of that person, etc., not prior restraint.

The bottom line for me is, that a state cannot lawfully make criminal that which its constitution specifically authorizes. Now, I couldn't care less what the citizens of Illinois choose to do about "gun control" (though their Constitution says essentially the same as Virginia's, so if they want to be unable to defend themselves and promote crime, that's their business. But, to paraphrase what a character said in "Josey Wales", Don't be pissin' down my back and tell me it's raining.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,841
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
"The bill had been opposed by some members of law enforcement, who said it would contribute to the challenges of tackling rising violent crimes that involve firearms. In an interview last week, a top law enforcement officer in Cincinnati, Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey, said the new law would contribute to the wave of violence."

“To vote for people to be able to concealed carry without a license, without any training, without any documentation, it makes it exponentially harder for law enforcement to prevent gun crimes,” McGuffey said. 'It is going to promote lawlessness. I think that there will be people who carry weapons concealed for the purpose of being vigilantes.”
(excerpted from https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/598243-ohio-governor-signs-permitless-carry-bill/)

Sheriffette McGuffey's comments reflect a serious lack of understanding of the role of law enforcement in the U.S.; she wants to be able to "prevent gun crimes", but prior restraint is illegal and unconstitutional in this country. ("Prior restraint" consists of a limitation on a citizen's liberty in anticipation of wrongful behavior.) The only job of law enforcement is just that, enforcement. Their job is to detect criminal activity, gather evidence, apprehend criminals, and assist with prosecution. All that stuff about "community caretaker" is at best, a matter of volunteerism, since that is not their job. Moreover, her fears are merely an emotional reaction (or a cynical attempt to induce others to buy into that view by appealing to their emotions rather than their reason). Being afraid of what MIGHT happen is all about the boogeyman in the closet. (You can't buy stainless steel "chore boy" scrubbers in bulk anymore because BATFE is afraid that someone MIGHT turn 'em into silencer baffles.)

I have always been puzzled by the phrase, "constitutional carry". Presumably it means that one can carry a weapon in a way that fully exercises his rights under the applicable constitution. As a Constitutional Fundamentalist, my view is that, under the U.S. Const., there can be no interference at all with a citizen's right to be armed in any way he sees fit. "No infringement" means exactly what it says, and the plain language of the amendment would suggest that you can carry tactical nukes if you want to. But that's all because the Bill of Rights really only applies to the U.S. Congress - it was judicial lack of intellectual honesty (which they refer to as "interpretation") that made any of that apply to the States. So the question, what constitutes "constitutional carry" depends on the constitution of the state in question.

I just read the statute that's been enacted, and I wasn't impressed. §4 of Ohio's constitution simply states that "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; ..." That would suggest that the right is limited to those purposes. That is to say, one has no right to hunt with weapons is unconstitutional in Ohio (not that the legislature could not grant that power by statute), and that one's ability to carry a weapon may be subject to regulation by the State. So "constitutional carry" in Ohio don't mean much.

In Virginia, where I live, and whose "keep and bear arms" Constitutional language was the model for the U.S. provision, "no infringement" means "no infringement". So, in Virginia, "constitutional carry" would mean the same as for the U.S. Constitution: you can carry tactical nukes if you want to. As I see it, at least in Virginia, "constitutional carry" would mean simply repealing all the statutes that "infringe" with ownership and transport of weapons. Nothing in that would eliminate the police power of the states to enact statutes that punish criminal use of weapons, of course. But that would mean identification of a crime, probable cause to believe that a certain person committed the crime, apprehension of that person, etc., not prior restraint.

The bottom line for me is, that a state cannot lawfully make criminal that which its constitution specifically authorizes. Now, I couldn't care less what the citizens of Illinois choose to do about "gun control" (though their Constitution says essentially the same as Virginia's, so if they want to be unable to defend themselves and promote crime, that's their business. But, to paraphrase what a character said in "Josey Wales", Don't be pissin' down my back and tell me it's raining.
Sheriffette McGuffey is an idiot. She is not allowed to testify in court because she is on the “brady” list. She is a known liar. She also had her car stollen and her gun stollen out of the car as sheriff.

Ohio’s constitution is really not a constitution because in does not contain the boundaries of the state. Where is the state of Ohio?????? I don’t know.

I have written on this forum many times that Constitutional Carry has nothing to do with the constitution. All these laws just remove the licensing process. All the laws that restrict conceal carry still remain in effect. The problem is that down the road people won’t realize what restrictions exist and start conceal carrying in places not allowed and then getting caught.

Hunting laws only apply to the sport of hunting. Taking game to feed yourself and family is a constitutional right. See the ninth amendment to the federal constitution. A Kentucky court was shocked when learning that Kentucky law makes clear that all the game in Kentucky was for the purpose of feeding the citizens. And that the term “hunt and hunting” referred to recreation and sport, not putting food on the table.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Here's another wrinkle. Has anyone noticed that the Bill of Rights consists entirely of amendments? These are not extra provisions tacked on after the original was finished, these provisions amend, i.e., change and update the original text. To "amend" means literally to repair or fix something that wasn't quite right to begin with. It acts upon the original text to change its meaning. Thus, every amendment to the Constitution changes the meaning of all of the original text as well as all prior amendments. So, for example, the 19th Amendment modifies the 10th. And (here's the kicker), the Second Amendment takes precedence over, and pre-empts, anything in conflict with it in the original text, so the "supremacy clause" and the "interstate commerce clause" are subordinate to the 2nd.A. So the use of the interstate commerce clause to justify a statute prohibiting the possession of firearms within a thousand feet of a school, for example, is a nullity, according to the "plain meaning rule". Here's another point: the lads who developed the thing used the technique of amending the original document right promptly precisely to have the effect I describe, because if they'd incorporated the Bill of Rights into the original document, it wouldn't have been able to control over everything else (i.e., the grants of federal power). They did that to protect our rights from invasion by a federal tyrant. Ooops.

It takes the special mystical art of "judicial interpretation" to screw up the Constitution.
 
Top