Ohio SB 184 Concealed Carry

Alan

The general comments I have heard on the radio have been this will reduce the amount of crime happening in the state including Akron which violent crime rose 16.7% since last year.

http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/3990/83/

Full Bill Non Summary

Tort Reform
I think this will reduce much of the frivolous lawsuits where the criminal sues after he/she is injured by the person he/she is robbing or the cops.

Castle Doctrine
This is where the most support in my area has been and I have to agree. One of the major problems is breaking and entering in my area and this would make criminals think twice, at least i hope so, before robbing a house.

LEO Notification
I'm against this because you should be irresponsible if you don't tell an officer if you have a weapon in the car. Should we really trust someone to handle a weapon properly that can't follow this basic rule?

Homeowner's Rights
Highly agree on this since it is your property.

Motor Vehicle Transport
I disagree for the reason that a rifle really isn't a weapon you would need in the case of a car jacking and opened in plain view could lead to you being robbed to get your firearm.

HMTKSteve

I feel that any law that infringes upon a person's "right to bear arms" infringes on the second amendment of the US Constitution. Laws that block sales (not ownership) fall into a grey area for me and i have not put enough thought behind that idea to debate it.

As to notification of a law enforcement officer. Yes, you should always tell the officer if you are armed.

HungryJoe

I feel that any law that infringes upon a person's "right to bear arms" infringes on the second amendment of the US Constitution.

Well, the only guidance from SCOTUS is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S 174 (1939), which holds that there is no absolute individual right to bear arms. So it seems that your feelings and the feelings of the Supreme Court are in direct conflict.

They're not as smart as you though, and they don't have the wealth of military knowledge and years of field command experience to draw upon.

HMTKSteve

Courts have been known to be wrong just as lawyers have been known to be condescending.

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' <- the meaning of the commas is still under debate. I say this amendment was added to insure the people have the right to bear arms in order to keep the state in check and avert tyranny. There are many who agree with me and there are those that agree with SCOTUS. Lucky for me I live in a free country that allows me to lobby my government for redress of grievances and to lobby for things I would like to see changed or clarified in the existing code of laws.

HungryJoe

Courts have been known to be wrong.

Well, here's a case where they are NOT wrong. Even if they were, the liklihood that they would be proven wrong by you is about as remote as McSame winning in November.

HMTKSteve

Courts have been known to be wrong.

Well, here's a case where they are NOT wrong. Even if they were, the liklihood that they would be proven wrong by you is about as remote as McSame winning in November.

Which is why I am glad I live in a free country.

The Five SCOTUS cases involving the Second Amendment

Gun rights, and the fate of a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. The court is undertaking the first comprehensive review of Second Amendment rights in U.S. history, and will decide whether individuals have a right to own guns, or whether that right is linked to service in a militia.

Supreme Court: 22 cases remain undecided

Joe, your linking to United States v. Miller, 307 U.S 174 (1939), is why I can't stand liberals. A quick search reveals five SCOTUS cases dealing with the Second Amendment yet you choose only to link to one and then proceed to insult me. You carefully omitted U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) which dealt with the issue indirectly by stating "the people" in the Second Amendment has the same meaning as it does in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments.

We'll see what happens when the current Second amendment case is ruled on by the current SCOTUS.

HungryJoe

You carefully omitted U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) which dealt with the issue indirectly by stating "the people" in the Second Amendment has the same meaning as it does in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments.

Yes, because as you say, it was dealt with INDIRECTLY. It was dicta. That means it's not mandatory legal precedent. It might talk about who "the people" are, but it doesn't decide the issue of whether "any law that infringes upon a person's 'right to bear arms' infringes on the second amendment of the US Constitution" as you said in your post.

Le Sigh. You just don't READ, do you? All of the cases (except Miller) in that manifesto you cite to deal with the Second Amendment by dicta. They all dealt with things like felons possessing firearms or black people possessing firearms in your 19th century cases (Do you really want to go back to 19th century law? Do you have any idea what that would mean? I'm sorry, but quoting a 19th century case for anything other than history is pretty sad.).

Miller is the only case that addressed the Second Amendment rights of citizens directly.