And they say Dems aren't trying to take guns away

• WebFire

  Bill introduced by Dems to effectively kill concealed carry in Ohio.
  

  Two Ohio Democrat State Representatives, Bill Patmon and Ted Celeste, are co-sponsoring a bill "to generally prohibit a person from having a firearm on privately owned land or premises unless the person owns, controls, or resides on or in the land or premises, has permission of the owner or person who controls the land or premises and, if the land or premises is rental property, of the tenant when required, or is the tenant with respect to those premises." The bill specifies that it "applies to any person, including a concealed handgun licensee."

  Good news is the Ohio General Assembly is controlled by Republicans. Also, this late in the year, it will be a DOA bill.
  
  http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_595
• justincredible

  

  BUT WHY DO YOU EVEN NEED A GUN?!?!
• gut

  So now when you walk into a restaurant, you can't carry a gun because it's private property. But if you want to light up a smoke, then it's a public property? :laugh:
• 2kool4skool

  

  So the person that owns the property gets to decide whether you can have a gun on their property? Oh, the horror.
• LJ

  

  2kool4skool;1321627 wrote:So the person that owns the property gets to decide whether you can have a gun on their property? Oh, the horror.

  
  They already can.
• 2kool4skool

  

  LJ;1321630 wrote:They already can.

  Then what is the bill changing?
• LJ

  

  2kool4skool;1321631 wrote:Then what is the bill changing?

  
  That instead of them saying you can't, they have to say you can. Many places don't care enough either way, so it would cut down the places you can carry tremendously.
• 2kool4skool

  

  LJ;1321633 wrote:That instead of them saying you can't, they have to say you can.

  Fucking LOL. Should have known it would be outrage over something incredibly stupid. God forbid I have to go out to dinner without my gun.
• LJ

  

  2kool4skool;1321638 wrote:Fucking LOL. Should have known it would be outrage over something incredibly stupid. God forbid I have to go out to dinner without my gun.

  
  Renters would have to get written permission from a landlord is probably the worst part of it.
• 2kool4skool

  

  LJ;1321641 wrote:Renters would have to get written permission from a landlord is probably the worst part of it.

  Seems a decent chunk of gun nuts think only property owners should be allowed to vote, so taking away a renters' right to carry a gun on their landlord's property seems logical.
• FatHobbit

  

  2kool4skool;1321647 wrote:Seems a decent chunk of gun nuts think only property owners should be allowed to vote, so taking away their right to carry a gun(on property they don't own) doesn't seem so bad.

  link?
• 2kool4skool

  

  FatHobbit;1321648 wrote:link?

  I said "seems" meaning based in my experience, there's a correlation there. As far as corroborating evidence, the founder of the tea party, a movement many gun nuts strongly identify with, is on record as saying only property owners should have the right to vote. I also recall discussions on this very forum about it.
• Pick6

  

  guess we will just have to be like black people and carry them around illegally.
• WebFire

  2kool4skool;1321638 wrote:Fucking LOL. Should have known it would be outrage over something incredibly stupid. God forbid I have to go out to dinner without my gun.

  It basically would limit you to your house and car. Otherwise you would have to seek explicit permission EVERYWHERE you went. So fucking LOL, it is a big deal.
• LJ

  

  2kool4skool;1321652 wrote:I said "seems" meaning based in my experience, there's a correlation there. As far as corroborating evidence, the founder of the tea party, a movement many gun nuts strongly identify with, is on record as saying only property owners should have the right to vote. I also recall discussions on this very forum about it.

  
  LOL.
• gut

  2kool4skool;1321652 wrote:I said "seems" meaning based in my experience, there's a correlation there. As far as corroborating evidence, the founder of the tea party, a movement many gun nuts strongly identify with, is on record as saying only property owners should have the right to vote. I also recall discussions on this very forum about it.

  Not that I necessarily agree, but there's some logic to the position. Namely, property taxes are a popular source of state & local revenues (i.e. levies), and as such 30-40% of people voting on these measures have no skin in the game. They do, theoretically, as a renter who's monthly rent will increase with the levies but most don't make the connection. All goes back to the fact that people don't generally oppose spending someone else's money. Young people, in particular, won't think twice about raising property taxes until they start writing those big checks on their first home.
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1321660 wrote:It basically would limit you to your house and car. Otherwise you would have to seek explicit permission EVERYWHERE you went. So fucking LOL, it is a big deal.

  So ask.
• 2kool4skool

  

  gut;1321662 wrote:Not that I necessarily agree, but there's some logic to the position. Namely, property taxes are a popular source of state & local revenues (i.e. levies), and as such 30-40% of people voting on these measures have no skin in the game. They do, theoretically, as a renter who's monthly rent will increase with the levies but most don't make the connection. All goes back to the fact that people don't generally oppose spending someone else's money. Young people, in particular, won't think twice about raising property taxes until they start writing those big checks on their first home.

  I'm on board. But if we're going to take away their right to vote, they certainly shouldn't have the automatic right to carry a gun on their landlord's property either.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1321668 wrote:So ask.

  :rolleyes:
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1321670 wrote::rolleyes:

  Why do you believe you should be able to come onto my property, and make me be the party to assert my rights, as opposed to vice-versa?
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1321672 wrote:Why do you believe you should be able to come onto my property, and make me be the party to assert my rights, as opposed to vice-versa?

  Do you know the difference between private and public property? This isn't limited to just citizen property.
• 2kool4skool

  

  queencitybuckeye;1321668 wrote:So ask.

  These are people who are so awkward they feel the need to carry a gun everywhere, you seriously think they have the social courage to go talk to strangers?
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1321672 wrote:Why do you believe you should be able to come onto my property, and make me be the party to assert my rights, as opposed to vice-versa?

  All you have to do is post it at your driveway, and I cannot legally carry my gun onto your property. So, you're covered.
• WebFire

  2kool4skool;1321677 wrote:These are people who are so awkward they feel the need to carry a gun everywhere, you seriously think they have the social courage to go talk to strangers?

  Not sure where you get that equation. Good grief, educate yourself.
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1321675 wrote:Do you know the difference between private and public property? This isn't limited to just citizen property.

  I'm pretty sure I do know, but don't understand the point of the question.