# CCW permit law passed in OH



## OULobo (Jan 8, 2004)

Here we go. Just yesterday the state legislature passed a bill to allow concealed weapons permit to private citizens. The bill has been in debate for the past decade and finally they have compromised the bill until it has passed. The basic summary is that any non-felon can recieve a permit after an application at the sheriff's office, background check and sheriff managed training course. The compromise that finally allowed the bill to pass was that the records of who has a permit can be accessed by the media and gov. agencies, but not the ordinary citizen. The passed bill appears on the lame duck governer's desk today and while he has previously threatened to veto, the legislature has already sufficient votes to override the veto. It looks like a done deal. Just a week or two ago all local ordinances and city laws that banned open carry of firearms were struck down by the (State) Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Comments?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OULobo _
> * Comments? *



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. 

Now, if we could only figure out what that means. Specifically, the terms 'regulated', 'militia', 'arms' and 'infringed' could use some definitions, I think.

Mike


----------



## OULobo (Jan 8, 2004)

I wanted to post my comments separate from my summary of the action. I personally plan to exercise this right as soon as possible. Right now I am waiting for all the administrative stuff to happen and I am getting ready to purchase and train with a second and third firearm that I believe are better choices for concealed carry. 

Right now I have a Glock and while I am uber impressed by the performance, consistancy and ease of care of the Glock, I dislike the lack of active safeties. My next ones are a S&W .38 snub and a Springfield .45 1911 Mil-Spec. The revolver for size and dependability and the .45 for the safeties. 

Next comment, I watched the news last night and during at least two different broadcasts on two different stations I watched the anchors make comments like "It's scary now to know that anyone can have a gun on them", "Wow, these are scary times we live in" and "Well this can't help the crime rate". How irresponsible is it to make personal comments on broadcasts, save it for the editorials. I do have to mention that on another news broadcast the anchor asked the researching reporter if this kind of law has had an impact on crime in other states, and the reporter's reply was that the studies are inconclusive and that either side can find the results they want in research somewhere. That's a great answer that shows a neutral stance that the new programs should have. 

Question/Comment: recently I had a discussion about how a person, who has been trained in the use of guns and who has no issues having a gun in the house, retains their reservations about their spouse actually carrying one concealed. When I asked what justification or reason they had for their reservations I was told they "just didn't feel good about it" and "the likelyhood of a confrontation that required the use of a gun was miniscule at best". I countered that this person should go to the rape crisis center and tell those people that "the likelyhood of a confrontation that required the use of a gun was miniscule at best" and see if they were comforted by the statement. I just believe that you never think you need it until the day comes that you need it more than anything else. The question to pose is; Is there any way to ease the fears of someone like this.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OULobo _
> *recently I had a discussion about how a person, who has been trained in the use of guns and who has no issues having a gun in the house, retains their reservations about their spouse actually carrying one concealed. When I asked what justification or reason they had for their reservations I was told they "just didn't feel good about it" and "the likelyhood of a confrontation that required the use of a gun was miniscule at best". I countered that this person should go to the rape crisis center and tell those people that "the likelyhood of a confrontation that required the use of a gun was miniscule at best" and see if they were comforted by the statement. I just believe that you never think you need it until the day comes that you need it more than anything else. The question to pose is; Is there any way to ease the fears of someone like this. *



Is there some reason you need to change this persons' mind? You state the person in question knows of, and perhaps owns firearms, why is it important to you that he accept, and start carrying a concealed weapon.

In my opinion, your comments are creating fear, not easing it. By bringing up a rape crisis center, and making this logically false arguement, you are participating in the creation of a fearful society.


----------



## OULobo (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Is there some reason you need to change this persons' mind? You state the person in question knows of, and perhaps owns firearms, why is it important to you that he accept, and start carrying a concealed weapon.
> 
> In my opinion, your comments are creating fear, not easing it. By bringing up a rape crisis center, and making this logically false arguement, you are participating in the creation of a fearful society. *



The reason for changing their mind is that SHE is of close relation. I seek to change her mind, not so that she will carry, but that she will be accepting of someone close to her (me) carrying.  The comment about the rape crisis center is to demonstrate the idea that just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that you shouldn't be prepared for it, and illustrate the possible dire consequences if you are not.


----------



## OULobo (Jan 8, 2004)

Consequently, I know that many cases of rape are situations that probly couldn't have been stopped by concealed carry, but some are, and many of the women that I have met at the center are staunch supporters of the CCW law because they feel that with that personal protection they would've been able to succeed where, in their opinion, the local police failed.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *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.
> 
> Now, if we could only figure out what that means. Specifically, the terms 'regulated', 'militia', 'arms' and 'infringed' could use some definitions, I think.
> ...



Maybe this can help?

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Lot's o' other stuff on those pages too.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jan 8, 2004)

Great:shrug:


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 8, 2004)

Good luck with your process in getting your permit from Ohio.  Consider carefully your choice of firearm to carry.  You may need to try different brands before settling on one.  If your shooting ranges allow this, they may rent you several firearms to test before you make your final decision.

Talking to others, especially significant others or loved ones, about your decision to carry can be a sticky issue.

Both my husband and I have Utah CCW permits.  
We do take firearms classes yearly and go practicing frequently just to keep up with current gun laws and our skills.

We both used to have 89P Rugers.  I had problems handling mine (gun size compared to my hand).  My firearms instructor (a police lieutenant) said the Ruger was too wieldy for me and lent his service gun (Glock) for my practice sessions.  It fit my hand better, was easier to handle, and its trigger pull not as heavy.  

Because of that, I sold my Ruger and got a smaller Glock version (9mm Glock 26).  My husband tried the Glock and liked it better too.   He sold his Ruger also and got a .45 ACP Glock.
That's all we need for our self-defense.

Some people, however, do carry a "back-up" or second gun for self defense.

For us at home, our hunting rifles can act as a back up if necessary.  We have one for rabbit shooting, one for deer/elk hunting, and one for duck shooting.  We also have a bb gun for my sons to practice target shooting.  

- Ceicei


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Maybe this can help?
> http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
> Lot's o' other stuff on those pages too. *



From reading the first page on this link, it would seem to say that it is perfectly acceptable for me to possess a thermonuclear device for the purpose of 'self-defense'.  

 - - - 'The unlimited power . . . in the hands of the people' - - - by one arguement. Am I wrong in this reading?


----------



## Seig (Jan 9, 2004)

I carry a 1911 .45 ACP  That is too much gun for my wife.  I bought her a firestorm mini-.40
http://www.firestorm-sgs.com/minispecs.htm


----------



## OULobo (Jan 9, 2004)

I took a course to make my gun experience documented and somewhat official, and the facility that I attended had many different guns for rent. The cool part was that all the rental guns were used in the course so that you could get a feel for different frames, calibers and manufactuers. If I remember correctly I tried a S&W .357 revolver, a Ruger .22 rimfire, a Glock 19 9mm, a Colt 1991 .45, a .38 revolver and I can add my Pop's .40 Beretta into the mix. I loved the .45, but the Glock was a slightly better fit and it was dependable and easy to maintain.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *From reading the first page on this link, it would seem to say that it is perfectly acceptable for me to possess a thermonuclear device for the purpose of 'self-defense'.
> 
> - - - 'The unlimited power . . . in the hands of the people' - - - by one arguement. Am I wrong in this reading? *



No, nukes were not mentioned or implied by the constitution, or the letter from Tenche Coxe.

I'm sure he spoke with reference of weapons of that day.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *No, nukes were not mentioned or implied by the constitution, or the letter from Tenche Coxe.
> 
> I'm sure he spoke with reference of weapons of that day. *



Which would correspond to which weapons available today? At what point, does the government get to infringe on the right to bear arms?

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Which would correspond to which weapons available today? At what point, does the government get to infringe on the right to bear arms?
> 
> Mike *



There does not have to be a direct correlation. Also, it's illegal for civilians to own nuclear materials.

According to the 2ns Ammendment, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I guess that's pretty clear on when.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *There does not have to be a direct correlation. Also, it's illegal for civilians to own nuclear materials.
> 
> According to the 2ns Ammendment, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I guess that's pretty clear on when. *



When does a weapon change from something that is an 'arms' that is protected by the second amendment, to something that is not an 'arms' protected by the second amendment?

Because surely, what they framers were referencing were 'flintlock' type weapons, 'muzzle loader' type weapons. As the weaponry advanced, so did the definition of 'arms' in the second amendment.

What is the difference between a .22 caliber pistol and a sherman tank? What  the difference between a .44 caliber pistol and a tactical nuclear weapon?  At least in relationship to the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 11, 2004)

Well, nuclear materials are banned to the public, so I'd say nukes are pretty much out of the picture.

But anything else should go as far as I'm concerned.

Pistols, rifles, shotguns, bazookas, grenades, tanks. Semi-auto, full auto. Yup. If it is safe for the military, it should be safe for the law-abiding public.

If Bill Gates has the money to buy a Blackhawk with a mini-gun, all the power to him.

The framers knew this clause was NOT for hunting and sporting.


----------



## theletch1 (Jan 12, 2004)

> If Bill Gates has the money to buy a Blackhawk with a mini-gun, all the power to him


 Bill Gates probably has a couple of these already just for playing with on the weekends.



> I'm sure he spoke with reference of weapons of that day


   Yeah, I agree with this.  At the time the constitution was written the military carry muzzle loading weapons and so did the average citizen for hunting.  Now, was the average citizen sitting at the homestead with a cannon on the front porch?  Probably not and for the same reason I'm not sitting here with a 20 mm chain gun on my porch... price.  The big difference is the colonial era guy COULD have had a cannon if he wanted but I can't have a chain gun.  What's the difference and when did the difference come into being?  

I firmly believe that the 2nd amendment was intended to insure that there would always be an ample supply of "Minute Men" should the nation be attacked by an outside force.  The idea that the people should be armed to rise up and overthrow the government of this country may have been implied but I don't think any of them felt that this great new democracy they had just created would ever become so repressive that the people would need to rise up.


----------



## Seig (Jan 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by theletch1 _
> *Bill Gates probably has a couple of these already just for playing with on the weekends.
> 
> Yeah, I agree with this.  At the time the constitution was written the military carry muzzle loading weapons and so did the average citizen for hunting.  Now, was the average citizen sitting at the homestead with a cannon on the front porch?  Probably not and for the same reason I'm not sitting here with a 20 mm chain gun on my porch... price.  The big difference is the colonial era guy COULD have had a cannon if he wanted but I can't have a chain gun.  What's the difference and when did the difference come into being?
> ...


Keeping in mind, I pretty much agree with you, I have to point out one flaw in your statement.  Thomas Jeffferson made the statement that whne the constitution no longer worked, to tear itup and rewrite, when the government no longer worked, to replace it.


----------

