DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ohio Senate passes bill to allow concealed firearms without a permit

Seems to me that the proposed Bill(s) and the above are at odds with each other. Less gun violence....not!

We just witnessed a veteran police officer of over 25 years convicted of manslaughter because she "accidentally" shot and killed a man. Yet here we have people passing laws that allow people with zero gun experience to carry around a loaded weapon and claim that nothing will go wrong. Murica!

There are already about 18 states that allow some sort of permitless carry. As they did so there was not blood in the streets. Children were not slaughtered in droves.

Kim Potter made a huge mistake. This mistake had causes that are not just arrogant quips on a message forum. From the stress response involved to her lack of training, to the placement of the less than lethal weapon and the shape and size of it. She will pay for her mistake, likely do to certain public pressures she will pay more dearly than her victim would have if he had made it to trail and been convicted. I will also say this case really has nothing to do with citizens carrying for their own protection. She was actively engaged in a lawful law enforcement activity, not out on the town for dinner with her husband when he needed to fend off car jackers like the IL state senator.

Should people have training if they decide to carry? Certainly. Should the state mandate how I or anyone else should exercise their natural right that is protected by the Second Amendment? No, not even close. Do we need First amendment training so we say the right things, or gather in correct ways? Do I need fifth amendment training so I can properly exercise my due process?

(I was also worried about the anxiety this creates for the cops to draw on other people, if those people are under no obligation to tell you if there is a gun in the vehicle... It just creates more uncertainty )


I tend to believe that cops have been looking at every traffic stop with anxiety and caution for many years. Can't remember the last time I saw a cop just walk up to a window and say " hi there " They tend to stand back as though they are expecting a gun to be pointed at them..

I have tinted windows.. I was being a DD for my daughter.. I got pulled over, First thing I did was roll down all 4 windows so the cop could see it was just my daughter and I. He still never stood directly next to my window, he stood back of it. Asked for my Id asked if I was drinking I gave him my license told him no I was a DD for my daughter. He went to his cruiser...came back again to the back side of my window handed me my License told me to have a good night and thanked me...

He saw that all 4 windows down and no one but my daughter and I was in the car, and he still proceeded with caution. It's how they are trained to do. Hopefully it stays the same routine for the cops, approach as trained, with caution.

He never asked me if I was carrying, but he handled himself as though the possibility existed, and he never acted unprofessional. He was doing his job and he did it right.

Yeah, that's the gauge for using common sense. I mean maybe that's what it would take for crack pots to advocate common sense?


This is nonsense. Every police officer is trained in the use of firearms. And the taser and the firearm are on opposite sides of the body to help prevent this from happening. Even the best trained CAN make a mistake. But common sense tells us that those with no training will make more mistakes, more often.


The exact opposite of this has been proven over and over again. But let's ignore that.


Her actual reasoning for pulling her weapon was that she saw her fellow officers in fear. Even though they hadn't brandished their weapons. The reason for using deadly force in both instances as claimed were the same. Fear of their life.


You can't say that people should get training and then object to mandating they get that training. Well I guess you can because you just did. The second amendments first line is "A well regulated Militia". That doesn't sound anything like you're describing. A well regulated militia isn't every Joe Blow on the street acting alone. And one would also logically conclude such a militia would be trained in the handling of firearms.

I'd prefer evidence-based reasoning instead of "common sense". Most people's common sense falls short.



So even her admitted lack of training, especially recent training is overcome because you think so. During a lethal encounter a lot of things happen due to the high stress (tunnel vision, losing fine motor skills, and critical thinking skills to name some) , and this cannot be replicated in training, especially without repeated recent training. But of course you are expert here too. You fight the way you train, and she was not well trained.



In other words you don't actually have a valid point to make so you will wave your hands in the air to distract.



The standard for police is different than it would be for you or I. She would not have needed to be in fear for her or her companions life directly. If she had a fear that a fleeing suspect could endanger others that is a valid reason for use of force. The fact that she thought she was deploying her taser should indicate that she thought she was not to that standard. She should have had her less than lethal weapon off hand to help ensure she was grabbing and using what she intended to use. Off hand also helps break the rote repetition of draw, aim and squeeze of muscle memory.



Well regulated, in regards to the Second Amendment, is in reference to being well equipped, not having rules, oversight and permitting schemes. You really should look at historical context instead of using "common sense" on what words mean.

I do expect people to be trained in tools, but I do not think the Government has a say in what that training is. Locally to get a license to buy a gun you have to fire a single live shot. Do you think that is a good low bar?

Also training requirements are expensive and are a barrier to people who cannot afford training. Would you advocate a Government mandated training program for voting? For assembly?

Yes, if people can't figure out that someone who is properly trained with a gun is far less likely to accidentally shoot someone or miss their intended target, common sense is dead.


Let's look at the facts shall we. Every officer in her department gets the same training. Yet out of the officers there, she was the only officer to brandish a weapon. Not only was she the only officer to brandish a weapon, she also felt compelled to fire it. While no other officer on the scene even felt compelled to pull a weapon. So her training was bad but their training, which is exactly the same training she had, is bad? It appears she is the only one whose actions can be blamed on her training since she was the only one who did this. That's what happens when you don't look beneath the surface when a defendant will say anything they can to be found not guilty. If her training is so bad, can you point to any other officers on her police force doing the same thing she did? I didn't think so.


Sure I do. You just obviously don't pay attention.

Former Metro officer sentenced to 3 years in jail for 2018 fatal shooting

https://www.wjhl.com/news/regional/...3-years-in-jail-for-2018-fatal-shooting/


So you believe what she said in regard to training, but not when it comes to what she said when it comes to deploying a weapon.

In court, Ms Potter testified that she saw "a look of fear" on the face of a fellow officer during the scuffle.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59691902

She used fear as a part of her defense for why she pulled a weapon.


You should invest in a dictionary....

Oxford Dictionary

control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

Or a thesaurus. Synonyms for regulate

supervise, oversee, police, superintend, monitor, check, check up on, keep an eye on, inspect, administer, be responsible for. control, manage, direct, guide, govern, rule, order.




The only way to insure anyone be trained in anything to any proper standard is to set and require proof that standard is met. Claiming you can afford to buy a weapon but can't afford CCW training is a cheap excuse to bypass it.

When a single vote can kill multiple school children in less that 60 seconds, or accidentally misfire and kill an innocent person, you let me know.

You need to invest in a history book. You are using a modern definition for a historical context.

Can you remind me now what "shall not be infringed" means?

Please show me where "regulated" meant the opposite then of what it means now.


Having a gun owner have safety training does not "infringe" on their right to own a firearm. It just insures they have a minimum standard of safety training so innocent people aren't killed out of carelessness. Those are two different things. Maybe you can explain how it infringes on you owning a firearm? You don't need a CCW to buy a firearm. Only to carry one where obvious common sense prevails. That's not an infringement of your rights. It's only used as an excuse to have people that know nothing about guns walking around with one.

Under your scenario convicted felons should be allowed to own a firearm and carry it too. I mean there's nothing in the constitution that says they can't, right?

And since it's you who claim someone else needs a history book. Almost every human being in America used firearms for hunting and protection from wild animals. When the constitution was written almost everyone had experience with a firearm. And they only had single shot weapons. Maybe you can explain from a historical perspective how our forefathers could have seen into the future.

So where in history did the word "regulate" mean the opposite of what it does now again?

I always understood it to mean the people had the right to maintain protection should the government, the regulated militia, ever decided to enforce it's will on the people.

In some states you most certainly need a license to buy a firearm. That is an infringement. Requiring a license to carry (bear) is also an infringement. All your snark and deflection does not change that.

I do believe convicted felons that have paid their debt should have their rights restored, I also think they can't be trusted to do so they shouldn't be out of prison.

You might also want to dig a little deepr into the history books, the founding fathers also owned (privately) things like cannon and warships. They also knew about things like automatic guns (see the Puckle gun).

Again, "well regulated" is well equipped not licensed and tax.

You won't be convinced otherwise so I am done with you. You know a lot of things that just aren't.

Law and Order Party,,, MY BUTT

Being responsible is not an infringement. There's nothing about getting a CCW permit that prevents you from owning a firearm and actually insures to everyone you have met a minimum standard to carry a firearm.


So then it's your opinion that convicted felons who have been released from prison should be able to own and carry a firearm?


The highest rate of fire for a Puckle gun was nine shots a minute, not fifty. It was a flintlock weapon. Stop pretending.


And again you have shown zero evidence to support that . The definition for the word regulate has not changed no matter how hard you claim otherwise.


You claim things you have no evidence of and then claim others do the same thing.

Infringement is "the act of limiting or undermining something". The idea someone needs to ask for a license, pay for the license and hope the government allows a license IS infringement. Is this too hard for you to understand. Try to get a CCW in NJ. Go ahead, shouldn't be hard. i'll wait. Or Try in NYC where you will spend over $1000 just for the privilege to be able to buy a firearm, if of course the city grants it to you.

Licensing of a right makes it a privilege. That is infringement.

You say that permitless carry is going to cause deaths, let's see your proof. You do, of course, have some actual non-biased peer reviewed studies to show you are right don't you? You demand proof from people, either put it out there or stop.

BTW, you claimed the founders only knew about single shot muskets. The puckle guns proves otherwise. The actual rate of fire isn't the issue, it's that it wan't a single shot musket. But, of course, you once again wae your hands in the air to deflect and change the question to be right.

Since you are a "last word" guy have at it, you are wrong, you will always believe you are right and I am done with your arrogant pontification. Go on, you get the last word, I won't see it. I won't care, but you get to have it. It is my Christmas gift to you.

You are citing some laws with which I agree with you about. I do think some states have far too restrictive gun laws which do infringe on peoples second amendment rights. You see, I own multiple firearms. I'm not an anti gun person. I just think with a gun comes responsibility. And there's no way you can argue that America as a whole is a responsible society. Law enforcement all across our nation understands this and supports those carrying a gun get a CCW permit. They understand that have people walking around with a deadly weapon with no experience is a dangerous proposition. I've already shown you this.

What you are calling a license here is only proof that you have undergone enough instruction to safely handle a firearm. I understand that you can't somehow comprehend that a weapon having the ability to fire 9 rounds a minute rather than 50 or more in a minute isn't something you see as making a difference. Somehow you think a round every 7 seconds is the same as todays semi automatic weapons. In case you missed it, a revolver shoots rounds faster than that and it is not considered a semi automatic weapon

Try this. It's only a snippet of the article but I suggest you read the entire thing.


It explains the many reasons that contribute to how doing away with CCW permits and relaxing gun ownership has created this.

It seems you are confusing infringement with safety and personal responsibility.

Typical retort for a beaten man.

If getting the last word means you've won the debate, you're 223,195 - 0 or something like that. :rofl.

Some people have jobs and other commitments......they don't have the time to ride it out like you do. That doesn't mean they didn't take you to the woodshed.

So you think it's safe and proper to allow people with zero training to walk around with hand guns? Because 80% of the population and law enforcement around the country disagrees. You got me.

And you must have missed the fact that Frank Z has been here on the regular day in and day out debating this but nice try.

I wasn't just referring to this debate. It seems like every single thread I open, it's you twisting arguments around until the other person quits posting. I said earlier in this thread I believe people should be trained.

So you agree with my side of the debate but object to me continuing to debate it? What in this did I twist? Or maybe you would like to show other example of this? I do often ask in the form of a question if that was the intent of what they posted because often times the response is rushed and not clear in its intent. I mean if that's what you mean by "twisting".

And you can be sure arch will be along later to pile on. It's like what he does. But in case you've missed it, I don't care.

100% accurate. Now, watch.....

Let me know when you grow up and become a teenager.

I already predicted you would be along shortly. Your predictability never disappoints.

Let me know when you want to try posting like a grown up. You asked for evidence that gun deaths increased where CCW permits were dropped. I provided that and all you have is a whole lot of nothing in response. Figures. Here it is again in case you actually want to step up to the plate..... I didn't think so

Emerging data shows that states that have passed permitless carry legislation are experiencing a substantial increase in gun violence.

Laws that weaken a state’s firearm permitting system have been a precursor to permitless carry legislation, and a substantial body of research shows that these laws have led to a rise in gun violence and violent crime more broadly. States that have weakened their firearm permitting system have experienced an 11 percent increase in handgun homicide rates12 and a 13-15 percent increase in violent crime rates.13 Conversely, states that provided law enforcement discretion to issue carry permits saw 11 percent lower homicide rates compared to states that did not have that discretion.14

https://everytownresearch.org/repor...n-public-with-no-permit-and-no-training/

Nor does yours. Now, run along, I'm sure there's a thread that doesn't have your name at the end of it - yet.

Must suck to believe you need to post condescending posts, lies, twists, and everything else, in an effort to prove you.............well, I have no clue what you hope to prove.

You're making one of my points for me at this very moment. Thanks for that btw...

I've been actually debating the topic all along. You only come along to play the stalker. You're more predictable than I am.

So you are saying you can only support your position with propaganda. Try something unbiased and peer reviewed.

Now scoot along pumpkin.... you have homework.

You think law enforcement across the country, the actual number in murder rates in areas where CCW's have been lifted, that even the vast amount of gun owners agree, are all propaganda because they say things you don't want to believe. Blissful ignorance is not a defense to facts.

You provide the very evidence of the stark contrast in those who believe in common sense gun legislation and a gun nut. You hurt the cause for all of us regular gun owners.

You posted a "article" from Everytown. It is a gun control organization. Michael Bloomburg believes you aren't smart enough, or responsible enough, to own a gun unless you can afford to have gangs of people carry them for you.

I bet you can find where PETA says eating meat is bad for the environment too.

That is propaganda.

You still haven't provided unbiased peer reviewed data. I am wearing my shocked face.

According to you so is what the cops across our nation say.

The FBI and CDC Datasets Agree: Who Has Guns—Not Which Guns—Linked to Murder Rates

Two BU studies, one shared finding: State gun laws restricting who has access to guns significantly reduces rates of firearm-related homicide

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/

I know, university studies mean nothing as well. As I said, I own multiple firearms. You will continue to refuse any sources that do not back up what you believe. Nothing surprising there.

"We found a relationship between the enactment of two types of state firearm laws and reductions in homicide over time. However, further research is necessary to determine whether these associations are causal ones."

So a study funded by a pro gun control organization found a causal relationship and between more laws and a reduction in homicides. This really does assume the conclusion. I do find it interesting they use the old trick of lumping a lot of data points together to make a scary point. I won't even point out that this paper doesn't confirm your stance about super high rate of fire guns being being the issue.

I don't see anything in the way of peer review either, so again this is biased and not peer reviewed.

And owning guns does not make you any sort of expert (on guns, the constitution, public policy, or frankly anything else) nor is it impressive.

I understand that since I've handled, hunted and been target shooting for 50 years that doesn't mean anything to you because once again, I'm someone who disagrees with you.

There's a stark difference in someone who understands that there should be a threshold of responsibility to require anyone carrying a gun to have a minimum standard of training and someone who thinks they live in Dodge City, Kansas during the eighteen hundreds. That living in a nation where there exists more firearms than there are people requires some accountability when walking around in society being locked and loaded. What you miss is that you aren't any more of an expert than I am, yet here you are. Arguing the constitution. Claiming that "regulate" had a totally different definition when they wrote the constitution. Do you think that's impressive?

But you see, it's the extremist views you hold where you think people should be able to carry loaded weapons around with zero proof of training that gets the attention. It's always the extremist views that those who oppose our gun rights use. They will use that as a weapon to help them infringe on all of our rights. People such as yourself will be their vehicle. And it's a damned shame you don't see it. This back and forth we've had does show the difference between sensible gun owners that wants there to be safeguards for society and those who would rather support reckless abandon. You sir are your own worst enemy and you can't even see it.

You weren't allowed to carry a gun in Dodge City. You checked them in when you arrived and got em back when you left. So I really don't want it to be like Dodge City, glad you don't either.

It is compromising elitist like you that slowly piss away our rights. Just a little more in the name of "common sense".

Not
One
More
Inch

Seriously.... you can really have the last word. You won't resist. You are really too so full of your own brilliance to not. Say what you will. I don't care anymore.

CCW laws have been in place for decades now in many states. Nobody has tried to use them to "take mah guns". You see, you proved my very point. Even other gin owners who want you use common sense in terms of public safety you now claim are the elites. That's the level of stupidity being used here. They will use the extremist views of people just like you to further impose gun restrictions and when looking at who's to blame for it you will refuse to look in the mirror. You are no less a danger to my gun rights than the anti gun crowd.

There's a reason why there ended up being gun restrictions in Dodge City because it certainly never started out that way. It's because they had to stop idiots from killing people and had to go to extreme measures to do so. Much like the scenario you are advocating.

jc

i remember the debate for years on this board about legalizing weed. so many people were all "it just makes it easier for kids to get ahold of it"

but somehow that doesn't apply to guns, huh? i thought we as a society were supposed to evolve from the wild west era, and yet here is half the country wishing to go backwards.

yall cant even stick to your own logic. and yet its politicians with the same mentality of some of you guys making these decisions at the state level. no actual logicL or reasonable points for why this is necessary. just "cause guns".

I have no idea why conservatives cry about hip hop music, when you guys have been arguing to legalize that lifestyle for decades. guns everywhere on the streets. in schools, movie theaters, birthday parties, funerals, hospitals, wherever and whenever.

suicides by guns specifically keeps rising, mass shootings by both adults AND children, accidental discharges that either kills the kids or the parents, shootings cause some girl left you or dont want to date you, and this toxic obsession with guns that make yall feel powerful.

yall do more to promote gun violence than any rapper could hope to accomplish. way to be a patriot.

honestly, some of you guys like to call yourselves christians, yet if the world ended right now, yall dont even meet the qualifications to get into heaven. you'll be chilling right next to me in hell.

well, maybe. i might actually be tight with the demons, because at least im not a hypocrite.

The Columbus Dispatch Publishes BFA's Rebuttal on Constitutional Carry
by Dean Rieck
7:00AM MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2022

After seeing multiple pieces in The Columbus Dispatch opposing Constitutional Carry, including one from the Editorial Board, I decided to submit a response. Here is my guest column published on Saturday, Jan. 8, 2022.

For 20 years, I've been listening to alarmists predict blood in the streets every time legislators introduce a bill to enable greater freedom for law-abiding gun owners.

The predictions have never come true.

And now that Ohio is considering permitless carry, or “constitutional carry,” the alarmists are at it again. And once again, they're wrong.

Carrying a firearm without a license is a proven concept. It's already the law in 21 states, including our neighbors West Virginia and Kentucky. In addition, 34 states, including Ohio, allow open carry without a license.

Opponents say legislation, such as Senate Bill 215, sponsored by Sen. Terry Johnson, R-District 14, would empower criminals to carry guns or engage in dangerous behavior. That is false.

It merely makes licensing optional.

Those who are prohibited from buying and possessing guns would continue to be prohibited.

Areas that are currently off-limits for firearms, such as school zones and posted private property, would continue to be off-limits. And the standard for use of lethal force in self-defense would not change.

A study released by the American College of Surgeons in 2018 examined the relationship between violent crime and concealed-carry laws. The researchers analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from all 50 states spanning 30 years.

They concluded that there is “... no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime.”

Why? Because for the most part, violent crime is not perpetrated by average gun owners. It is perpetrated by a small number of criminals who ignore gun control laws.

In October of 2021, The Columbus Dispatch reported on a study conducted by the National Network for Safe Communities, confirming that “... a relatively few individuals, many of them young people involved in gangs, drive much of the lethal violence … typically a fraction of individuals are behind half of the homicides.” And these criminals are already prohibited from possessing firearms.

If we want to both reduce crime and respect citizens' right to defend themselves and their families, it's time to make the burdensome and expensive licensing process optional for concealed carry and to demand that cities enforce current laws against those who actually commit violent crimes.

Criminals should pay the price for their illegal activities, not the more than 4 million law-abiding Ohioans who own and carry firearms.

Dean Rieck is Executive Director of Buckeye Firearms Association, a former competitive shooter, NRA Patron Member, #1 NRA Recruiter for 2013, business owner and partner with Second Call Defense.

The entire "blood in the streets" premise is false. Common sense dictates that more people carrying guns with no training or experience handling a firearm will lead to more accidental shootings. This isn't complicated. How many accidental shootings would it take to make requiring basic firearms training a requirement? 5 deaths, 10 deaths, 100 deaths? The only people that mentions "blood on the streets" are those trying to shock people into disagreeing with common sense.

Ohio House passes bill getting rid of concealed carry permit requirements
NEWS
by: Laura Morrison

Posted: Mar 2, 2022 / 03:27 PM EST / Updated: Mar 2, 2022 / 03:33 PM EST

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WJW) — The Ohio House of Representatives voted on proposed legislation Wednesday that eliminates a permit requirement for Ohioans concealing a carried firearm in the state.

By a vote of 57-35, the House passed Senate Bill 215, after it moved through the House Government Oversight Committee Tuesday.

The bill would also make it so carriers do not have to tell law enforcement they have a weapon during a traffic stop unless directly asked.

https://fox8.com/news/ohio-house-passes-bill-getting-rid-of-concealed-carry-permit-requirements/