OH - Forfeit 2A Rights Over Minor Offense

[MA_Shooter]

The Ohio appellate court handed down a critical 2nd Amendment-bending decision over the weekend that may have given us a glimpse of how states will maneuver to infringe upon your right to bear arms.

The defendant in the case- Paul Stone- has just been told by the appellate court that he must face felony gun possession charges after Montgomery County court initially dismissed the charges. Stone believed he legally obtained his weapon and violated no statute in its possession or use, and it seems the lower court agreed.

>snip<

So how did the court decide against this 2nd amendment defense? It punted, refusing even to consider the 2nd amendment question. In essence, the Ohio court has said a state legislature can pass a law that makes it a felony to possess a gun if you have been convicted of any crime at all.

Link

 

[dreadedtrash]

Sounds like garbage to me

 

[MaverickNH]

More discourse here http://volokh.com/2011/07/23/the-se...me-possible-marijuana-possession-convictions/

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This all begs some important questions: What precedent does this set? Can a state legislature pass a law banning anyone from possessing guns after the most mundane offenses? How about a speeding ticket? Riding a bicycle without a helmet? Failure to recycle?

They could have cited some examples of offenses in MA that are even sillier.

 

[Jose]

They could have cited some examples of offenses in MA that are even sillier.

If the OP thinks that Ohio has a lock on this, he better check his backyard.

I venture to bet that every state has a similar statute.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If the OP thinks that Ohio has a lock on this, he better check his backyard.

I venture to bet that every state has a similar statute.

Yeah, but I'd give MA the schitzo award on the drug issue.

Mairjuana offense prior to decriminalization - lifetime state (not sure about federal) handgun possession ban. Get held responsible(*) for less than one OZ post-decriminalization and the statute specifically states it may not be used against you for any state benefit or used to deny you any state license.

* - In MA one is not "convicted", but is "held responsible", for a civil offense.

 

[Spanz]

I view mass as even more restrictive. Whatever your police chief view as unsuitable behavior...he can use to deny you an LTC.

 

[MA_Shooter]

If the OP thinks that Ohio has a lock on this, he better check his backyard.

Without question, MA laws are much more restrictive and broader in scope wrt their ability to restrict our 2A rights.

 

[Jose]

My point is that there are very few states that will not DQ you for misd drug offenses.

Not saying I agree. Just saying the way it is.

 

[cb1]

My point is that there are very few states that will not DQ you for misd drug offenses.

Not saying I agree. Just saying the way it is.

And it is equally absurd regardless of what State you're in.

Reason number 345869772 why anyone with a shred of respect for personal liberty should demand an end to the "drug war".

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

In regards to drug offenses, the federal government states that prior drug offenses older than one year are not a dis qualifier on the federal level. The states may impose their own laws and dis qualifiers , but the feds only consider the last twelve months. My source is below. It is under the heading of "Federal Categories of Persons Prohibited From Receiving"; about 3/4 of the way down the page.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

 

[lancecolonel]

Yeah, but I'd give MA the schitzo award on the drug issue.

Mairjuana offense prior to decriminalization - lifetime state (not sure about federal) handgun possession ban. Get held responsible(*) for less than one OZ post-decriminalization and the statute specifically states it may not be used against you for any state benefit or used to deny you any state license.

* - In MA one is not "convicted", but is "held responsible", for a civil offense.

i realize the good folks at GOAL and COMM2A are very busy but when will they take on that fail? being "grandfathered" in to DQ status is just plain wrong. what other portion of state law does this happen in? i'm no expert but i'm willing to bet gun laws are the only place you'll find such backwards thinking.

 

[terraformer]

i realize the good folks at GOAL and COMM2A are very busy but when will they take on that fail? being "grandfathered" in to DQ status is just plain wrong. what other portion of state law does this happen in? i'm no expert but i'm willing to bet gun laws are the only place you'll find such backwards thinking.

No, there is a sealing statute for previous convictions that ostensibly allow previous convictions to not count against licensing. That said, we don't know of anyone who has ever used it.

 

[rlee]

Yeah, but I'd give MA the schitzo award on the drug issue.

Mairjuana offense prior to decriminalization - lifetime state (not sure about federal) handgun possession ban. Get held responsible(*) for less than one OZ post-decriminalization and the statute specifically states it may not be used against you for any state benefit or used to deny you any state license.

* - In MA one is not "convicted", but is "held responsible", for a civil offense.

Only in Mass could one get held responsible for less than one OZ.
I assume that this should read "no more than one OZ in the last N years."
Anyone know what the minimum period is between instances of being responsible for your actions?
Not that I intend to be held responsible, of course.
(sorry)

 

[mark056]

War on Drugs = fail.

Interesting to see Ohio back in the gun news again. It's quite apparent that there are still lots of anti-2A people in the Buckeye State and they are marshaling forces and reacting to the favorable 2A legislation in effect for the last couple of years and recently improved on with expanded places authorized to carry.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Interesting to see Ohio back in the gun news again. It's quite apparent that there are still lots of anti-2A people in the Buckeye State and they are marshaling forces and reacting to the favorable 2A legislation in effect for the last couple of years and recently improved on with expanded places authorized to carry.

For many years, the anti's has been on the offensive in the legislature. It's only been in recent years that they had to fight legislation that makes things better for our side - and they don't like the new scenario one bit.

I cannot think of one state that passed legislation that reduced the ability to get a carry permit, or places one is good, except Michigan (that state added a few prohibited places when they went from may issue to shall issue)

 

[mark056]

For many years, the anti's has been on the offensive in the legislature. It's only been in recent years that they had to fight legislation that makes things better for our side - and they don't like the new scenario one bit.

I cannot think of one state that passed legislation that reduced the ability to get a carry permit, or places one is good, except Michigan (that state added a few prohibited places when they went from may issue to shall issue)

My understanding is that Ohio passed a law which now allows concealed carry in restaurants and bars. This is supposed to go into effect Sept 1st.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/ohio_senate_passes_bill_allowi.html

 

[Jose]

My understanding is that Ohio passed a law which now allows concealed carry in restaurants and bars. This is supposed to go into effect Sept 1st.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/ohio_senate_passes_bill_allowi.html

September 30. The Bill was filed with the Secretary of state on June 28th or so.

 

[Jose]

War on Drugs = fail.

Interesting to see Ohio back in the gun news again. It's quite apparent that there are still lots of anti-2A people in the Buckeye State and they are marshaling forces and reacting to the favorable 2A legislation in effect for the last couple of years and recently improved on with expanded places authorized to carry.

There's not that many of them and they are losing every single fight they pick with us.

Since CC became legal here in 2004, the antis have lost in the legislature three times and the few times they've derailed pro gun bills, we just file again and win. The antis have lost TWICE at the state supreme court trying to invalidate the state pre-emption statute and the general law status of concealed carry (antis wanted to let cities and towns erect anti ccw ordinances). The antis have lost at the ballot box TWICE IN A ROW with the election of solid pro gun governors and attorney generals from both parties.

Toby Hoover (Ohio's queen bitch anti) and her minions make a lot of noise that no one listens to. Do not pay undue attention to their hysterics. They are as relevant here as HCI or VPC are at the national level.

With the latest round of legislation, Ohio's CC laws are basically the same as Florida's and Texas. And there are even more bills on file to severely reduce the number of no-carry zones and make the license optional.

 

[joeendris]

And it is equally absurd regardless of what State you're in.

Reason number 345869772 why anyone with a shred of respect for personal liberty should demand an end to the "drug war".

Wait, we're at war? Are we profiting off of said war? Usually wars make money for one group or another. Who's making money here? Our fine tax code is in place to collect on goods sold during said war, right? Unless I'm completely mistaken?