Concealed carry bill headed to governor

Three changes being made to current gun law.
Scott Seitz2
Dec 17, 2012


An amended House Bill 495 was passed by the Ohio Senate on Thursday by a 26-7 vote. Two and a half hours later, the Ohio House voted 66-23 to concur with Senate amendments.

The amended bill makes three changes to current gun law. A detailed story about the changes was published in Saturday's Reflector.



I agree the "big time wrestling" of journalism (O'Reily, Beck, and Limbaugh) masquerader as news cannot be taken seriously.


"TThere are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer

Dosn't matter when it is there will always be those who seek power over you."

Ahh...yea..."an apple a day keeps the doctor away".

Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Information

Yes the 2nd amendment is 100% absolute! Prove it isn't. This should be good.


Dr. Information, it's hard for me to take your seriously, however absolute means without limits. We have a second amendment right to bear arms. This does not mean it is lawful to carry a fully automatic machine gun, flame thrower, or cannon. As far as the first amendment we have to right to free speech, however we cannot legally threaten and yell fire in a crowded theater. How's that, was it good enough?

jack langhals

Had Congress and The Osama Adm. renewed the School Safety Program might have been a deterent also.They had to make cuts for Bozo Care and protecting the opium fields in Afganistan.


Your are obviously demented! There's meds for that. Get some PLEASE!


deertracker writes:

"Your are obviously demented!"

It's "you're," or "you are" not "your are." You're 'supposedly' educated right? :)


Jack, just how would that have changed anything in Newtown, which had a state or the art security system?

HS Sports Fan

Here we go again! The ole Democrat-Republican crap again.


This has nothing to do with Dem vs Repub. It has to do with 2A rights, something that even most democrats support.


"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)


"conform to the probable one in which it was passed" I agree it is probable that they didn't mean for citizens in a time of domestic peace to carry military weapons and armor piercing bullets.


Another inane comment from m-ville
When they wrote the Constitution the muzzle loading flintlock was the top of the line military weapon.
It would be better to be hit with a 50cal armor piercing bullet then a 68cal soft lead ball. the armor piercing with go through leaving a clean hole, the lead ball would expand and tear the flesh to pieces.
Since the Geneva conventions restricted the use of soft point bullets the ammunition for rifles and pistols have been designed for wounding instead of outright killing.
a wounded soldier takes a couple others out of the fight to care for him.


Hey propman what are you talking about I didn't even say anything. You are getting really good at using the word Inane though. Let's see how many more times you can use it in the same blog. Learning knew words is fun. Isn't it?


Sorry m-ville he sounded just like you


Homicide by firearms for blacks is at a far higher rate than for whites. In order to make the U.S. less of a "violent country," why not just confiscate guns from blacks? :p

Let's see Senators Feinstein, Schumer and other big liberals go door-to-door and collect 'em.

"Blacks were about 7 times more likely than whites to be a homicide victim (30 versus 4 per 100,000 persons age 12 or older respectively), and approximately 9 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide committed with a firearm (25 versus 3 per 100,000 persons age 12 or older, respectively)."


So how would you prevent the white kid with a white mother as a white gun owner from killing a bunch of white kids? :p


@ deertracker:

Can't, but without black-on-black homicides, overall U.S. deaths by guns would look not unlike European rates.

Why are inner city blacks killing each other; not enough wealth redistribution?


Why don't you go to the inner city and ask them?


@ deertracker:

A childish response to a serious question:

Why aren't your heroes like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Pres. Obama marching, protesting and bringing legislation to bear on the inner cities?

Don't focus on the "real" problem eh?

Seems that the pointy-headed liberal politicos only focus when it's little upper income white children eh?


Contango would rather kick all the blacks out of the country than have to give up his right to conseal and carry. Yeah good idea lets get those Guido's from the Jersey Shore next.


@ m-ville123:

“Kick ‘em out”? Absurd.

Extremist liberal policies helped to create the inner city problems of dependency, drugs and gun violence. Where are the so-called leaders?

Giving up your freedom for safety is the surest path to slavery.

"H*ll, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns." - P.J. O'Rourke


I assume his anti-government theme developed after we elected a black president, probably still upset that black's have the right to vote.


@ dontcare:

Seems like the inner city gangs are the ones who are anti-govt.


The Soros and Oboma group want to take yuour weapon s away, so they can control you like Hitler did?

This is a good bit of info, in my opinion.


Will some of you give it a rest? NO ONE wants to take your guns or violate your 2nd amendment rights. This is simply about safety as a gun owner. Some of you spew absolute garbage!


I agree. Impossible to take the guns. I am a avid hunter, have several guns and I believe something needs to be done. Gun trigger locks mandatory with all sales? Technology that only person w/ ring/ bracelet can fire weapon? I don't know. This is a tough one to figure out. Jail isn't going to do anything because most commit suicide and don't care anyways. Should school teachers be aloud to carry weapons? Then if one shoots a student or something people will be p*ssed about that. I just think something has to be done to keep the guns away from these people. It's not the "boys in the hood" doing this stuff either. It's your average suburban white boy. So keeping them from the "criminals" isn't a case either. I don't have a answer and I'm sure any that are brought up will stir arguments. Should make for some interesting reading tho in the next year.


The beast that did that killing is NOT "your average suburban white boy."

Remember this-

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


This happened because a gun owner failed in their responsibility to properly store their gun in a safe manner and allowed them to be accessed by a mentally compromised individual.

Unfortunately there is no gun control law that would have prevented this poor sick young man from hurting people crimes since he would have found a way to hurt someone, the ready access by an irresponsible owner made it happen in one manner over another.