Archived Posts » 59,757,950
Loaded mag fix!! Important Pro-Gun Legislation to be Introduced in the Ohio House!!
3/16/2012 2:51:19 PM
We've been working hard behind the scenes to get this fixed guys, finally some fruit is coming of our labor, now we need your support!
Important Pro-Gun Legislation to be Introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives
State Representative Terry Johnson (HD-89) is circulating a letter inviting fellow legislators to co-sponsor an important bill he will soon be introducing to address several problems with current gun laws by:
Establishing an automatic reciprocity between Ohio and other states that have automatic reciprocity for their concealed handgun licenses. Currently, the Attorney General must enter into a written agreement with another state to establish reciprocity. This bill would still allow for written agreements between the states if the other state does not have automatic reciprocity, but it eliminates the requirement for a written agreement if reciprocity can occur automatically by operation of law.
Eliminating the renewed competency certification requirement for concealed carry licenses. Currently, after the first renewal of your concealed handgun license, you must submit proof of renewed competency to show that you are range competent for all subsequent renewals. This bill would make it so that you can simply show your existing or expiring license or your original competency certificate as proof that you have had the necessary training for all renewals.
Changing the definition of a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Currently, a firearm is considered loaded if a loaded magazine is present in the vehicle, even if the magazine is not inserted into the firearm. This will change the definition so that the magazine must be inserted into the firearm before it is considered loaded.
Defining "Concealed Handgun License" in one section of the revised code and clarifying that the definition applies to all references to a concealed handgun license in the revised code. This will simplify the code and make it easier to read, understand, comply with, and enforce.
Please contact your state representative NOW!
http://www.capwiz.com/buckeyefirearms/directory/statedir.tt?state=OH&lvl=state
Important Pro-Gun Legislation to be Introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives
State Representative Terry Johnson (HD-89) is circulating a letter inviting fellow legislators to co-sponsor an important bill he will soon be introducing to address several problems with current gun laws by:
Establishing an automatic reciprocity between Ohio and other states that have automatic reciprocity for their concealed handgun licenses. Currently, the Attorney General must enter into a written agreement with another state to establish reciprocity. This bill would still allow for written agreements between the states if the other state does not have automatic reciprocity, but it eliminates the requirement for a written agreement if reciprocity can occur automatically by operation of law.
Eliminating the renewed competency certification requirement for concealed carry licenses. Currently, after the first renewal of your concealed handgun license, you must submit proof of renewed competency to show that you are range competent for all subsequent renewals. This bill would make it so that you can simply show your existing or expiring license or your original competency certificate as proof that you have had the necessary training for all renewals.
Changing the definition of a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Currently, a firearm is considered loaded if a loaded magazine is present in the vehicle, even if the magazine is not inserted into the firearm. This will change the definition so that the magazine must be inserted into the firearm before it is considered loaded.
Defining "Concealed Handgun License" in one section of the revised code and clarifying that the definition applies to all references to a concealed handgun license in the revised code. This will simplify the code and make it easier to read, understand, comply with, and enforce.
Please contact your state representative NOW!
http://www.capwiz.com/buckeyefirearms/directory/statedir.tt?state=OH&lvl=state
3/16/2012 10:07:32 PM
Umm having problems figuring out who I should contact.
3/17/2012 2:05:56 AM
It's nice to see you back! Hope your doin better these days, but this is awesome I hope we get this through.
3/17/2012 8:59:59 PM
E-mails sent. We need to get this passed.
3/18/2012 5:01:24 PM
Originally Posted By 4DAIVIPAI2K5:
Umm having problems figuring out who I should contact.
Umm having problems figuring out who I should contact.
this involves legislation in the state house, so you'll need to contact your state rep. if you don't know who yours is, use this link, entering your zip and street adress, to find them and their contact info
http://www.capwiz.com/buckeyefirearms/directory/statedir.tt?state=OH&lvl=state
3/18/2012 6:06:27 PM
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
3/18/2012 6:17:40 PM
Originally Posted By StretchMaK:
E-mails sent. We need to get this passed.
E-mails sent. We need to get this passed.
Ditto.
3/18/2012 6:46:48 PM
Originally Posted By Ohioan:
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
Are you serious?
3/18/2012 11:16:51 PM
Originally Posted By Ohioan:
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
3/19/2012 12:37:44 AM
Originally Posted By Dirtydog:
Originally Posted By Ohioan:
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
WTF?! Wow
3/19/2012 12:42:57 AM
Originally Posted By Ohioan:
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
Get out.
I'd say explain exactly how this makes law enforcement safer but I know there already isn't a single logical answer.
Clearly the current situation where a loaded magazine can turn you into a felon is much better.
3/19/2012 2:26:36 AM
Just my two cents, but how does not requiring someone to show competency to renew their permit to carry a concealed, deadly weapon benefit society, or even the permit holder? It would seem to allow people too lazy to practice, or people who cannot meet competency standards (if there are any) to continue to carry a weapon and possibly create a greater danger to themselves and those around them.
While there does seem to be a trend of criticizing the accuracy of law enforcement, we are required to qualify at least yearly.
I am all for reciprocity between states, and making that easier/less cloudy.
If a permit holder is carrying legally, the magazine issue should be a non issue. The part of the statute that considers concealed/ready at hand incorporates the fact the weapon can be easily charged/loaded by the possessor. This would substantially de criminalize thugs keeping an unloaded pistol in the console while keeping a loaded mag in the door pocket. This is the danger to LE. It also limits the ability to take corrective action against these criminals (jail) and to place them under disability upon conviction, which can lead to more jail in the future. To me this just decreases the ability of LE to take guns out of the hands of criminals.
While there does seem to be a trend of criticizing the accuracy of law enforcement, we are required to qualify at least yearly.
I am all for reciprocity between states, and making that easier/less cloudy.
If a permit holder is carrying legally, the magazine issue should be a non issue. The part of the statute that considers concealed/ready at hand incorporates the fact the weapon can be easily charged/loaded by the possessor. This would substantially de criminalize thugs keeping an unloaded pistol in the console while keeping a loaded mag in the door pocket. This is the danger to LE. It also limits the ability to take corrective action against these criminals (jail) and to place them under disability upon conviction, which can lead to more jail in the future. To me this just decreases the ability of LE to take guns out of the hands of criminals.
3/19/2012 2:46:20 AM
Originally Posted By Ohioan:
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
As an LEO, I couldn't possibly disagree more with your post.
This isn't a "law enforcement safety" issue. It's a common sense issue. Allowing people to transport loaded magazines in their vehicle isn't going to make police any less safe. I'll defer to Cesare Beccaria, who put it much more succinctly than I can:
"Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance?"
The bad guys already transport loaded magazines in their car. Letting the good guys do it isn't going to put anyone in harm's way.
3/19/2012 8:59:23 AM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
Just my two cents, but how does not requiring someone to show competency to renew their permit to carry a concealed, deadly weapon benefit society, or even the permit holder? It would seem to allow people too lazy to practice, or people who cannot meet competency standards (if there are any) to continue to carry a weapon and possibly create a greater danger to themselves and those around them.
While there does seem to be a trend of criticizing the accuracy of law enforcement, we are required to qualify at least yearly.
I am all for reciprocity between states, and making that easier/less cloudy.
If a permit holder is carrying legally, the magazine issue should be a non issue. The part of the statute that considers concealed/ready at hand incorporates the fact the weapon can be easily charged/loaded by the possessor. This would substantially de criminalize thugs keeping an unloaded pistol in the console while keeping a loaded mag in the door pocket. This is the danger to LE. It also limits the ability to take corrective action against these criminals (jail) and to place them under disability upon conviction, which can lead to more jail in the future. To me this just decreases the ability of LE to take guns out of the hands of criminals.
Just my two cents, but how does not requiring someone to show competency to renew their permit to carry a concealed, deadly weapon benefit society, or even the permit holder? It would seem to allow people too lazy to practice, or people who cannot meet competency standards (if there are any) to continue to carry a weapon and possibly create a greater danger to themselves and those around them.
While there does seem to be a trend of criticizing the accuracy of law enforcement, we are required to qualify at least yearly.
I am all for reciprocity between states, and making that easier/less cloudy.
If a permit holder is carrying legally, the magazine issue should be a non issue. The part of the statute that considers concealed/ready at hand incorporates the fact the weapon can be easily charged/loaded by the possessor. This would substantially de criminalize thugs keeping an unloaded pistol in the console while keeping a loaded mag in the door pocket. This is the danger to LE. It also limits the ability to take corrective action against these criminals (jail) and to place them under disability upon conviction, which can lead to more jail in the future. To me this just decreases the ability of LE to take guns out of the hands of criminals.
The magazine issue is absolutely an issue because, as the law stands, there is NO way permit holder (or anyone else) can have a loaded rifle mag in their vehicle without risking a felony. If you pre-load mags for a range trip or forget to unload a mag after a range trip, you can be charged with a felony.
That is the issue of interest here. It isn't a handgun issue and, other than the bill that it appears within, it has nothing to do with concealed carry.
3/19/2012 9:07:26 AM
Just in addition to my previous post:
As to the training requirement, I have nothing against periodic competency checks, but having to go through the whole "this is where the bullet comes out really, really fast" class every other time you renew your permit is pretty insulting.
I'm pretty sure most anyone who carries enough to bother to renew their license probably has the basics of gun handling down pretty well. I bloody well know I do. I'd be more than willing to shoot the police qualification to prove I can hit what I shoot at, too, even though I'm opposed to it on a restriction of rights basis.
As to the training requirement, I have nothing against periodic competency checks, but having to go through the whole "this is where the bullet comes out really, really fast" class every other time you renew your permit is pretty insulting.
I'm pretty sure most anyone who carries enough to bother to renew their license probably has the basics of gun handling down pretty well. I bloody well know I do. I'd be more than willing to shoot the police qualification to prove I can hit what I shoot at, too, even though I'm opposed to it on a restriction of rights basis.
3/19/2012 10:30:08 AM
Originally Posted By tep0583:
Just in addition to my previous post:
As to the training requirement, I have nothing against periodic competency checks, but having to go through the whole "this is where the bullet comes out really, really fast" class every other time you renew your permit is pretty insulting.
I'm pretty sure most anyone who carries enough to bother to renew their license probably has the basics of gun handling down pretty well. I bloody well know I do. I'd be more than willing to shoot the police qualification to prove I can hit what I shoot at, too, even though I'm opposed to it on a restriction of rights basis.
Just in addition to my previous post:
As to the training requirement, I have nothing against periodic competency checks, but having to go through the whole "this is where the bullet comes out really, really fast" class every other time you renew your permit is pretty insulting.
I'm pretty sure most anyone who carries enough to bother to renew their license probably has the basics of gun handling down pretty well. I bloody well know I do. I'd be more than willing to shoot the police qualification to prove I can hit what I shoot at, too, even though I'm opposed to it on a restriction of rights basis.
A lot of professionals in a lot of areas have to go through yearly testing that could be considered basic and insulting, as well as have to show continuing education, I know I have to (and not range quals, we do not do those enough IMHO). I will continue to feel that permit holders should show competency for renewal. I actually feel there should be yearly qualification, but that is just me. And while I am sure the majority of posters on gunboards do practice, there are enough people out there that do not that I feel proof of competency is not too much to ask.
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around. Yeah, they will carry them anyway, but there is no sense removing the penalty if they get caught. I am sure if you are responsible enough to go to a range to shoot your rifle, get your carry permit, and transport the weapon appropriately, you are responsible enough to load/unload your magazines at the range. Sorry it is such an inconvenience for some.
3/19/2012 11:05:47 AM
I'm another that hopes this passes. I'd like to be able to transport loaded rifle mags to the range without fear of a felony (or any) charge. I used to preload a dozen AR mags for the Black Swamp shoot and this gave me time to help out with setting up targets. Now to have time to help out, I have to leave at least a half hour earlier to load mags first.
I shoot often enough that I feel the competency certification requirement is unnessary.
I shoot often enough that I feel the competency certification requirement is unnessary.
3/19/2012 12:59:08 PM
I'm on it!!
3/19/2012 1:02:41 PM
Originally Posted By heathen:
I shoot often enough that I feel the competency certification requirement is unnessary.
I shoot often enough that I feel the competency certification requirement is unnessary.
This is the problem, how do you establish that, and how do you show proof of competency?
You create a standard, and while I realize the standard here is little more than the ability to breathe oxygen, you still need to maintain it. I qualify four times per year. I shoot thousands of rounds/month. I cannot just walk in on qualify days, show my range check ins and leave with a pass, I have to qualify. I am sorry if you want to strap on a concealed deadly weapon, take it upon yourself to defend yourself and others in public places, and expose everyone to the risks inherent in gunfire, and feel you do not need to submit to some type of competency testing to do so. If everyone here shoots as well and as much as they say they do, they should be all in favor of a little extra trigger time to both further sharpen their skills and to weed out those who are a greater risk than benefit. Great, you shoot a lot. That does not mean you are inherently accurate. I see a lot of gun owners at public ranges that are barely competent to load a weapon, much less fire one under stress. Lose the entitlement attitude and qualify to standard, no matter how basic and beneath you that standard may be. I do.
Would you accept the same attitude towards competency tests for police? How about paramedics?
3/19/2012 1:25:42 PM
Originally Posted By heathen:
I'm another that hopes this passes. I'd like to be able to transport loaded rifle mags to the range without fear of a felony (or any) charge. I used to preload a dozen AR mags for the Black Swamp shoot and this gave me time to help out with setting up targets. Now to have time to help out, I have to leave at least a half hour earlier to load mags first.
I shoot often enough that I feel the competency certification requirement is unnessary.
I'm another that hopes this passes. I'd like to be able to transport loaded rifle mags to the range without fear of a felony (or any) charge. I used to preload a dozen AR mags for the Black Swamp shoot and this gave me time to help out with setting up targets. Now to have time to help out, I have to leave at least a half hour earlier to load mags first.
I shoot often enough that I feel the competency certification requirement is unnessary.
this can be said about ranges that charge by the hour. and i cant see how a loaded mag can be anymore dangerous unless said person rides around with a ar sitting on thier lap. ready to do harm but in that case they dont care about the laws anyway gun laws only stop the honest people
3/19/2012 1:40:38 PM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around.
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around.
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
You are in favor of potentially making felons out of the vast majority of decent law abiding citizens that do not intend to commit a crime so that you can tag a much smaller percentage of likely criminals with a crime?
The main victim of the current magazine law seems to be the law abiding citizen and not the criminal.
Any law that makes someone an accidental felon, is a bad law IMO and needs to be changed.
3/19/2012 1:45:55 PM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around. Yeah, they will carry them anyway, but there is no sense removing the penalty if they get caught. I am sure if you are responsible enough to go to a range to shoot your rifle, get your carry permit, and transport the weapon appropriately, you are responsible enough to load/unload your magazines at the range. Sorry it is such an inconvenience for some.
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around. Yeah, they will carry them anyway, but there is no sense removing the penalty if they get caught. I am sure if you are responsible enough to go to a range to shoot your rifle, get your carry permit, and transport the weapon appropriately, you are responsible enough to load/unload your magazines at the range. Sorry it is such an inconvenience for some.
Your logic is beyond me, other than wanting to creating more criminals out of the law abiding.............
3/19/2012 4:23:33 PM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
A lot of professionals in a lot of areas have to go through yearly testing that could be considered basic and insulting, as well as have to show continuing education, I know I have to (and not range quals, we do not do those enough IMHO). I will continue to feel that permit holders should show competency for renewal. I actually feel there should be yearly qualification, but that is just me. And while I am sure the majority of posters on gunboards do practice, there are enough people out there that do not that I feel proof of competency is not too much to ask.
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around. Yeah, they will carry them anyway, but there is no sense removing the penalty if they get caught. I am sure if you are responsible enough to go to a range to shoot your rifle, get your carry permit, and transport the weapon appropriately, you are responsible enough to load/unload your magazines at the range. Sorry it is such an inconvenience for some.
Originally Posted By tep0583:
Just in addition to my previous post:
As to the training requirement, I have nothing against periodic competency checks, but having to go through the whole "this is where the bullet comes out really, really fast" class every other time you renew your permit is pretty insulting.
I'm pretty sure most anyone who carries enough to bother to renew their license probably has the basics of gun handling down pretty well. I bloody well know I do. I'd be more than willing to shoot the police qualification to prove I can hit what I shoot at, too, even though I'm opposed to it on a restriction of rights basis.
Just in addition to my previous post:
As to the training requirement, I have nothing against periodic competency checks, but having to go through the whole "this is where the bullet comes out really, really fast" class every other time you renew your permit is pretty insulting.
I'm pretty sure most anyone who carries enough to bother to renew their license probably has the basics of gun handling down pretty well. I bloody well know I do. I'd be more than willing to shoot the police qualification to prove I can hit what I shoot at, too, even though I'm opposed to it on a restriction of rights basis.
A lot of professionals in a lot of areas have to go through yearly testing that could be considered basic and insulting, as well as have to show continuing education, I know I have to (and not range quals, we do not do those enough IMHO). I will continue to feel that permit holders should show competency for renewal. I actually feel there should be yearly qualification, but that is just me. And while I am sure the majority of posters on gunboards do practice, there are enough people out there that do not that I feel proof of competency is not too much to ask.
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around. Yeah, they will carry them anyway, but there is no sense removing the penalty if they get caught. I am sure if you are responsible enough to go to a range to shoot your rifle, get your carry permit, and transport the weapon appropriately, you are responsible enough to load/unload your magazines at the range. Sorry it is such an inconvenience for some.
OK, so you feel that the citizenry at large should be punished for the actions of the minority?
What if I want to have a ready weapon in the car, in case said "gang members" decide to turn their AK47/SKS on me and my car becomes disabled and they decide to press the issue? What am I supposed to do, call the police and HOPE they get there before I empty my "legal" pistol mags? (How do YOU feel about taking on an SKS with a handgun, BTW?)
Just one possible scenario. Sorry that the thought of ordinary, law-abiding citizens being armed is so unsettling to you.
Oh, and BTW, we're not talking about professionals carrying in the line of duty here. We're talking about ordinary citizens, most of whom have a hell of a lot lessor chance of having to use their weapon than someone who carries as part of their profession. There's a huge amount of difference in concept here.
3/19/2012 4:29:10 PM
Originally Posted By TargetBlaster:
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
You are in favor of potentially making felons out of the vast majority of decent law abiding citizens that do not intend to commit a crime so that you can tag a much smaller percentage of likely criminals with a crime?
The main victim of the current magazine law seems to be the law abiding citizen and not the criminal.
Any law that makes someone an accidental felon, is a bad law IMO and needs to be changed.
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around.
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around.
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
You are in favor of potentially making felons out of the vast majority of decent law abiding citizens that do not intend to commit a crime so that you can tag a much smaller percentage of likely criminals with a crime?
The main victim of the current magazine law seems to be the law abiding citizen and not the criminal.
Any law that makes someone an accidental felon, is a bad law IMO and needs to be changed.
It's the sad fact of modern society. The answer is ALWAYS "we need more rules and laws", even at the expense of the rights of those governed.
It's gotten to the point that even the guys tasked with the enforcement of the laws cannot keep up to speed with all of them.
For some reason, it never occurs to anyone that maybe this is an indication that we have too many of them. The rights of the citizenry are largely an afterthought anymore.
3/19/2012 5:13:23 PM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
A lot of professionals in a lot of areas have to go through yearly testing that could be considered basic and insulting, as well as have to show continuing education, I know I have to (and not range quals, we do not do those enough IMHO). I will continue to feel that permit holders should show competency for renewal. I actually feel there should be yearly qualification, but that is just me. And while I am sure the majority of posters on gunboards do practice, there are enough people out there that do not that I feel proof of competency is not too much to ask.
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around. Yeah, they will carry them anyway, but there is no sense removing the penalty if they get caught. I am sure if you are responsible enough to go to a range to shoot your rifle, get your carry permit, and transport the weapon appropriately, you are responsible enough to load/unload your magazines at the range. Sorry it is such an inconvenience for some.
Originally Posted By tep0583:
Just in addition to my previous post:
As to the training requirement, I have nothing against periodic competency checks, but having to go through the whole "this is where the bullet comes out really, really fast" class every other time you renew your permit is pretty insulting.
I'm pretty sure most anyone who carries enough to bother to renew their license probably has the basics of gun handling down pretty well. I bloody well know I do. I'd be more than willing to shoot the police qualification to prove I can hit what I shoot at, too, even though I'm opposed to it on a restriction of rights basis.
Just in addition to my previous post:
As to the training requirement, I have nothing against periodic competency checks, but having to go through the whole "this is where the bullet comes out really, really fast" class every other time you renew your permit is pretty insulting.
I'm pretty sure most anyone who carries enough to bother to renew their license probably has the basics of gun handling down pretty well. I bloody well know I do. I'd be more than willing to shoot the police qualification to prove I can hit what I shoot at, too, even though I'm opposed to it on a restriction of rights basis.
A lot of professionals in a lot of areas have to go through yearly testing that could be considered basic and insulting, as well as have to show continuing education, I know I have to (and not range quals, we do not do those enough IMHO). I will continue to feel that permit holders should show competency for renewal. I actually feel there should be yearly qualification, but that is just me. And while I am sure the majority of posters on gunboards do practice, there are enough people out there that do not that I feel proof of competency is not too much to ask.
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around. Yeah, they will carry them anyway, but there is no sense removing the penalty if they get caught. I am sure if you are responsible enough to go to a range to shoot your rifle, get your carry permit, and transport the weapon appropriately, you are responsible enough to load/unload your magazines at the range. Sorry it is such an inconvenience for some.
At this point all that I can assume is that you're trying to wind people up.
3/19/2012 7:30:34 PM
So is there a title to the letter that he is passing around so we can tell our rep, "Hey please support this letter"?
3/19/2012 9:32:18 PM
Originally Posted By Ohioan:
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
Totally against this, law enforcement safety.
I'm totally against you, for the public safety.
3/19/2012 9:36:28 PM
Originally Posted By DrewDaHilp1:
So is there a title to the letter that he is passing around so we can tell our rep, "Hey please support this letter"?
So is there a title to the letter that he is passing around so we can tell our rep, "Hey please support this letter"?
i haven't seen evidence of a bill title yet... i think it may just be a draft set of proposals from rep. johnson.. what i did was just ask my rep to talk to rep johnson and consider co-sponsoring the (eventual) bill...
3/19/2012 9:38:16 PM
Originally Posted By WileyCoyote:
i haven't seen evidence of a bill title yet... i think it may just be a draft set of proposals from rep. johnson.. what i did was just ask my rep to talk to rep johnson and consider co-sponsoring the (eventual) bill...
Ah okay thanks for the clarification.Originally Posted By DrewDaHilp1:
So is there a title to the letter that he is passing around so we can tell our rep, "Hey please support this letter"?
So is there a title to the letter that he is passing around so we can tell our rep, "Hey please support this letter"?
i haven't seen evidence of a bill title yet... i think it may just be a draft set of proposals from rep. johnson.. what i did was just ask my rep to talk to rep johnson and consider co-sponsoring the (eventual) bill...
3/19/2012 11:34:02 PM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
Just my two cents, but how does not requiring someone to show competency to renew their permit to carry a concealed, deadly weapon benefit society, or even the permit holder? It would seem to allow people too lazy to practice, or people who cannot meet competency standards (if there are any) to continue to carry a weapon and possibly create a greater danger to themselves and those around them.
While there does seem to be a trend of criticizing the accuracy of law enforcement, we are required to qualify at least yearly.
I am all for reciprocity between states, and making that easier/less cloudy.
If a permit holder is carrying legally, the magazine issue should be a non issue. The part of the statute that considers concealed/ready at hand incorporates the fact the weapon can be easily charged/loaded by the possessor. This would substantially de criminalize thugs keeping an unloaded pistol in the console while keeping a loaded mag in the door pocket. This is the danger to LE. It also limits the ability to take corrective action against these criminals (jail) and to place them under disability upon conviction, which can lead to more jail in the future. To me this just decreases the ability of LE to take guns out of the hands of criminals.
Just my two cents, but how does not requiring someone to show competency to renew their permit to carry a concealed, deadly weapon benefit society, or even the permit holder? It would seem to allow people too lazy to practice, or people who cannot meet competency standards (if there are any) to continue to carry a weapon and possibly create a greater danger to themselves and those around them.
While there does seem to be a trend of criticizing the accuracy of law enforcement, we are required to qualify at least yearly.
I am all for reciprocity between states, and making that easier/less cloudy.
If a permit holder is carrying legally, the magazine issue should be a non issue. The part of the statute that considers concealed/ready at hand incorporates the fact the weapon can be easily charged/loaded by the possessor. This would substantially de criminalize thugs keeping an unloaded pistol in the console while keeping a loaded mag in the door pocket. This is the danger to LE. It also limits the ability to take corrective action against these criminals (jail) and to place them under disability upon conviction, which can lead to more jail in the future. To me this just decreases the ability of LE to take guns out of the hands of criminals.
While I don't have a problem with (re)certification in general, I do have a problem with how it is implemented in this state. It has been my experience that most of the CCW courses are taught by LEO on the side after using public funds for their training. But this is a totally different matter and other than bitching about it there isn't anything to be done of it.
Now the loaded mag rule is just about stupid. Bring forward evidence that this fed up law was used to keep criminals in jail longer or keep guns out of their hands. There is a difference between book smart and street smart and this is just another example. It runs right up there with the 30 round mag rule. Law enforcement is dangerous, you get a free weapon, free training, and protective gear to allow you to do your job as safe as possible. Just because your job is dangerous doesn't give anyone the right to take my rights away. Does it really make you sleep better at night knowing you can charge those "gang bangers" with another felony?
That's my .02
3/19/2012 11:57:39 PM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
Just my two cents, but how does not requiring someone to show competency to renew their permit to carry a concealed, deadly weapon benefit society, or even the permit holder? It would seem to allow people too lazy to practice, or people who cannot meet competency standards (if there are any) to continue to carry a weapon and possibly create a greater danger to themselves and those around them.
Just my two cents, but how does not requiring someone to show competency to renew their permit to carry a concealed, deadly weapon benefit society, or even the permit holder? It would seem to allow people too lazy to practice, or people who cannot meet competency standards (if there are any) to continue to carry a weapon and possibly create a greater danger to themselves and those around them.
Well, there's Vermont where you don't need any training whatsoever, or even a permit to carry...let alone demonstrate competency or proficiency with a firearm.
By your reasoning, VT should be the playground of negligence and harm right?
What's that? It's not a big deal up there at all and never has been? Gun crime rate and accidental gun death rate is low, among the lowest in the nation.
Well. There you go. Argument settled.
3/20/2012 1:12:51 AM
I fail to see how anyone serious about the possibility of having to use a weapon to protect themselves or others would honestly be able to say that requiring proof of competency is a negative thing. Even retired officers who carry under HR 218 are required to qualify at least yearly (in accordance with their state laws governing active LE).
Don't get me wrong, I am all for concealed carry. I just feel that requiring proof of competency is not too much to ask. I see plenty of people that hit target hangers at 10 feet that I would not want opening fire in a high stress environment.
As to loaded magazines in cars, I would argue the section of the law abiding general public that this benefits, that being rifle owners that drive to a range, is potentially smaller than the criminal elements who also potentially benefit (but again, I don't have numbers, so I could be wrong). Now, I am not looking to make criminals out of responsible gun owners, but I can tell you that a lot of the criminals that carry weapons will exploit a loophole such as this to transport weapons in a near ready state. Maybe this does not directly affect you, except to make your range trip a little less convenient. What it says to me is that a car full of gang members can get that much closer to a robbery or drive by, and if stopped, greatly reduces any enforcement action officers can take. I spend 40 hours plus a week in a district where this is the environment, so it is how I tend to see these things. If there is a way to make this a little less open, such as tying it to CHLs, I would probably be a lot more likely to support it.
I realize this is not popular here, where the majority of people are law abiding, and who just want to go out to a range and shoot with minimum down time. I also realize my earlier tone may have been a bit abrasive. Unfortunately laws are often made with the lowest common denominator in mind. That is why we have speed limits and a minimum age for drivers, for example. I am sure there are 14 year olds that can handle a car at 80 MPH, but we have to draw lines somewhere. Do I think a 31 round magazine is vastly more dangerous than a 30, no. But if we set limits, there is going to be an (arbitrary) number or rule somewhere, and some citizen who is otherwise responsible is going to be limited in a way they do not feel fair.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for concealed carry. I just feel that requiring proof of competency is not too much to ask. I see plenty of people that hit target hangers at 10 feet that I would not want opening fire in a high stress environment.
As to loaded magazines in cars, I would argue the section of the law abiding general public that this benefits, that being rifle owners that drive to a range, is potentially smaller than the criminal elements who also potentially benefit (but again, I don't have numbers, so I could be wrong). Now, I am not looking to make criminals out of responsible gun owners, but I can tell you that a lot of the criminals that carry weapons will exploit a loophole such as this to transport weapons in a near ready state. Maybe this does not directly affect you, except to make your range trip a little less convenient. What it says to me is that a car full of gang members can get that much closer to a robbery or drive by, and if stopped, greatly reduces any enforcement action officers can take. I spend 40 hours plus a week in a district where this is the environment, so it is how I tend to see these things. If there is a way to make this a little less open, such as tying it to CHLs, I would probably be a lot more likely to support it.
I realize this is not popular here, where the majority of people are law abiding, and who just want to go out to a range and shoot with minimum down time. I also realize my earlier tone may have been a bit abrasive. Unfortunately laws are often made with the lowest common denominator in mind. That is why we have speed limits and a minimum age for drivers, for example. I am sure there are 14 year olds that can handle a car at 80 MPH, but we have to draw lines somewhere. Do I think a 31 round magazine is vastly more dangerous than a 30, no. But if we set limits, there is going to be an (arbitrary) number or rule somewhere, and some citizen who is otherwise responsible is going to be limited in a way they do not feel fair.
3/20/2012 6:37:43 AM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
I fail to see how anyone serious about the possibility of having to use a weapon to protect themselves or others would honestly be able to say that requiring proof of competency is a negative thing. Even retired officers who carry under HR 218 are required to qualify at least yearly (in accordance with their state laws governing active LE).
Don't get me wrong, I am all for concealed carry. I just feel that requiring proof of competency is not too much to ask. I see plenty of people that hit target hangers at 10 feet that I would not want opening fire in a high stress environment.
As to loaded magazines in cars, I would argue the section of the law abiding general public that this benefits, that being rifle owners that drive to a range, is potentially smaller than the criminal elements who also potentially benefit (but again, I don't have numbers, so I could be wrong). Now, I am not looking to make criminals out of responsible gun owners, but I can tell you that a lot of the criminals that carry weapons will exploit a loophole such as this to transport weapons in a near ready state. Maybe this does not directly affect you, except to make your range trip a little less convenient. What it says to me is that a car full of gang members can get that much closer to a robbery or drive by, and if stopped, greatly reduces any enforcement action officers can take. I spend 40 hours plus a week in a district where this is the environment, so it is how I tend to see these things. If there is a way to make this a little less open, such as tying it to CHLs, I would probably be a lot more likely to support it.
I realize this is not popular here, where the majority of people are law abiding, and who just want to go out to a range and shoot with minimum down time. I also realize my earlier tone may have been a bit abrasive. Unfortunately laws are often made with the lowest common denominator in mind. That is why we have speed limits and a minimum age for drivers, for example. I am sure there are 14 year olds that can handle a car at 80 MPH, but we have to draw lines somewhere. Do I think a 31 round magazine is vastly more dangerous than a 30, no. But if we set limits, there is going to be an (arbitrary) number or rule somewhere, and some citizen who is otherwise responsible is going to be limited in a way they do not feel fair.
I fail to see how anyone serious about the possibility of having to use a weapon to protect themselves or others would honestly be able to say that requiring proof of competency is a negative thing. Even retired officers who carry under HR 218 are required to qualify at least yearly (in accordance with their state laws governing active LE).
Don't get me wrong, I am all for concealed carry. I just feel that requiring proof of competency is not too much to ask. I see plenty of people that hit target hangers at 10 feet that I would not want opening fire in a high stress environment.
As to loaded magazines in cars, I would argue the section of the law abiding general public that this benefits, that being rifle owners that drive to a range, is potentially smaller than the criminal elements who also potentially benefit (but again, I don't have numbers, so I could be wrong). Now, I am not looking to make criminals out of responsible gun owners, but I can tell you that a lot of the criminals that carry weapons will exploit a loophole such as this to transport weapons in a near ready state. Maybe this does not directly affect you, except to make your range trip a little less convenient. What it says to me is that a car full of gang members can get that much closer to a robbery or drive by, and if stopped, greatly reduces any enforcement action officers can take. I spend 40 hours plus a week in a district where this is the environment, so it is how I tend to see these things. If there is a way to make this a little less open, such as tying it to CHLs, I would probably be a lot more likely to support it.
I realize this is not popular here, where the majority of people are law abiding, and who just want to go out to a range and shoot with minimum down time. I also realize my earlier tone may have been a bit abrasive. Unfortunately laws are often made with the lowest common denominator in mind. That is why we have speed limits and a minimum age for drivers, for example. I am sure there are 14 year olds that can handle a car at 80 MPH, but we have to draw lines somewhere. Do I think a 31 round magazine is vastly more dangerous than a 30, no. But if we set limits, there is going to be an (arbitrary) number or rule somewhere, and some citizen who is otherwise responsible is going to be limited in a way they do not feel fair.
Are the gang bangers following this law now?
3/20/2012 8:41:55 AM
No, but they go to jail when we stop them.
3/20/2012 9:07:30 AM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around.
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around.
Wow oh wow, allow me to translate :"They are not committing a crime, but possibly could so we should be able to arrest them anyway."
If they are actually 'violent criminals' and not just in your opinion, then surly they are under a weapons disability and should be charged accordingly.
This is as bad as Kasich's 'hidden compartment' bill. "They are not committing a crime right now with the compartment, but could in the future so we need to arrest them anyway"
I fear the world my kids will live in more and more each day.
3/20/2012 9:11:51 AM
Originally Posted By DrewDaHilp1:
So is there a title to the letter that he is passing around so we can tell our rep, "Hey please support this letter"?
So is there a title to the letter that he is passing around so we can tell our rep, "Hey please support this letter"?
Rep Johnson distributed the request for co-sponsors letter the end of last week. I believe the deadline is today for them to sign on as co-sponsors before the bill is introduced.
Just have them contact Rep. Johnson's office if they don't know about the request.
It will be assigned an actual bill number once it is introduced, but having co-sponsors committed before it is introduced is a nice to have.
3/20/2012 9:35:49 AM
Emailed my rep, all this legislation does is fix some screwed up and unclear laws.
Even in IL a loaded mag does not equal a loaded weapon.
3/20/2012 10:20:48 AM
Originally Posted By Racsan:
Wow oh wow, allow me to translate :"They are not committing a crime, but possibly could so we should be able to arrest them anyway."
If they are actually 'violent criminals' and not just in your opinion, then surly they are under a weapons disability and should be charged accordingly.
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around.
As to loaded magazines, substitute an AK47 or SKS in a car full of gangmembers with separate loaded magazines in my earlier example. Be nice to be able to potentially tag someone with a felony there IMHO, rather than facilitating violent criminals carting weapons around.
Wow oh wow, allow me to translate :"They are not committing a crime, but possibly could so we should be able to arrest them anyway."
If they are actually 'violent criminals' and not just in your opinion, then surly they are under a weapons disability and should be charged accordingly.
Well, they are committing a crime under the current law, and are subject to arrest. Changing the law would decriminalize this, and they would not be subject to arrest.
Disability is not as sweeping as some think, especially after several codes were removed from laws placing people under disability (including CCW).
I just am not a fan of allowing weapons and loaded magazines to be transported separate but ready at hand for people who have not taken it upon themselves to at least obtain their CHL, and while it may inconvenience some citizens, it creates a loophole for criminals to exploit. Get a CHL, show competency upon renewal, and you will hear a lot less objection from me. The bottom line is if enough people lobby for the change, my opinion won't matter, and the law will be what it will be. I won't be a fan, but it will not be the first law nor the last I don't like, I am sure.
3/20/2012 10:42:16 AM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
Maybe this does not directly affect you, except to make your range trip a little less convenient. What it says to me is that a car full of gang members can get that much closer to a robbery or drive by, and if stopped, greatly reduces any enforcement action officers can take.
Maybe this does not directly affect you, except to make your range trip a little less convenient. What it says to me is that a car full of gang members can get that much closer to a robbery or drive by, and if stopped, greatly reduces any enforcement action officers can take.
but lets say they were enroute to a robbery, and get stopped. they open fire.
i dont think the loaded mag law would be the proverbial nail in the coffin of their case.
3/20/2012 12:04:19 PM
You really think that gangbangers drive around with a mag-less guns and loaded mags somewhere else? So let's say the law gets passed and the definition gets fixed, so gangbangers will keep loaded mags in their cars but keep them out of the guns. They pull up to do a drive-by, load their guns and––oh wait, the minute they do that, they're transporting firearms illegally.
You really think you won't be able to arrest a car full of gangbangers on having weapons under disability?
You really think you won't be able to arrest a car full of gangbangers on having weapons under disability?
3/20/2012 1:26:44 PM
I wish they would have a level 2 CHL - one with the LEO training were we could carry everywhere - Courthouses, Hospital, Schools, police stations etc. I would be in for a yearly qualification if those places were taken off the no no list.
3/20/2012 1:39:38 PM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
I fail to see how anyone serious about the possibility of having to use a weapon to protect themselves or others would honestly be able to say that requiring proof of competency is a negative thing. Even retired officers who carry under HR 218 are required to qualify at least yearly (in accordance with their state laws governing active LE).
I fail to see how anyone serious about the possibility of having to use a weapon to protect themselves or others would honestly be able to say that requiring proof of competency is a negative thing. Even retired officers who carry under HR 218 are required to qualify at least yearly (in accordance with their state laws governing active LE).
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but the majority of people that carry. and do not carry under HR218 are not retired nor current law enforcement. SO moot point there.
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
Don't get me wrong, I am all for concealed carry. I just feel that requiring proof of competency is not too much to ask. I see plenty of people that hit target hangers at 10 feet that I would not want opening fire in a high stress environment.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for concealed carry. I just feel that requiring proof of competency is not too much to ask. I see plenty of people that hit target hangers at 10 feet that I would not want opening fire in a high stress environment.
If they have taken the required test/range time that should be good one time, after all it's not like we are clearing houses with the general knowledge, paper target shooting we are required to go through.
I still thinkt here are those that went through the test that should not be anywhere near a firearm, but it just highlights how retarded the requirement for competency is...
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
As to loaded magazines in cars, I would argue the section of the law abiding general public that this benefits, that being rifle owners that drive to a range, is potentially smaller than the criminal elements who also potentially benefit (but again, I don't have numbers, so I could be wrong). Now, I am not looking to make criminals out of responsible gun owners, but I can tell you that a lot of the criminals that carry weapons will exploit a loophole such as this to transport weapons in a near ready state. Maybe this does not directly affect you, except to make your range trip a little less convenient. What it says to me is that a car full of gang members can get that much closer to a robbery or drive by, and if stopped, greatly reduces any enforcement action officers can take. I spend 40 hours plus a week in a district where this is the environment, so it is how I tend to see these things. If there is a way to make this a little less open, such as tying it to CHLs, I would probably be a lot more likely to support it.
As to loaded magazines in cars, I would argue the section of the law abiding general public that this benefits, that being rifle owners that drive to a range, is potentially smaller than the criminal elements who also potentially benefit (but again, I don't have numbers, so I could be wrong). Now, I am not looking to make criminals out of responsible gun owners, but I can tell you that a lot of the criminals that carry weapons will exploit a loophole such as this to transport weapons in a near ready state. Maybe this does not directly affect you, except to make your range trip a little less convenient. What it says to me is that a car full of gang members can get that much closer to a robbery or drive by, and if stopped, greatly reduces any enforcement action officers can take. I spend 40 hours plus a week in a district where this is the environment, so it is how I tend to see these things. If there is a way to make this a little less open, such as tying it to CHLs, I would probably be a lot more likely to support it.
There is so much wrong with the statement above, it's not even funny.
"Hey Derrel, make sure you don't have that magazine loaded while we roll up on that bank, and by the way, did you remember to return that overdue library book"
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
I realize this is not popular here, where the majority of people are law abiding, and who just want to go out to a range and shoot with minimum down time. I also realize my earlier tone may have been a bit abrasive. Unfortunately laws are often made with the lowest common denominator in mind. That is why we have speed limits and a minimum age for drivers, for example. I am sure there are 14 year olds that can handle a car at 80 MPH, but we have to draw lines somewhere. Do I think a 31 round magazine is vastly more dangerous than a 30, no. But if we set limits, there is going to be an (arbitrary) number or rule somewhere, and some citizen who is otherwise responsible is going to be limited in a way they do not feel fair.
I realize this is not popular here, where the majority of people are law abiding, and who just want to go out to a range and shoot with minimum down time. I also realize my earlier tone may have been a bit abrasive. Unfortunately laws are often made with the lowest common denominator in mind. That is why we have speed limits and a minimum age for drivers, for example. I am sure there are 14 year olds that can handle a car at 80 MPH, but we have to draw lines somewhere. Do I think a 31 round magazine is vastly more dangerous than a 30, no. But if we set limits, there is going to be an (arbitrary) number or rule somewhere, and some citizen who is otherwise responsible is going to be limited in a way they do not feel fair.
Why make it harder on the law abiding, just because you want some feel good law in place that does not stop criminals from being criminals....
So, if you even come across a law abiding firearm owner on the way back from a long hot day at the range who forgot to unload that one magazine, you will come down on him like the hammer of Thor because he is now a criminal?
3/20/2012 4:16:59 PM
I'm an LEO in a ralatively low crime rate area. No gang banging of such in this area but we get them coming from one city to another. PDSGT has some good points and I see where he is coming from because I wear his shoes. Most of the guys in here bitchin at him don't or have not placed themselves in harms way day in day out. Anything to help keep the bad poeple off the streets is good. In the same breath, don't confuse bad people with good. I had to educate my shooting circle on the ORC and loaded mags in the car. Nobody knew of this. Hell, half the LEO's in the state probable don't know.
There is an easy fix, CCW holders should be expanded to allow rifles and shotguns for defense. As far as a requal for everyone having to carry, I don't think it is necessary. LEO do but we are held to a higher standard. You have to go to school to get your driver's license and hunting license. Get your CCW and carry what ever you want however you want. (OFFICER, My M4 is loaded and next to me)
No CCW, no loaded firearms or mags.
There is an easy fix, CCW holders should be expanded to allow rifles and shotguns for defense. As far as a requal for everyone having to carry, I don't think it is necessary. LEO do but we are held to a higher standard. You have to go to school to get your driver's license and hunting license. Get your CCW and carry what ever you want however you want. (OFFICER, My M4 is loaded and next to me)
No CCW, no loaded firearms or mags.
3/20/2012 5:27:20 PM
If there is an error I would like to error on the side of more freedom and more liberties. If we have to make up laws to restrict freedom to try and trick someone into breaking the laws, then we have lost.
3/20/2012 6:19:54 PM
Originally Posted By nehpets99:
You really think that gangbangers drive around with a mag-less guns and loaded mags somewhere else? So let's say the law gets passed and the definition gets fixed, so gangbangers will keep loaded mags in their cars but keep them out of the guns. They pull up to do a drive-by, load their guns and––oh wait, the minute they do that, they're transporting firearms illegally.
You really think you won't be able to arrest a car full of gangbangers on having weapons under disability?
You really think that gangbangers drive around with a mag-less guns and loaded mags somewhere else? So let's say the law gets passed and the definition gets fixed, so gangbangers will keep loaded mags in their cars but keep them out of the guns. They pull up to do a drive-by, load their guns and––oh wait, the minute they do that, they're transporting firearms illegally.
You really think you won't be able to arrest a car full of gangbangers on having weapons under disability?
I'm kinda curious how often this even occurs. I'd bet there's a metric-ton more of unknowing future potential felons in Ohio that don't even know how dumb our transport laws are that are merely going to the range.
Ohio politicians have gotten away with ridiculous definitions for way too long now with regard to our gun rights. A loaded magazine does not make for a loaded gun and 31 rounds in a magazine does not make a machinegun.
3/20/2012 6:29:57 PM
Originally Posted By swingset:
Well, there's Vermont where you don't need any training whatsoever, or even a permit to carry...let alone demonstrate competency or proficiency with a firearm.
By your reasoning, VT should be the playground of negligence and harm right?
What's that? It's not a big deal up there at all and never has been? Gun crime rate and accidental gun death rate is low, among the lowest in the nation.
Well. There you go. Argument settled.
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
Just my two cents, but how does not requiring someone to show competency to renew their permit to carry a concealed, deadly weapon benefit society, or even the permit holder? It would seem to allow people too lazy to practice, or people who cannot meet competency standards (if there are any) to continue to carry a weapon and possibly create a greater danger to themselves and those around them.
Just my two cents, but how does not requiring someone to show competency to renew their permit to carry a concealed, deadly weapon benefit society, or even the permit holder? It would seem to allow people too lazy to practice, or people who cannot meet competency standards (if there are any) to continue to carry a weapon and possibly create a greater danger to themselves and those around them.
Well, there's Vermont where you don't need any training whatsoever, or even a permit to carry...let alone demonstrate competency or proficiency with a firearm.
By your reasoning, VT should be the playground of negligence and harm right?
What's that? It's not a big deal up there at all and never has been? Gun crime rate and accidental gun death rate is low, among the lowest in the nation.
Well. There you go. Argument settled.
Pwnd.
3/20/2012 10:56:16 PM
Originally Posted By PDSgt:
I fail to see how anyone serious about the possibility of having to use a weapon to protect themselves or others would honestly be able to say that requiring proof of competency is a negative thing. Even retired officers who carry under HR 218 are required to qualify at least yearly (in accordance with their state laws governing active LE).
Don't get me wrong, I am all for concealed carry. I just feel that requiring proof of competency is not too much to ask. I see plenty of people that hit target hangers at 10 feet that I would not want opening fire in a high stress environment.
As to loaded magazines in cars, I would argue the section of the law abiding general public that this benefits, that being rifle owners that drive to a range, is potentially smaller than the criminal elements who also potentially benefit (but again, I don't have numbers, so I could be wrong). Now, I am not looking to make criminals out of responsible gun owners, but I can tell you that a lot of the criminals that carry weapons will exploit a loophole such as this to transport weapons in a near ready state. Maybe this does not directly affect you, except to make your range trip a little less convenient. What it says to me is that a car full of gang members can get that much closer to a robbery or drive by, and if stopped, greatly reduces any enforcement action officers can take. I spend 40 hours plus a week in a district where this is the environment, so it is how I tend to see these things. If there is a way to make this a little less open, such as tying it to CHLs, I would probably be a lot more likely to support it.
I realize this is not popular here, where the majority of people are law abiding, and who just want to go out to a range and shoot with minimum down time. I also realize my earlier tone may have been a bit abrasive. Unfortunately laws are often made with the lowest common denominator in mind. That is why we have speed limits and a minimum age for drivers, for example. I am sure there are 14 year olds that can handle a car at 80 MPH, but we have to draw lines somewhere. Do I think a 31 round magazine is vastly more dangerous than a 30, no. But if we set limits, there is going to be an (arbitrary) number or rule somewhere, and some citizen who is otherwise responsible is going to be limited in a way they do not feel fair.
I fail to see how anyone serious about the possibility of having to use a weapon to protect themselves or others would honestly be able to say that requiring proof of competency is a negative thing. Even retired officers who carry under HR 218 are required to qualify at least yearly (in accordance with their state laws governing active LE).
Don't get me wrong, I am all for concealed carry. I just feel that requiring proof of competency is not too much to ask. I see plenty of people that hit target hangers at 10 feet that I would not want opening fire in a high stress environment.
As to loaded magazines in cars, I would argue the section of the law abiding general public that this benefits, that being rifle owners that drive to a range, is potentially smaller than the criminal elements who also potentially benefit (but again, I don't have numbers, so I could be wrong). Now, I am not looking to make criminals out of responsible gun owners, but I can tell you that a lot of the criminals that carry weapons will exploit a loophole such as this to transport weapons in a near ready state. Maybe this does not directly affect you, except to make your range trip a little less convenient. What it says to me is that a car full of gang members can get that much closer to a robbery or drive by, and if stopped, greatly reduces any enforcement action officers can take. I spend 40 hours plus a week in a district where this is the environment, so it is how I tend to see these things. If there is a way to make this a little less open, such as tying it to CHLs, I would probably be a lot more likely to support it.
I realize this is not popular here, where the majority of people are law abiding, and who just want to go out to a range and shoot with minimum down time. I also realize my earlier tone may have been a bit abrasive. Unfortunately laws are often made with the lowest common denominator in mind. That is why we have speed limits and a minimum age for drivers, for example. I am sure there are 14 year olds that can handle a car at 80 MPH, but we have to draw lines somewhere. Do I think a 31 round magazine is vastly more dangerous than a 30, no. But if we set limits, there is going to be an (arbitrary) number or rule somewhere, and some citizen who is otherwise responsible is going to be limited in a way they do not feel fair.
I think you fail to see the point that we have too many laws that don't get used now. Why in the hell would anyone support more useless laws on the books? 31 round law for example - who came up with the number and why? Why is rimfire so special that it doesn't count. I can load up a .22 belt with thousands of rounds and have a potentially limitless flow of rounds through a .22 AR-15 but a beta mag in .223 or 9mm is somehow more dangerous. So no we the people don't need more laws, common sense worked fine for many years before politicians screwed it up. The only reason half these shit laws are in effect is to half ass appease some jack ass politicians so they can go back to the people putting money in their campaign funds and go "see what I did, I tried to kill that bill"
Just like those who say they support the second amendment, BUT they don't think the average person should full autos, tanks, whatever else they can afford. You sir do not support concealed carry. You think that the neutered rights us average citizens have to deal with somehow makes your job easier. I'll let Mr Franklin sum it up for you "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Again since you work in an area that has frequent stops with gang members, how many times have you used one of these shit laws for the public good? How many years have you tacked onto someone's sentance with the added charge of a loaded magazine in the same vehicle as the gun it goes in? How many had that extra 31st round that you could nail them with? And how many was the mag charge the only felony you could convict on so that if they got out again it was the one and only way to keep them from legaly owning a gun again?
3/20/2012 11:38:50 PM
Originally Posted By Tweightwee:
Ditto.
Right there with you. I know I've felt very safe knowing that all the bad guys have been unable to have loaded magazines in their cars since this went into effect. Originally Posted By StretchMaK:
E-mails sent. We need to get this passed.
E-mails sent. We need to get this passed.
Ditto.
3/20/2012 11:47:44 PM
Some people's heads will explode if OH ever goes to constitutional carry. 
Their heads would also explode if they knew how many people already did drive around with loaded rifles and shotguns.
"Required training" and "permits" are some IL, NY, and CA bullshit. If you can buy a gun, you should be allowed to carry said gun. It's intent that matters. Are you protecting yourself, or going to rob someone?
But,but, but...No buts. Fuck your "training", that's on me to not be a dumbass and know how to use my gun, and what the laws are.
Does AZ, AK, VT (and whoever else just lets you carry?)
have problems with OMG!!! Untrained civilians carrying? I'm a-guessing N-O. No blood in the streets, or any other Brady-like cliche horseshit.
And like the GD thugs are going to give a rat's ass whether they're breaking the law or not, seriously?
Their heads would also explode if they knew how many people already did drive around with loaded rifles and shotguns.
"Required training" and "permits" are some IL, NY, and CA bullshit. If you can buy a gun, you should be allowed to carry said gun. It's intent that matters. Are you protecting yourself, or going to rob someone?
But,but, but...No buts. Fuck your "training", that's on me to not be a dumbass and know how to use my gun, and what the laws are.
Does AZ, AK, VT (and whoever else just lets you carry?)
have problems with OMG!!! Untrained civilians carrying? I'm a-guessing N-O. No blood in the streets, or any other Brady-like cliche horseshit.
And like the GD thugs are going to give a rat's ass whether they're breaking the law or not, seriously?
3/21/2012 7:17:04 AM
I am for the suggested change in the mag law. That being said I think what PDSgt was talking about was not gang-bangers riding around town with separated guns and mags but rather them being able to unload while in the process of being pulled over and thus avoid arrest. I think that if there is a requirement to keep mags and long-arms in separate compartments of the vehicle this should address the issue. I hate paying for range time to load mags.
3/21/2012 9:12:21 AM
I don't even know how to respond to some of the thoughts in this thread. As it is the law is already selectively enforced. Gang members don't care what the law is now, and they won't care what the law is if it is changed.
If they made it so CHL holders could carry rifle mags loaded would I be happy? Sure, because I could do it, but I don't think that is right.
Anytime I hear somebody say a law makes a loophole all it makes me think of is liberals bitching about tax loop holes and gun show loopholes, which aren't loopholes at all.
