Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ohio Supreme Court's ruling on guns in parks is full of holes -- Plain Dealer editorial

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 07:02 AM
Original message
Ohio Supreme Court's ruling on guns in parks is full of holes -- Plain Dealer editorial
The Cleveland Plain Dealer has excoriated the Ohio Republicans for their hypocrisy on "home rule" policy before. Republicans deregulated the lending industry in the form of the "predatory lending bill" that took regulatory authority away from the Cleveland city government.


Ohio Supreme Court's ruling on guns in parks is full of holes -- editorial

Friday, September 26, 2008

The Ohio Supreme Court not only struck another blow against local control when it struck down the city of Clyde's ordinance banning firearms -- including those of individuals with concealed-carry permits -- from its municipal parks, it took a whack at common sense as well.

By a 4-3 vote, the court ruled that the General Assembly intended to allow licensed citizens to take their weapons just about anywhere in Ohio -- aside, that is, from the long list of places exempted from the law passed in 2004 and reaffirmed with a 2006 follow-up designed to kill ordinances like Clyde's.

The law's sponsors said they didn't want gun owners to be confused by different rules in different cities, a rationale accepted by Justices Terrence O'Donnell, Maureen O'Connor, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Robert Cupp. In attempting to ban guns from parks, they ruled, Clyde and other cities had usurped state government's authority to make laws for all of Ohio. Guns-rights groups no doubt will see this as a green light to attack local laws regarding assault-style weapons and trigger locks.

A more realistic appraisal came from the dissenters -- Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and Justices Judith Lanzinger and Paul Pfeiffer. They noted the incongruity of letting a private property owner ban guns -- say, from a shopping mall -- but not a public owner. As Moyer pointed out, Whirlpool Corp. can ban guns from its private park in Clyde; the city can't. So much for uniformity.

Besides, parks typically post rules on everything from curfews to dogs. The presumption is that local people know what's right for their communities. But making a decision about guns? In a place where children play and where liquor is sometimes present? According to the legislature and now the Supreme Court, that is beyond the collective wisdom of those most directly affected.

How absurd. Ohio's concealed-carry law has had none of the deleterious effects that some opponents feared. But that shouldn't stop the next legislature from reversing this inane provision and freeing local governments to make rules they think make sense on public property.

http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1222417985223780.xml&coll=2


The tasteless, RW gun activists in Ohio are even crowing about how they bullied Ohio banks into taking down their "no concealed weapons" signs at the entrance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. "In a place where children play and where liquor is sometimes present"
Ah, Ohio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. what`s with this "concealed" bullshit
strap that baby on your belt and show everyone what you're packing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. That would be illegal though...
surely you understand that CCW holders are one of the most law abiding group of citizens in the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Yes CCW holders are very law abiding, just check Florida statistics...
In Florida from October 1, 1987 - August 31, 2008, 1,382,676 licenses were issued. 4,321 licenses were revoked for a variety of reasons. Only 165 were revoked for Crime After Licensure where a firearm was utilized.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. 1 in 319 have been revoked.

So far.

And those are the ones who got caught doing something.

Not a really stellar track record, frankly.

Are 1 in 319 driver's licences revoked in 20 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. What are driver's licenses revoked for?
Edited on Mon Sep-29-08 12:34 AM by Fire_Medic_Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. 1 in 8380 licenses have been revoked for firearm abuse...
True 1 in 319 have been revoked for a variety of reasons which include:

Clemency Rule Change
or Legislative Change 66
Illegible Prints With
No Response 10
Crime Prior to Licensure 517
Crime After Licensure 3,607
--Firearm Utilized-- <165>
Other 121

and 522 of those license have been reinstated.

But considering only the crimes after licensure where a firearm was utilized only 1 in 8380 has been revoked. Not quite so dramatic, eh.

And I personally knew one man whose license was revoked. He was in the middle of a divorce proceeding and his extremely irate and vengeful wife filed a restraining order against him. His license was later reinstated. He was just a big teddy bear who found himself in a relationship with an unstable mate. He found a much better partner and continued a productive life without any further encounters with the judicial system.

While I'll agree that CCW holders are not angels they come close.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyMac Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
27. Actually... "open carry" in Ohio is legal.
In ohio you can find a person selling a gun seller, purchase the gun, and load it up and strap it on after you leave.
No background check, no paperwork, nothing. Cash 'n' Carry, as we call it.
Open carry typically is more restrictive of where you can carry, but it legal in most public places.
As always, private property rules vary with the owners' discretion.

Heck, I sold a pistol in the parking lot of a Subway Restaurant last Friday. Arranged the deal via email.
We exchanged handshakes, he inspected the pistol, and I collected the cash.
"Thank you, have a great day," and we went on our way.
Now, he didn't strap it on... I would have been been surprised had he done so. Then again, a Desert Eagle is really outside the realm of carrying. lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Lucky you, we have pistol purchase permits
left over from the Jim Crow era, $5 and the strictness of getting one varies by county (from, simple to downright harassing)

We have 'open carry', but there is also a law about 'going to the terror of the people'. De facto, its a good way to get police attention.

But, we CAN have hi capacity magazine drums :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. I've read of these permits. What state(s) has this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #2
35. I think only a few states allow this. Does Ohio?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. The basic concept of a concealed-carry permit is to allow concealed carry in public places
I believe that it is allowed without a permit in private places in most states.

The Plain Dealer is unclear on the concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. wtf?

I believe that it is allowed without a permit in private places in most states.
The Plain Dealer is unclear on the concept.


Somebody sure is.

Allowed without a permit in private places -- WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE OWNER.

Permits have nothing to do with whether an owner of property allows it. You got that right.

So why would a permit to carry a firearm in public prevent the owner of public property from prohibiting firearms on that property?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Who owns the public property?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I give up, Dave

Who cares?

I, collectively with the rest of the public here, own Parliament Hill.

I don't actually get to sleep there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Private groups can do a lot of things that non-profits, churches and public entities can't do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. like I said

I own Parliament Hill.

I don't get to sleep there.

I don't even get to stand around the lobby 24/7.

Even though there is no law against standing around in public places.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yes and a private group could not let you in because you are a woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Dave, what are you yammering about?

The property in issue here is public property.

Parliament Hill is public property.

It's legal for me to stand around in public at midnight. And yet I may not stand around in the lobby of Centre Block at midnight.

It's legal for people to carry firearms around the streets of Clyde, Ohio. But the duly elected municipal authorities of Clyde, Ohio, do not want firearms carried into the parks owned and operated by the public of Clyde, Ohio.

Seems pretty clear to me. Don't know where this private groups and women business is coming into it.

Sheesh. Next thing I know you're going to be dragging in abortion ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. You're the one who drags abortion into the mix.
My point is that public areas usually fall under the protections afforded by the Constitution.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. okay now, I'll say it again

It is legal to stand around in public 24/7.

The Parliament Buildings are owned by the public.

I may not stand around in the lobby of Centre Block at midnight.


Is it getting through at all?

By the way, I may also not stand in the lobby of Centre Block at any time delivering a speech about the evils of ... well, anything. I have the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech, and yet in that public place, Parliament, I may not stand around making speeches ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Are you talking about Canada again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. oh, silly me

Of course in the US, you may camp out on the lawn of your state legislative buildings.

And carry concealed firearms there too, I suppose ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. I believe you can.
Maybe not camp out but I believe you can carry a concealed weapon on the lawn of the state legislative building legally provided you have a permit to do so.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. What is "inane"
is wasting time legislating against something with, admittedly, no "deleterious effects".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
9. LOL !
Ohio's concealed-carry law has had none of the deleterious effects that some opponents feared. But


BUT ??? ROFLMAO!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
12. I lived in Florida before the CCW law went into effect...
The laws varied from city to city and county to county. In some counties, you could get a carry permit, others would not consider it unless you had political connections. If you did get a license, it only applied to the area that granted it.

Allowing local governments to create their own concealed carry laws in Ohio would create a nightmare that would effectively eliminate concealed carry, which is what the Cleveland Plain Dealer wants to do.

Cleveland is a typical big liberal city with a high murder rate. It's hard for the Plain Dealer to comprehend that guns in the hands of honest citizens aren't the big problem. Guns in the hands of the criminal element are.

It would be wise for the Plain Dealer to launch a campaign to put people caught illegally carrying weapons in prison for a long long time. Instead they waste their paper printing stories about how dangerous it is to allow a licensed individual to carry his weapon in a park. I'd be willing to bet that plenty of criminals carry their weapons in the same park. I guess the Plain Dealer has no problems with that.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. yada yada

Cleveland is a typical big liberal city with a high murder rate.

But what we're actually talking about is: "the city of Clyde's ordinance".

http://www.city-data.com/city/Clyde-Ohio.html

Population in July 2007: 6,162.

Huh.


Allowing local governments to create their own concealed carry laws in Ohio would create a nightmare that would effectively eliminate concealed carry, which is what the Cleveland Plain Dealer wants to do.

Except, spin my friend, it isn't.

This is not a "concealed carry law". It has nothing to do with who may be issued a concealed carry permit.

It has to do with where firearms may be possessed on city property within the city's jurisdiction. Just like if I made a rule that firearms could not be possessed in my living room. Unless you can demonstrate a difference.


It's hard for the Plain Dealer to comprehend that guns in the hands of honest citizens aren't the big problem. Guns in the hands of the criminal element are.

But I just keep wondering. What about guns in the hands of citizens who tell lies? honest legal permanent residents?

How come it's only guns in the hands of citizens who don't tell lies that aren't a problem?

Oh, and how come it's the guns that are the problem when they're in the hands of the criminal element? Isn't it the criminal element that's the problem? Guns don't cause problems; criminal elements cause problems. No?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. My gosh I think you finally get it.
Isn't it the criminal element that's the problem? Guns don't cause problems; criminal elements cause problems. No?

You are correct and that's where law enforcement and people who make laws and ordinances should concentrate their efforts on the criminal elements. I'm so glad you finally understand this after all this time.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. The Cleveland Plain Dealers agenda is obvious...
they want every little local town and big city to have their own rules about where you can carry a weapon if you have a carry permit.

If Ohio allowed this, there would be a confusing mess of laws that would discourage licensed individuals from carrying a weapon throughout the state. In one city you could carry a weapon in a park, in the next city you couldn't and might be subject to arrest and loss of your license. One city might decree that carrying your weapon on main street was illegal and other might rule that carry was not allowed within 1000 feet of city hall.

That's why when a state passes a concealed weapons law it applies state wide. There are places in Florida that I'm not allow to carry my weapon and they are:

The following is a list of places where you are restricted from carrying a weapon or firearm even if you have a license. Please note that this is a simplified list. The places marked by an asterisk (*) may have exceptions or additional restrictions. See Section 790.06 (12), Florida Statutes for a complete listing.

o any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05
o any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station
o any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse
o any courtroom*
o any polling place
o any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district
o any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof
o any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms
o any school administration building
o any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption*
o any elementary or secondary school facility
o any area technical center
o any college or university facility*
o inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport*
o any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/possession.html

I have no serious problem with these restrictions and I adhere to them. Occasionally (actually infrequently) I run into a business that posts a sign that says "No Firearms Allowed". I take my business elsewhere and take a few minutes to call the establishment and explain to them that because of their requirement, I will not patronize their establishment. No problem. There have been occasions where I notice later the signs were removed. I don't take credit for this, as calling the owner who posts such signs is a common practice among CCW holders.

I understand that you have a somewhat vested interest and a reputation for opposing gun ownership for self defense and concealed carry. Fine. You present your arguments intelligently and employ a sense of humor that is entertaining to read. I would never expect you to change your viewpoint. In fact, I hope you never do. The only thing that would change your mind on the value of owning and carrying a weapon for self defense would be a life changing encounter with a aggressive criminal intent on harming or killing you. I would never wish that on anyone.

As to your comment:

But I just keep wondering. What about guns in the hands of citizens who tell lies? honest legal permanent residents?

How come it's only guns in the hands of citizens who don't tell lies that aren't a problem?


I sure you realize that everyone tells lies. If you were brutally honest you would hurt the feelings of those you love or those you were friends with. That's why most lies are called "white lies". Of course, there are more serious lies. Some people lie on their income tax for example. Some people lie on job applications. Which this is far from admirable, it has little to do with gun ownership. Personally, I avoid lying except for the harmless white lies. It's a personal thing, but I feel that lying only gives me a negative opinion of myself. I view myself as an honest individual and I make efforts not to destroy that image as I would consider myself to be a hypocrite.

Oh, and how come it's the guns that are the problem when they're in the hands of the criminal element? Isn't it the criminal element that's the problem? Guns don't cause problems; criminal elements cause problems. No?

Yes the criminal element does indeed cause problems. Lack of opportunity, education and racism often causes people to commit crime to find a solution to the problems they face in life. If some person chooses to break into my house and steal my property while I was not home, I would be angry and upset. But it would be a far different matter if that person had a weapon with him when he broke into my occupied house or threatened me while I was in a parking lot or walking down the street. The same if an unarmed individual attacked me with the intent to inflict bodily harm. That individual would cross a threshold that makes him an extreme danger not only to me but to society.

So if the Plain Dealer is actually interested in reducing violent crime, why do they waste print by worrying about licensed individuals who carry weapons? Wouldn't they do a service to the community by trying to get the criminal justice system to put violent armed criminals behind bars for a long time? If these criminals merely walk through the "revolving door of justice" how many more victims will fall prey to their evil intentions.

True, the criminal element is a problem. The armed criminal problem is a SERIOUS problem.

You live in Canada which has a lower violence level then much of the United States. The problem is that the violent crime might spread like a virus into your own country. Your position is that gun ownership in the nation south of yours should be restricted by laws similar to Canada. While there's nothing wrong with advocating that position, you might consider occasionally mentioning that strict enforcement of the laws concerning individuals carrying weapons illegally is just as important if not more important than merely limiting gun ownership for good citizens who do not commit violent crime.

You have a reputation that extends beyond DU. While it is unlikely, an effort on your part to get the United States to implement and enforce draconian laws against armed criminals might just result in your not having to face a life changing experience.










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. uh huh

The Cleveland Plain Dealers agenda is obvious...

Who gives a fuck? The Cleveland Plain Dealer didn't make the rule in question.

Now, what is the agenda of the enormous liberal crime-ridden hamlet of Clyde?


You live in Canada which has a lower violence level then much of the United States. The problem is that the violent crime might spread like a virus into your own country. Your position is that gun ownership in the nation south of yours should be restricted by laws similar to Canada. While there's nothing wrong with advocating that position, you might consider occasionally mentioning that strict enforcement of the laws concerning individuals carrying weapons illegally is just as important if not more important than merely limiting gun ownership for good citizens who do not commit violent crime.

You have a reputation that extends beyond DU. While it is unlikely, an effort on your part to get the United States to implement and enforce draconian laws against armed criminals might just result in your not having to face a life changing experience.


Excuse me. What?


"Your position is that gun ownership in the nation south of yours should be restricted by laws similar to Canada."

If you have ever read me stating that position, I expect you will now provide a reference to where I may read it. Somewhere other than in response to a direct request for my *opinion* about what it would be advisable for the US to do.

Otherwise, I expect that you will withdraw this allegation.


"While there's nothing wrong with advocating that position, you might consider occasionally mentioning that strict enforcement of the laws concerning individuals carrying weapons illegally is just as important if not more important than merely limiting gun ownership for good citizens who do not commit violent crime."

And you could always consider speaking honestly and in good faith.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
28. Interesting sentence
"Guns-rights groups no doubt will see this as a green light to attack local laws regarding assault-style weapons and trigger locks."


What "assault-style weapons" laws exist in any part of Ohio?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyMac Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Actually... there are a few.
"What 'assault-style weapons' laws exist in any part of Ohio?"

Ohio Revised Code does actually have a magazine capacity limit. Any gun that can fore more than 31 rounds consecutively is banned without proper federal registration. So the largest mag you can insert is a 30 round magazine plus one in the chamber. They do make 100 round drums and beltfeds that are encompassed by this law. Other than that I can't really think of many ORC ordinances that deal with assault weapons. Many local communities still have laws banning an assortment of firearms ownership... however, with the normalization of rules statewide and stripping of municipal authority those laws are all but null and void.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Aside form the mag restriction
which I think is a good one, if there is going to be any law restricting capcity it might as well restrict at a common and technically sensible level, not an arbitrary number like the magic ten.



Nothing else though? I think the Plain Deal wants to stick up for some non-existant restrictions...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyMac Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. What really burns my butt...
(besides a 3 foot high fire) is that I see 40, 50, ..., 100+ round mags for sale all the time at gun shows and in shops.
My local shop owner had an AR15/M16 40 round mag in the bargain bin for $9.
I brought it up to the counter and asked about the legality of the item. I told him people are not to use these mags in ohio.
He replied, "but they're legal to own and we're allowed to sell them." I find that VERY irresponsible.
But he's perfectly right, and an ignorant purchaser could fin themselves in hot water easily.

Just imagine if marijuana were legal to posses and distribute but illegal to smoke? :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. The thirty round law...
would probably survive a "Heller" test. The thirty round magazine is in common use and is the standard for military issue. I think it's a bit foolish to think that someone bent on mayhem and destruction would bother to obey the law. Since it's not an outright ban or arbitrary limit, it's a "good" law. As far as I know you can still own a belt-fed NFA firearm.

There are still some in Ohio who are waiting for the barrage of gunfire that was expected with the passing of CCW. It never happened. Funny how that worked. Lawful citizens going about their business aren't the problem and never were. The Plan Dealer hasn't figured that out yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #28
37. I knew the gun-controllers were all style hounds from the beginning (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. Doesn't seem like they have any other criteria
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC