Ohio Considers Eliminating Concealed-Carry Permits by Nadia Ramlagan, Ohio News Service August 12, 2019 at 9:21 AM
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Ohio continues to chip away at firearm restrictions, and one bill being considered by lawmakers would allow people 21 and older to carry concealed weapons without needing a permit. House Bill 178 is sponsored by Republicans Ron Hood and Tom Brinkman, along with more than 20 other legislators.
Toby Hoover, founder of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, is convinced that the bill would put communities at even greater risk.
"And that is a pro-gun piece of legislation," she points out. "It's been introduced to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a background check, without a permit, without any kind of training. It would allow anybody that's not prohibited by law in some other way to go ahead and carry a gun."
The Ohio House will likely vote on the bill before year's end.
According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Ohio has the 22nd-highest gun death rate among the states, and on the center's annual scorecard of state gun safety laws, the organization gives the state a D grade.
More than 1,400 Ohio residents lose their lives to gun violence each year.
Compared to other states, Ohio has relatively few gun control laws. There are no waiting periods to purchase guns, dealers aren't required to obtain state licenses and there is no limit on the number of guns that can be purchased at one time.
There's also no ban on assault weapons or large capacity magazines.
Hoover says state lawmakers have worked to erode any gun law that might be considered restrictive.
"Over these years, we've just watched the gun lobby completely influence the Ohio Statehouse," she states. "And so, we had seen our gun laws that we had, which were very few, weaken and weaken."
Gov. Mike DeWine, who has previously been endorsed by the NRA, is now proposing to tighten access to guns by requiring background checks on firearm purchases, among other reforms he recently announced after a gunman killed nine people and injured more than 20 others in Dayton last weekend.
"Gov. Mike DeWine, who has previously been endorsed by the NRA, is now proposing to tighten access to guns by requiring background checks on firearm purchases, among other reforms he recently announced after a gunman killed nine people and injured more than 20 others in Dayton last weekend."
Seems wise. It's a shame something like Dayton had to happen before changes, isn't it?
Arresting and jailing people for carrying a gun without a piece of plastic with their face on it is stupid.
Then if that's true, driving without a piece of plastic with your face on it should be outlawed.... Great logic there BpG
Owning a gun is a Constitutional Right granted to you at birth. Driving on public roads is nothing beyond a mere privilege granted to you by the government.
Do you think it's a good idea to have people walking around carrying firearms that may have zero training and that may have never fired a weapon before?
I already know of a few people that legally have a CCW permit that it just scares the hell out of me to know they walk around in public packing.
My opinion doesn't really matter, however, I'm torn on the topic.
On the one hand, I completely and unabashedly support the idea that a Right is a Right and the phrase "shall not be infringed" should be obeyed.
On the other hand, yeah, there are definitely stupid people out there... but, you can't fix stupid. That's Darwin's job.
In the end, however, the way I view it is this: Ohio is a legal open-carry state. ANYONE can openly walk down the street with a firearm on their side. ANYONE. Without any paperwork at all.... but, you have to get a license to do the same thing with your shirt untucked and the firearm hidden? That's just stupid. Utterly stupid and accomplishes pretty much nothing except creating paper trails on legal gun owners.
I think when people start talking about what the constitution says about the right to bare arms, they conveniently forget the part about a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.
The only part that matters is that The Supremes have said that we have the Right to own firearms by virtue of the 2nd Amendment. *I* don't need to know or remember much of anything else beyond that.
There are no laws at the federal level restricting open-carry, and my state allows open-carry -- thus, open-carry is legal here without any documentation or licensing whatsoever.
Those simple, indisputable facts make licensing for CCW pretty dang stupid.
p.s. that is not to say that part of me doesn't support the idea of classes and some need for showing a degree of competency, however that part of me is in conflict with the fact that we have these Rights unconditionally and wherever I have conflict like that, I always prefer to err to the side of my Freedoms.
Thanks. I've never been one to think just because something is law that those laws are infallible.
I don't think that requiring someone have the proper gun training infringes on your right to own a firearm. I just think it sets a common sense parameter. I mean anyone could still own a firearm.
On the other hand, yeah, there are definitely stupid people out there... but, you can't fix stupid. That's Darwin's job.
Let's see...barely 7 days after an Ohio gunman murders 9 people and injures 27 more..The bill sponsored by Republicans Rep. Ron Hood, of Ashville, and Rep. Thomas Brinkman Jr, of Cincinnati proposed legislation that...
...would drop the requirement for people carrying concealed weapons to say they are armed during interactions with officers.
...would also eliminate requirements for firearms training, background checks and a license before people over 21 can conceal carry.
...the Republican-sponsored amendment would require licensed firearm dealers to give gun purchasers a one-page leaflet on Ohio gun laws.
...would eliminate the "duty to report" requirement that says someone carrying a concealed weapon must inform officers during encounters with law enforcement. It also says police would no longer have grounds to search or detain an "otherwise law-abiding person" for carrying a firearm.
Ohio needs to fix stupid at the ballot box.
You want the Truth?
Elected officials have to earn that NRA bribe money !
I think when people start talking about what the constitution says about the right to bare arms, they conveniently forget the part about a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.
It depends on how you read it.
"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 way I interpret it, the right to keep and bear arms is something that already exists and shall not be infringed....The fact that "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the state" is a reason why the existing right shall not be infringed. Many argue that the right was granted BECAUSE a militia is necessary, but the right was already present if you read it correctly.
I carry and support the 2nd, but I’d want a person to go through training before carrying, open or concealed. If that means another card with your picture on it, so be it.
Also, open carrying is dumb. It displays who’s carrying and where the good guys guns are located. That makes it easy for the bad guys to take them.
I think when people start talking about what the constitution says about the right to bare arms, they conveniently forget the part about a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.
And the left always brings up the militia part as if you have to be enlisted to own a gun. When the amendment was written, everyone was part of the militia. You were expected to show up when called upon.
Do you think it's a good idea to have people walking around carrying firearms that may have zero training and that may have never fired a weapon before?
I already know of a few people that legally have a CCW permit that it just scares the hell out of me to know they walk around in public packing.
To get it one has to take tests and demonstrate proficiency.
And the left always brings up the militia part as if you have to be enlisted to own a gun. When the amendment was written, everyone was part of the militia. You were expected to show up when called upon.
So your right to own a gun was based on the fact that it was your duty to be a part of a militia if called upon?
"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 way I interpret it, the right to keep and bear arms is something that already exists and shall not be infringed....The fact that "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the state" is a reason why the existing right shall not be infringed. Many argue that the right was granted BECAUSE a militia is necessary, but the right was already present if you read it correctly.
Gotta point the bolded part of your post out. So it seems what you're saying is that the way you interpret it dictates how you see it. And the way you interpret it is the only way to read it correctly?
I'm a proponent of the second amendment also. But I do think gun training and solid background checks are needed.
And the left always brings up the militia part as if you have to be enlisted to own a gun. When the amendment was written, everyone was part of the militia. You were expected to show up when called upon.
So your right to own a gun was based on the fact that it was your duty to be a part of a militia if called upon?
It still is and we still are. Basically, if you're part of the country is somehow threatened, by invasion, natural disaster, unnatural disaster, alien invasion, failure of the electric grid, government failure or takeover, or anything else anyone can come up with, we may have to defend ourselves. We have the right to keep and bare arms if we ever have to defend ourselves.
small point, but it's bear arms. bare arms are what we see when you wear a wife beater. and let's have no talk about Grizzly appendages. they walk on 4 LEGS.
small point, but it's bear arms. bare arms are what we see when you wear a wife beater. and let's have no talk about Grizzly appendages. they walk on 4 LEGS.
small point, but it's bear arms. bare arms are what we see when you wear a wife beater. and let's have no talk about Grizzly appendages. they walk on 4 LEGS.
I feel that everyone should take a gun safety class to own a gun.
I also feel everyone should have a background check for violent crimes/mental health histories of certain kinds.
I did both of these things when I first bought my gun, and applied for a ccw.
It wasnt a big deal, and the class was fun. I was already trained by my Dad, but thought it would be a good idea anyways. It also had good information about GA laws and what to do if you get pulled over with a gun in your car. And how to carry a gun in your car. So, as to not piss off the police.
I think to own a gun you should have to be certified in how to safely use it and store it. I also think that you should have to pass a test to show you are mentally stable and not on prescription or illegal drugs that alter body chemistry in unpredictable or dangerous ways. I fully support background checks to slow the process of buying a gun down to help prevent crime of passion moments. I think that a person who owns a gun should be reevaluated every 4 years to ensure they are still mentally healthy enough to maintain ownership of deadly weapons.
I do not support anything that prevents a healthy, non-felon person from owning a gun.
The same problem with bombs. They are not dangerous until some nutcase picks them up. THe thing is that nutcases will ALWAYS find a way to kill people. Guns are not even close to being the scariest thing those nut cases can get a hold of.
I echo what seems to be a majority of people on here. I am a supporter of the second amendment; but a person should be able to pass a background check, be trained to safely use, hold, store a gun... and periodically demonstrate that they continually meet those standards.
I can't cite anywhere to back this next part up... it's just a belief of mine. I believe that our rights (in this case, rights granted by the Constitution) also come with responsibilities. You do have the right to own a gun, but that can't be separated from the responsibility to execute your gun ownership responsibly.
I was talking about open carry. I'm not sure how the law works on that. Do you have to have training to open carry?
Zero training is required in Ohio.
I find that to be worrisome.
WHY??? If somebody is going to carry a gun wouldn't you rather see it and know about it than have it hidden?
I know you didn't ask me, but I'll say what I said above.
If you see a dude with a gun on his hip at the local Arby's, he's probably not robbing the place. Most robberies involve a ski mask/hoodie and a hidden gun, they don't want you expecting/seeing anything. So, what's the benefit of seeing the good guy with a gun?
Also, the bad guys see him and his gun too. A criminal would disarm him first with their illegal gun or get his gun from him with force and then rob the place using his gun. Criminals look for open carry.
I'm sure there's a time and place to open carry (officer, security guard and possibly at home) but a citizen carrying a gun in public should always be concealed, IMO.
As long as you've been cleared by the state to conceal a gun, I don't see why anyone needs to know that. Also, you should be allowed to carry mostly everywhere. The concept that putting up a "gun free zone" sticker means the bad guys won't bring their guns in is stupid. They are criminals, they don't follow laws. A private business should want good guys with guns there. Meh...I have to stop my rant.
...So, what's the benefit of seeing the good guy with a gun?
Also, the bad guys see him and his gun too. A criminal would disarm him first with their illegal gun or get his gun from him with force and then rob the place using his gun. Criminals look for open carry.
I'm sure there's a time and place to open carry (officer, security guard and possibly at home) but a citizen carrying a gun in public should always be concealed, IMO.
I feel the same way. I got into some heated discussions on the Ohio concealed carry forums over this. I'm all for 2A rights, but I don't think the public will ever be ready for open carry. Also, I'd rather have potential criminals wonder who's carrying and who isn't, vs. knowing who is.
Also, you should be allowed to carry mostly everywhere.
I dont feel guns belong in any place where alcohol is served.
Here in Illinois, it's based on the percentage of revenue that a business takes in from alcohol sales. Essentially, a normal restaurant is okay but not a bar.
I don't drink or frequent those places, so it's not a big deal.
And yes, if you're drinking, you shouldn't be anywhere near a gun (or a car).
Also, the bad guys see him and his gun too. A criminal would disarm him first with their illegal gun or get his gun from him with force and then rob the place using his gun. Criminals look for open carry.
I believe it would be hard to disarm somebody when your already dead. (Just my honest opinion)
Also, the bad guys see him and his gun too. A criminal would disarm him first with their illegal gun or get his gun from him with force and then rob the place using his gun. Criminals look for open carry.
I believe it would be hard to disarm somebody when your already dead. (Just my honest opinion)
There's a golden rule of self defense, never draw from the drop. Meaning, if a bad guy has a gun pointed at you, you won't have the time to draw, aim and fire before lead is already going through you.
That's what I mean about open carrying. If the bad guy is scoping out the Arby's 3-5 minutes before announcing his robbery, he's going to draw on the open carrying guy first. No good guy should be drawing in that situation, unless they want to be shot.
A concealed good guy won't be targeted and may have time to draw on the bad guy to stop him from shooting someone in the restaurant.
I was talking about open carry. I'm not sure how the law works on that. Do you have to have training to open carry?
Zero training is required in Ohio.
I find that to be worrisome.
WHY??? If somebody is going to carry a gun wouldn't you rather see it and know about it than have it hidden?
That wasn't my point at all. I have no problem with people carrying guns. And yes, I would rather know they're carrying than not.
My issue was about no training being required. There's too many "wannabes" around that could care less about having any training but rather they want to put on a show to indicate they're tough guys.
Hand guns by and large aren't made for hunting. The ones that are would be to big to carry. Like the Desert Eagle.
I think that logic dictates that if you're going to be carrying around a loaded weapon, those around you should be safe in knowing that you at least know how to handle and fire that weapon safely.
I don't want to get involved in this thread because I would never carry a gun, but I agree w/you that folks should have to have some training/classes in order to secure the right to carry.
I can't believe those laws are not already in place.
I'm not really sure about the laws concerning open carry. GM filled me in on it. I'm taking it for granted that he's right. But yes, I certainly find that concerning.
I don't know about Ohio, but in Tennessee, the patron state of shooting things, we know something about guns. The name Volunteers comes from in every war through at least Korea, the highest percentage of population to volunteer for duty came from Tennessee, thus, the Volunteer State. Most of you didn't know that.
Here, to gain a carry/conceal permit you have to pass a background check and pass a gun proficiency course. The course entails you have to demonstrate you know how to load, unload or chamber your weapon. Also, show how you know how to lock it down, then show you know how to hit a target at 15 feet.
They don't have to be bulls eye (center chest), but they still need to be on a body sized torso target.
Now the state knows the person knows how to safely handle the weapon. They aren't with a record that makes them a serious danger, and they aren't going to simply spray lead 5 feet off target.
There you go Mr. Ballpeen, feel free to carry your weapon in any manner you wish. God Bless.
As has been said, some state limits, like in the days of the old west, you go in to a saloon or any business that posts, leave 'em at the door or in the car.. That's cool, that's their right as business owners, and I get it where people can get liquored up.
I never open carry. I know that bothers some people. I respect their wishes....and I don't want the bad person to know I carry. Makes me target 1AAA . I want to look like the old guy over there who isn't a threat.
I think that logic dictates that if you're going to be carrying around a loaded weapon, those around you should be safe in knowing that you at least know how to handle and fire that weapon safely.
Logic???? Hell we can't even use common sense in this country., let alone logic.
People take tests in this country to learn how to drive, yet how many can't drive? Can't remembers the laws when it comes to driving. Ignore speed limits, stop signs, drive while talking on the phone, texting, doing their hair or makeup, taking their eyes off the road, etc, etc, etc. Even if somebody passes a gun safety course that does not mean they will use the knowledge they learned.
In all fairness, it seems reasonable to not want someone to be able to kill you instantly within the next second from yards away with no possible defense.
Regardless of their likely mental stability.
Call me a control freak.
I never was comfortable getting my neck shaved by a barber with a straight edge.
Barbers used to do shaves. I liked the close shave but not the process.
Especially when the barber had a swastika tattooed on his forehead.
I was talking about open carry. I'm not sure how the law works on that. Do you have to have training to open carry?
Zero training is required in Ohio.
I find that to be worrisome.
I saw a guy open carry in Sams Club with his wife and kids. He didn't shoot anybody at least while I was there. I also was carrying . I have a CCW and also didn't shoot anybody If it scares you Pit maybe you should stay home.
If you weren't scared, maybe your gun would stay at home.
I've been to Sandusky. It didn't make me feel the need to roll strapped. Oh, wait- I was in UpperSandusky. Never mind. Please- feel free to carry on- wit yo gangsta ass self.
I saw a guy open carry in Sams Club with his wife and kids. He didn't shoot anybody at least while I was there. I also was carrying . I have a CCW and also didn't shoot anybody If it scares you Pit maybe you should stay home.
bruh, you carry because you are scared though. if you werent acting like a wimp, then the gun would've stayed home.
i support CCW, but i also think you guys who did it arent doing society any favors. especially since yall tend to be the same ones waving your "rights" around in peoples faces.
im tired of people trying to act like CCW keeps everyone around them safe.
you carry cause it makes you feel like a badass.
you're the guy who just got found guilty for manslaugher in florida. shooting guys over a handicap parking spot and calling it self defense.
I remember when I was in my 20s and I'm not sure this is still a thing, but these dudes were training Pit Bulls to kill. They would hang pieces of meat from swing sets the damn dogs would dangle for hours. The idea was to strengthen their jaws. I told them they were f.... punks. Your dog don't make you bad. And guns don't make you bad, either. Just punks looking for trouble, but who would probably squeal as soon as you grab them by the throat.
I have guns. I keep them at home in case someone breaks into the house. But, I would never carry in public.
i dont want this to be taken the wrong way, but i think culturally its different for guys than it is women in this country.
i support women carrying and even encourage it to a point. the unfortunate reality is that women are far far more likely to actually have to protect themselves than men are, from a variety of threats.
so i have to disagree with you because i think its fairly safe to say that women overall do not view guns in the same light as men do in this country.
its not women doing the mass shootings, or doing drive bys, or waving around their guns in public cause "they have the right to".
And, especially for me, carrying doesn't make me feel "bad".
I don't carry so I can be a bully, OR a protector of anyone other than myself, and my family. I don't carry so I can look for bad guys to shoot. I don't carry to protect you.
This comment of yours is part of the reason most ccw holders carry:
Quote:
Just punks looking for trouble, but who would probably squeal as soon as you grab them by the throat.
I know you are a self proclaimed tough guy. And that's cool with me. I am not a 'tough' guy. (read into that what you may)
But, based on your quote, it appears to me you think you're tough because you would strangle someone?
(see how I took your words, and translated them into a headline? While it wasn't your intent to say you'd strangle anyone, that's what I turned it into. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. I used your words.
if you carry, then you need to be prepared to use it on someone.
Truth!
I have no problem beating the crap out of someone, but there is no way I would want to kill someone unless I absolutely had to. Even then, I would feel bad.
That is why I keep my guns in the home. If you break in and I have to defend my family........so be it. But no way in the world am I going to add to the odds of killing another human being by packing.
if you carry, then you need to be prepared to use it on someone.
Truth!
I have no problem beating the crap out of someone, but there is no way I would want to kill someone unless I absolutely had to. Even then, I would feel bad.
That is why I keep my guns in the home. If you break in and I have to defend my family........so be it. But no way in the world am I going to add to the odds of killing another human being by packing.
Beat your ass? Yes. Kill you? No.
So, you'd use a gun to kill someone that broke into your home, but you'd use your fists if someone was going to kill you outside of your home? Do I have that right?
Decent point, arch. But, I have never claimed to be perfect.
I have my strengths and weaknesses just like everyone else.
I don't believe in carrying. That doesn't mean I am right.
I also don't believe in this new-found talk of people believing they can run their mouths w/out repercussions. Hell, I have seen it on here. People will call another person name after name after name. They will attack a person repeatedly. And when the other person has finally had enough and said..........."let's get it on," they cry about the guy being threatening.
I grew up in era that if you ran your mouth too much, someone would shut it. I grew up in an era where no matter how bad you were, someone was badder. I ran my mouth a few times and some dudes taught me a lesson. I learned. I, in turn, taught others the same lessons. Run your mouth and risk getting it busted.
One can say that is the wrong way to look at things, but I disagree. Too many folks run their mouths w/out fear of the repercussions. And arch............I prefer fists to guns.
Let's say you and I meet and get into it. We go out to the parking lot and put some knots on each other's heads. The winner takes the other dude back into the bar and buys him a beer and we are now better friends and we guaranteed have a better understanding of things. You shoot the other dude and multiple lives are ruined.
if you carry, then you need to be prepared to use it on someone.
Truth!
I have no problem beating the crap out of someone, but there is no way I would want to kill someone unless I absolutely had to. Even then, I would feel bad.
That is why I keep my guns in the home. If you break in and I have to defend my family........so be it. But no way in the world am I going to add to the odds of killing another human being by packing.
Beat your ass? Yes. Kill you? No.
So, you'd use a gun to kill someone that broke into your home, but you'd use your fists if someone was going to kill you outside of your home? Do I have that right?
No, you don't have it right. I'm saying that I think carrying a gun increases the odds of you using it. I don't want to do that. You can do as you wish. I choose not to.
if you carry, then you need to be prepared to use it on someone.
Truth!
I have no problem beating the crap out of someone, but there is no way I would want to kill someone unless I absolutely had to. Even then, I would feel bad.
That is why I keep my guns in the home. If you break in and I have to defend my family........so be it. But no way in the world am I going to add to the odds of killing another human being by packing.
Beat your ass? Yes. Kill you? No.
So, you'd use a gun to kill someone that broke into your home, but you'd use your fists if someone was going to kill you outside of your home? Do I have that right?
No, you don't have it right. I'm saying that I think carrying a gun increases the odds of you using it. I don't want to do that. You can do as you wish. I choose not to.
I suppose for some, that might be true.
I'm talking about me. And carrying does not make me more apt to use it. At all. In fact, it does nothing for me as I'm trying to avoid a situation. But, when cornered, it's better than fists.
See, I'm not as 'tough' as you and swish seem to think you are. I'm not carrying to confront, I'm carrying to protect. You and swish can take your fists and beat the hell out of a guy robbing you at gun point. Kudos. I'll be the guy standing 20 feet away saying "damn, those fists went down pretty quick when the gun came out."
The amount of times you carry doesn’t mean anything. Lol I dunno what point you’re trying to make with that. You still carry to make you feel safe.
I don’t care about anybody having guns at home. I REALLY don’t care as it relates to this topic because we aren’t talking about guns overall, just CCW. You and Vers can continue down that rabbit hole on your own.
My own personal view is that people who carry have some underlying issues, whatever that may be. I want to reemphasize that I don’t want CCW to be removed. You want to do it, I support your right to.
I simply believe a lot of CCW carriers are lying to themselves and others as to why they do it. And it also highlights the bigger problem in this country that we even have people who feel the need to carry in the first place.
But hey, if it makes you feel empowered, go right ahead.
It doesn't make me feel 'empowered' the way I think you meant it.
You support my right to carry. That's all that needs to be said. How often I do, or don't, is nothing to you, as it should be.
If you and I were to meet, and a verbal altercation came up, I'd leave. Period. If the verbal altercation became you attempting to beat the hell out of me, things might change. And I use "you" figuratively, not literally.
If you and I were to meet, and a verbal altercation came up, I'd leave. Period.
Yep. When carrying, you have a responsibility to avoid confrontations...and that was stressed heavily in the CCR training. Someone brought up the handicap parking shooter in Florida. That guy was found guilty and rightly so. You absolutely do not initiate a conflict when carrying.
I saw a guy open carry in Sams Club with his wife and kids. He didn't shoot anybody at least while I was there. I also was carrying . I have a CCW and also didn't shoot anybody If it scares you Pit maybe you should stay home.
Your comprehension level fails as per usual.
To have a CCW permit, you had to go through a gun training class. According to GM, to open carry you don't have to have any training. To have people openly walking around in public carrying a gun with zero gun training is stupid. It's moronic.
I won't state my status when it comes to carrying a gun. What I will say is I feel no threat in public with other people carrying a gun.
Sometimes, when people find something troubling, it's not all about themselves. If you think people should be walking around with firearms strapped to their sides with no gun training at all, I hope nobody you love ever pays the price for some idiot not knowing how to handle a gun.
That's not a very good excuse for letting people walk around with a loaded gun that may have zero training.
Denying people the right to carry the gun because you or others would prefer them to take a course first is not a good excuse either.
At some point there needs to be some sense of responsibility that considers the dangers that you pose to everyone around you.
Your position on this topic is a prime example of why all of us will lose many of the gun rights we currently have today.
Because there is no reasonable compromise for most gun owners. As such, you'll be leaving it up to the other side to do that for you. And you won't like it.
You have a safety course requirement for a CCW permit. The same standard should apply for open carry. It's common sense.
Could you give a brief rundown of what he discussed?
