• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vote Likely This Week on Constitutional Carry!

Wayne Jr

Wayne Jr

bis vincit qui se vincit
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
7,722
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Vote Likely This Week on Constitutional Carry!
June 15, 2019

"Good News
The great news is that Constitutional Carry is scheduled for a vote in the House Federalism Committee this coming week, possibly on Wednesday.

Bad News
The bad news is that weak-kneed Republican Representative Kyle Koehler (R-Springfield) is running a “fig leaf” amendment to HB178 in order to appease some of the anti-gunners on the committee. Rep Koehler’s Amendment (Amendment AM045X2) mandates that a brochure shall be distributed with every new firearm sale summarizing Ohio law’s on deadly force and dispute resolution. This sounds okay on the face of it, but we need to dig deeper. You see, Ohio doesn’t have a Stand-Your-Ground law, and gun owners still have a “duty to retreat” from a violent killer. So by definition, Kyle Koehler’s amendment would continue urging people to try to retreat from a rapist or killer instead of defending themselves or their families! ..."

The "bad news" isn't really bad news imo as the brochure is just telling you what the law says. Ohio does have a duty to retreat and I think we need to get rid of it, but opposing a brochure about the law isn't going to get rid if Duty to Retreat. IMO it's foolish to oppose Constitutional Carry over a brochure. Let's have the brochure and get Constitutional Carry passed.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Vote Likely This Week on Constitutional Carry!
June 15, 2019

"Good News
The great news is that Constitutional Carry is scheduled for a vote in the House Federalism Committee this coming week, possibly on Wednesday.

Bad News
The bad news is that weak-kneed Republican Representative Kyle Koehler (R-Springfield) is running a “fig leaf” amendment to HB178 in order to appease some of the anti-gunners on the committee. Rep Koehler’s Amendment (Amendment AM045X2) mandates that a brochure shall be distributed with every new firearm sale summarizing Ohio law’s on deadly force and dispute resolution. This sounds okay on the face of it, but we need to dig deeper. You see, Ohio doesn’t have a Stand-Your-Ground law, and gun owners still have a “duty to retreat” from a violent killer. So by definition, Kyle Koehler’s amendment would continue urging people to try to retreat from a rapist or killer instead of defending themselves or their families! ..."

The "bad news" isn't really bad news imo as the brochure is just telling you what the law says. Ohio does have a duty to retreat and I think we need to get rid of it, but opposing a brochure about the law isn't going to get rid if Duty to Retreat. IMO it's foolish to oppose Constitutional Carry over a brochure. Let's have the brochure and get Constitutional Carry passed.
Click to expand...

But Ohio does have a Castle Doctrine, which extends to an individuals vehicle.....thats something at least.
 
Bum said:
But Ohio does have a Castle Doctrine, which extends to an individuals vehicle.....thats something at least.
Click to expand...

But if there is duty to retreat then Ohio's Castle Doctrine is weaker than California's. Cali has no duty to retreat clause.
Our weakness is that it does not extend to one's vehicle.
Technically it also doesn't extend to one's place of business either however juries are being instructed to find in favor of self defense in places of business unless compelling evidence to the contrary exists. If memory serves me right, that instruction was handed down sometime in 2012.

So basically, if you own a business and an armed robber enters, brandishes or otherwise menaces and you're in fear for your life or safety and you shoot them, the Superior Court is generally going to support your right to self defense unless you mucked it up so terribly that it screams obvious deceit.

I hope I am referencing the right thing here in this LINK.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
But if there is duty to retreat then Ohio's Castle Doctrine is weaker than California's. Cali has no duty to retreat clause.
Our weakness is that it does not extend to one's vehicle.
Technically it also doesn't extend to one's place of business either however juries are being instructed to find in favor of self defense in places of business unless compelling evidence to the contrary exists. If memory serves me right, that instruction was handed down sometime in 2012.

So basically, if you own a business and an armed robber enters, brandishes or otherwise menaces and you're in fear for your life or safety and you shoot them, the Superior Court is generally going to support your right to self defense unless you mucked it up so terribly that it screams obvious deceit.

I hope I am referencing the right thing here in this LINK.
Click to expand...

Castle Doctrine and duty to retreat are mutually exclusive. Castle Doctrine is the recognition of the inherent threat of a home invasion.

In Ohio, there's a legal presumption that a person acts in self-defense when he or she uses force against anyone who unlawfully enters his or her residence or vehicle. Additionally, Ohio adheres to the castle doctrine, meaning that you don't have a duty to retreat before using force in your residence or vehicle. To fully understand Ohio's self-defense laws, it's important to take note of the following definitions:

Residence: dwelling in which a person resides, temporarily, permanently, or visiting as a guest.
Vehicle: conveyance designed to transport people or property, whether motorized or not.
Click to expand...
Ohio Self Defense Laws - FindLaw
 
Ooop, now I am being told that Cali's Castle Doctrine DOES indeed extend to one's vehicle and place of business.
I think I'd better keep looking just to make sure, because Cali self defense laws have changed in the last few years.
I remember one story back in the 1980's where a liquor store owner was put through the wringer over shooting an armed robber.
But lately I seem to remember a few stories where homeowners or business folks shot criminals and the DA ruled it self defense.

I would like to see it codified on solid ground, and of course I'd also like to see Cali loosen their grip on concealed carry.
It could happen.
 
ecofarm said:
Castle Doctrine and duty to retreat are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Yes of course I am aware of that, but see the OP from Wayne Jr. who is apparently not up to date.




And I don't live in Ohio :)
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Ooop, now I am being told that Cali's Castle Doctrine DOES indeed extend to one's vehicle and place of business.
I think I'd better keep looking just to make sure, because Cali self defense laws have changed in the last few years.
I remember one story back in the 1980's where a liquor store owner was put through the wringer over shooting an armed robber.
But lately I seem to remember a few stories where homeowners or business folks shot criminals and the DA ruled it self defense.

I would like to see it codified on solid ground, and of course I'd also like to see Cali loosen their grip on concealed carry.
It could happen.
Click to expand...

MAY issue should be ruled unconstitutional as being arbitrary and violative of substantive and procedural due process. SHALL issue should be the constitutional standard Now I have no issue with a state requiring CCW IF

a) open carry is permitted without license

b) the fees are no higher than a drivers or hunting license

c) time requirement for training is a day or less

d) it is SHALL ISSUE meaning-if you pass an objective test (in Ohio 7 yards is the farthest distance)-and have a clean record-you get the license.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Yes of course I am aware of that, but see the OP from Wayne Jr. who is apparently not up to date.
Click to expand...
I am very much up to date, thank you :)

Edit:
Oh I think I see why you think I'm confused. In Ohio, while you do have Castle Doctrine in your car, you do not have a right to have a loaded firearm in your car, without a permit. In other words, while Castle Doctrine applies to homes, businesses, and cars, you can have a loaded gun in your home or business, but not your car.

Constitutional Carry would allow us to have a loaded firearm in our car without a permit, which empowers our rights under Castle Doctrine while within our car.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
I am very much up to date, thank you :)

Edit:
Oh I think I see why you think I'm confused.
Click to expand...

This, from the OP, is incorrect:

Wayne Jr said:
Ohio does have a duty to retreat and I think we need to get rid of it, but opposing a brochure about the law isn't going to get rid if Duty to Retreat.
Click to expand...

See post #4 for citation.
 
ecofarm said:
This, from the OP, is incorrect:

See post #4 for citation.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm not seeing what you're trying to point out. Ohio does, in fact, have a duty to retreat. Sure, not while in your vehicle, but you do have a Duty to Retreat in all public places than those 3 (your business, home, or vehicle).

The brochure is for informing the gun owner of when they have a Duty to Retreat and when they have Castle Doctrine.

So....what is the point you are trying to make?
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
MAY issue should be ruled unconstitutional as being arbitrary and violative of substantive and procedural due process. SHALL issue should be the constitutional standard Now I have no issue with a state requiring CCW IF

a) open carry is permitted without license

b) the fees are no higher than a drivers or hunting license

c) time requirement for training is a day or less

d) it is SHALL ISSUE meaning-if you pass an objective test (in Ohio 7 yards is the farthest distance)-and have a clean record-you get the license.
Click to expand...

This is one area where we differ because I would prefer some restriction on open carry in major metro areas but while simultaneously relaxing concealed carry anywhere. It is only my personal opinion and I can't argue it on constitutional grounds, I just think open carry is more a "rural" thing, that's all. You've heard me prattle about this before.

Put it this way...[sarc]we're fast reaching the stage where carrying a professional television camera in the street in some parts of the country is regarded much the same way carrying an open AR-15 is in Dianne Feinstein territory.[/sarc]

People feel menaced by a news camera in red states almost as much as they do by an open carry firearm in blue states.
Either way, it makes the point that menacing is a real reaction, even if unwarranted.
I am often tempted to whisper something about how I am stealing their souls. :lamo
 
Wayne Jr said:
I guess I'm not seeing what you're trying to point out. Ohio does, in fact, have a duty to retreat. Sure, not while in your vehicle, but you do have a Duty to Retreat in all public places than those 3 (your business, home, or vehicle).

The brochure is for informing the gun owner of when they have a Duty to Retreat and when they have Castle Doctrine.

So....what is the point you are trying to make?
Click to expand...


Castle Doctrine means no duty to retreat in home (sometimes vehicle and business).

Stand Your Ground means no duty to retreat from anywhere the person legally occupies.

Castle Doctrine does not equal Stand Your Ground; everyone knows that.
 
ecofarm said:
Castle Doctrine means no duty to retreat in home (sometimes vehicle and business).

Stand Your Ground means no duty to retreat from anywhere the person legally occupies.

Castle Doctrine does not equal Stand Your Ground; everyone knows that.
Click to expand...
Yes, everyone knows that. Including me. I'm still not seeing why you think there is confusion.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
This is one area where we differ because I would prefer some restriction on open carry in major metro areas but while simultaneously relaxing concealed carry anywhere. It is only my personal opinion and I can't argue it on constitutional grounds, I just think open carry is more a "rural" thing, that's all. You've heard me prattle about this before.

Put it this way...[sarc]we're fast reaching the stage where carrying a professional television camera in the street in some parts of the country is regarded much the same way carrying an open AR-15 is in Dianne Feinstein territory.[/sarc]

People feel menaced by a news camera in red states almost as much as they do by an open carry firearm in blue states.
Either way, it makes the point that menacing is a real reaction, even if unwarranted.
I am often tempted to whisper something about how I am stealing their souls. :lamo
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of open carry in most areas for many reasons
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
This is one area where we differ because I would prefer some restriction on open carry in major metro areas but while simultaneously relaxing concealed carry anywhere. It is only my personal opinion and I can't argue it on constitutional grounds, I just think open carry is more a "rural" thing, that's all. You've heard me prattle about this before.

Put it this way...[sarc]we're fast reaching the stage where carrying a professional television camera in the street in some parts of the country is regarded much the same way carrying an open AR-15 is in Dianne Feinstein territory.[/sarc]

People feel menaced by a news camera in red states almost as much as they do by an open carry firearm in blue states.
Either way, it makes the point that menacing is a real reaction, even if unwarranted.
I am often tempted to whisper something about how I am stealing their souls. :lamo
Click to expand...

Carrying a loaded AR is already legal in Ohio. We just had a March about it, too.

This law regards pistols, not rifles; concealment, not open carry; and Ohio, not California.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
This is one area where we differ because I would prefer some restriction on open carry in major metro areas but while simultaneously relaxing concealed carry anywhere.
Click to expand...

If you oppose open carry then that's even more reason to support this bill as it will allow more people to conceal.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Rights not exercised are rights lost.
Click to expand...

carrying openly is often stupid. If you are walking on fountain square with a 45 on your hip, you are going to get all sorts of attention by the cops, because at least a dozen people will call the cops. Now if you are in a gun rights march in the same area-that's different. Plus, if you are openly carrying, you invite someone to pearl harbor you if their goal is committing mayhem. Or you might be the target for a couple thugs to jump you and steal your gun.

According to the taped jailhouse comments of the mope I didn't shoot -well it went like this. "We didn't know the dude was packing until he blew ______ ass off"

Now I told them I was packing when they jumped on me-but they didn't see the gun until I had already shot one of them and was lining up the other guy's eyeball through the sights.
 
Wayne Jr said:
If you oppose open carry then that's even more reason to support this bill as it will allow more people to conceal.
Click to expand...

I don't oppose it, I just happen to view open carry as an out in the country sort of thing and concealed carry as more of a discreet practice everywhere else, such as in major cities.
In a crowded urban environment, open carry is risky...you're putting a big bullseye on your ass, and some of the more tender-hearted feel menaced because they don't know who you are.

Again, I have no constitutional argument against open carry everywhere. I would just hope people would have the common sense to restrict their own open carry to "out in the back forty" and conceal their firearms once they come into town.

My opinion only - - YMMV
 
TurtleDude said:
carrying openly is often stupid. If you are walking on fountain square with a 45 on your hip, you are going to get all sorts of attention by the cops, because at least a dozen people will call the cops. Now if you are in a gun rights march in the same area-that's different. Plus, if you are openly carrying, you invite someone to pearl harbor you if their goal is committing mayhem. Or you might be the target for a couple thugs to jump you and steal your gun.

According to the taped jailhouse comments of the mope I didn't shoot -well it went like this. "We didn't know the dude was packing until he blew ______ ass off"

Now I told them I was packing when they jumped on me-but they didn't see the gun until I had already shot one of them and was lining up the other guy's eyeball through the sights.
Click to expand...
Interviews with prisoners indicates that they select easy targets and won't mess with someone they know has a gun.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I don't oppose it, I just happen to view open carry as an out in the country sort of thing and concealed carry as more of a discreet practice everywhere else, such as in major cities.
In a crowded urban environment, open carry is risky...you're putting a big bullseye on your ass, and some of the more tender-hearted feel menaced because they don't know who you are.

Again, I have no constitutional argument against open carry everywhere. I would just hope people would have the common sense to restrict their own open carry to "out in the back forty" and conceal their firearms once they come into town.

My opinion only - - YMMV
Click to expand...
We can all have our opinions on carrying style, I just want it all to be legal. After that, do what you want.
 
TurtleDude said:
carrying openly is often stupid. If you are walking on fountain square with a 45 on your hip, you are going to get all sorts of attention by the cops, because at least a dozen people will call the cops.
Click to expand...

And yet, in Venus, TX (pop. 2,960) it would seem absolutely normal to see every other person open carry.

This guy, (on right) a dearly departed dear friend of mine, was pretty much the unofficial "mayor" of that town for as long as I can remember.
He open carried all the time in Venus but never open carried when he would go into downtown Dallas, even though he could.

154253_1711825561965_1293852_n.jpg
 
Wayne Jr said:
Interviews with prisoners indicates that they select easy targets and won't mess with someone they know has a gun.
Click to expand...

That is sometimes true. Years ago, someone did a study that involved the toughest street criminals in a state-I believe it was California. The prisoners were shown film clips of people at a mall, and they were asked to decide if they would mug that person.

The answered varied, but one man was selected by almost all the prisoners as someone they would avoid. And on the surface, it was surprising, since the man was well into middle age and was not big-maybe 5-7-5-9 and under 160 pounds. When the prisoners were asked about him, one guy said-that guy gives me the creeps. Another guy said-that dude just looks like he's gonna kill you. And another guy said-he looks like a hitter (contract killer). Another noted, that while "I think I might be able to take him-I'd probably get hurt pretty badly". Watching the individual, you could see he walked with confidence and he was totally aware of his surroundings. When he passed a corner of a building or wall, he walked in a way that someone couldn't jump him.

Turns out, the guy was a serious bad ass but he was unarmed. He was a highly decorated NCO who had been in one of the elite units in the early part of Nam, and had apparently taken out NVA sentries with knives, piano wire etc.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
And yet, in Venus, TX (pop. 2,960) it would seem absolutely normal to see every other person open carry.

This guy, (on right) a dearly departed dear friend of mine, was pretty much the unofficial "mayor" of that town for as long as I can remember.
He open carried all the time in Venus but never open carried when he would go into downtown Dallas, even though he could.

154253_1711825561965_1293852_n.jpg
Click to expand...

we are pretty much on the same page on this issue.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Ooop, now I am being told that Cali's Castle Doctrine DOES indeed extend to one's vehicle and place of business.
I think I'd better keep looking just to make sure, because Cali self defense laws have changed in the last few years.
I remember one story back in the 1980's where a liquor store owner was put through the wringer over shooting an armed robber.
But lately I seem to remember a few stories where homeowners or business folks shot criminals and the DA ruled it self defense.

I would like to see it codified on solid ground, and of course I'd also like to see Cali loosen their grip on concealed carry.
It could happen.
Click to expand...
No disrespect here, but 1980 was a very long time ago in terms of gun rights/control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom