State Rep. Al Landis, R-Dover
The Times Reporter
Gun legislation approved last week by the Ohio House is more than just a "stand your ground" bill, area lawmakers say.
"It's been tagged with the label, 'Stand Your Ground Law,' but that's only one component," said state Rep. Al Landis, R-Dover. "There are so many other moving parts — it strengthens the criminal background check in Ohio. If it passes, all applicants also will go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
"Ohio also would recognize Carrying Concealed Weapons permits from outside of our state, if they recognize Ohio's CCW. That's an important part of the bill. Currently, that has to be a
negotiated, written agreement with other states individually."
The legislation passed the Ohio House on a 62-27 vote Wednesday and now heads to the Senate. Among changes, it would:
n Eliminate the requirement that a person reside in Ohio to receive or renew a concealed handgun license;
n Eliminate the current 12-hour training requirement, substituting a minimum of four training hours in the safe handling and use of a firearm;
n Waive certain concealed-carry license renewal requirements for members of the armed forces, Peace Corps or foreign service while on active duty and for six months afterward.
But a provision that expands the list of circumstances under which people can use force without the duty to retreat first attracted the most attention — and protests as the measure was being debated in the House.
Gentile said,
ReplyDelete"I've had a pretty consistent record of supporting gun rights for responsible gun owners. I'll be monitoring the situation closely and listen to my constituents and stakeholders."
While pleading guilty for cutting the rest of the quote out, I think this part is very important. This statement trumps all of the poll results in the world. Anyone who goes to the trouble of contacting their elected representative gets listened to, because whatever side of the debate they line up on, it means they're paying attention, and whatever they see will determine what they do on election day.
Looks like a good bill--are you getting the message yet, Mikeb?
ReplyDelete12 hours of training down to 4, and fewer restrictions on concealed carry? You would call those good things?
DeleteBut, wait a minute, aren't those still unacceptable infringements on rights of free citizens? Isn't that what you say, Greg?
Not only have no states repealed a SYG law, but it looks like we are going to gain one.
ReplyDelete"Anyone who goes to the trouble of contacting their elected representative gets listened to, because whatever side of the debate they line up on, it means they're paying attention, and whatever they see will determine what they do on election day."
ReplyDeleteThat's BS when 90% of Americans want deeper background checks, but their elected officials won't pass that legislation.
"That's BS when 90% of Americans want deeper background checks, but their elected officials won't pass that legislation."
DeleteAnon, if you had read the article, you would have noticed that the quote in my comment was made by a Democratic state Senator. I have also had two Minnesota state legislators, one retired, one still serving, tell me the same thing.
An even better illustration would be in Colorado. If the 90% number you claim were true, the Democrats would still hold a three seat majority there instead of the current one seat majority. The recalls were mainly due to votes on gun legislation, and those supporting the recall were outspent by the gun control lobby, with former Mayor Bloomberg even kicking in a hefty sum of his own money.
If that many Americans really wanted gun control, you'd see a lot more legislation being pushed and passed. The reality is that politicians are listening to their constituents and supporting gun rights.
DeleteColorado did pass gun laws the gun nuts are upset about. 90% is a national poll figure, and the people are upset that background checks did not pass. There has been no election since then, and you will see a change with the results in the next election. Republicans have majority and have not been listening to their constituents, that's why the polls put their approval rating in the single digits.
DeleteI'm afraid you are incorrect Anon. After passing those gun laws that you claim were so popular, petitions with the required with the required signatures were submitted forcing a recall election for two Democratic Senators.
DeleteBoth incumbents lost the recall election and were replaced by their Republican challenger bringing the previous three seat Democratic majority down to a single seat.
More recently, a petition drive was started for a third Democratic Senator and she resigned her position before the petition deadline. This in essence kept the seat occupied by a Democratic appointee until the regular election in 2014.
These defeats of the two Democratic incumbents suggest that the true percentage of those who support stricter gun laws aren't as high as is claimed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_recall_election_of_2013
ss, you're conveniently leaving out the fact that there are a total of 35 state senators in Colorado. The gun nuts only had enough power to affect 3 out of that number. Plus, the laws that started the whole thing still stand.
DeleteMike, at the time there was a 20 to 15 majority in favor of the Democrats. If this is truly a democrat/republican feud, the 15 republican seats don't count. So in the recall, they lost two seats, which went republican. If you want to get picky, the recall process is in place for individual districts to keep their elected representative answerable to them.
DeleteIn reality, the total number of Senators isn't terribly important. The gun control legislation was passed pretty much along party lines. And they have gone from a comfortable three vote majority to only a single seat. And the 2014 election is just next year, when former Sen. Hudaks seat will be occupied by a new guy with not much of a record to brag about. And I believe there will be either eight or nine Democrats up for reelection in 2014.
As for the laws still standing, you never can tell what might happen during the next legislative session. I really don't count Hudak's seat being effected since another Democrat will be elected to replace here and there will be no real change.
Those gun laws are still on the books, but you talk like that doesn't matter. You are wrong.
DeleteOn the contrary Anon, the laws that were passed do matter. In fact their passage resulted in quite a change to the power balance in the state senate. I'm just saying that there is talk of attempting to repeal the laws.
DeleteNot too long ago Mike made a comment suggesting that once the balance of power changes in the US Supreme Court, he believed that gun rights would change. But Heller and Mcdonald still matter.
When the LAWS get repealed you have a point. Until then it's all BS.
Deletess, the next general election for these CO senators will tell the tale.
DeleteHeller and McDonald will be overturned or nullified or deleted or whatever you call it when the Court changes.
What Greg said sounds good, but I'm afraid it's not the only explanation. It could be that the great majority does indeed want stricter gun control laws and a small, well financed minority is scaring the politicians into voting against it anyway. Greg knows this is a plausible explanation but in his lying way he presents the other one as if only it explains the situation. The proof will be in the next couple election cycles.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, the number of people who care about rights is often small. Most people are simply too busy, and some are evil. But when people are pushed too hard, they tend to rise up here.
DeleteUnlike you, I don't misuse the word "evil," but if I did, it could be used to describe your side just as easily.
Delete