So can we carry in Ohio now?

[ATM]

Say it with me..... "I don't know"

"Nothing" is a rather far cry from "I don't know". Those two are not synonymous - I can know that it means nothing, even if you are still unconvinced and want to believe that it was placed there to somehow actually modify the term "firearm" which precedes it. In reality, it does not. It does nothing and has no meaning, as are a great number of clauses commonly found in modern legislation.

Can it have a purpose without a meaning? Sure, even as it does nothing.

I'd also like to stress at this point that it could not have any less meaning than it currently does in the context of the sentence containing it. This is as close to a mathematical proof as I will be able to present on the matter. If it is not sufficient, perhaps I could come up with some diagrams or pictures.

 

[Bill of Rights]

What the hell does that mean???

All or part of your firearm, including raw materials, has at some time been sold across state or national borders. Example: You purchase a gun from your LGS. They in turn had purchased it from a distributor. They purchased it from the manufacturer. They bought the raw materials and parts from their vendors. Each of those entities is located in a different state. Each one of those transactions affects interstate commerce.

But that commerce ceases once the transaction is complete. If I purchase a firearm in-state, from an in-state FFL, I have not engaged in interstate commerce.

Actually, it's worse than that. There was a case, and I think it was CA, where someone had for sale an item wholly grown in-state. (that is, seeds had not traveled across state lines, either organic or no fertilizer and no weed killers from over state lines, etc.) and the ruling was that Congress could still control it due to the fact that something of that nature, while it did not itself travel in interstate commerce, still affected interstate commerce due to preventing said commerce by exclusion. In simpler terms, if you bought that one here, you didn't buy one from somewhere else, and therefore still affected those purchases. Even more simply, this would be like saying that if every schoolchild brought lunch from home and no one bought the school lunch last week, the school was forced to waste lots of food, therefore, a rule is made that no child shall bring lunch from home. All must eat lunch prepared in the school cafeteria.

The legislative branch wanted to impose a restriction, so they passed a law and the executive branch signed it into being.
They were told by the judicial branch that they didn't have the constitutional authority to do that, so it got axed.
The legislative branch fabricated an extremely weak justification for the authority to again enact the same restriction it had originally tried.
Again, it was signed into law by the executive.
It still stands as current law and as one of the best (that is to say, most egregious and logically absurd) examples of abusing and contorting the spirit of the commerce clause in an attempt to justify a federal authority to intrude upon matters otherwise reserved to the states or the people.




Congress will argue that school zone gun violence has an effect on interstate commerce via disruption of the educational process even after the gun ceases to be the object of commerce.

That's utterly absurd - which means you're absolutely correct. The federal government has abused the commerce clause to give themselves unlimited power.

In other news, water is wet. No sarcasm to you, Chip, just saying that that's the nature of gov't, to increase its own size and reach. In short, you're right.

That's the point, it means nothing apart from the legislative necessity of its inclusion to widen the authority of congress to enact its prohibition.

It serves no other purpose or function and has no impact upon the actual sentence.

It does not serve in any manner to limit the scope, style or type of firearm prohibited.

You could omit that clause completely and the remaining sentence would mean exactly the same thing for all practical purposes.

If you can't tell, I despise it.

Say it with me..... "I don't know"

"Nothing" is a rather far cry from "I don't know". Those two are not synonymous - I can know that it means nothing, even if you are still unconvinced and want to believe that it was placed there to somehow actually modify the term "firearm" which precedes it. In reality, it does not. It does nothing and has no meaning, as are a great number of clauses commonly found in modern legislation.

Can it have a purpose without a meaning? Sure, even as it does nothing.

I'd also like to stress at this point that it could not have any less meaning than it currently does in the context of the sentence containing it. This is as close to a mathematical proof as I will be able to present on the matter. If it is not sufficient, perhaps I could come up with some diagrams or pictures.

Thegeek, ATM is, as usual, giving a thorough and complete answer. He does know and is answering correctly. The addition of "that has traveled in or otherwise affects interstate commerce" is Congress' way of saying, "This is why we can talk about this. It's in the Constitution, donchaknow?" It completely perverts the intention of that clause, and serves only to make a mockery of the Founders' intent, but a poor SCOTUS ruling allows them to do it whenever they want to rule on something that is not theirs to rule on. Examples would include light bulbs and the amount of water a toilet is allowed to use when you flush it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Thegeek]

So, in terms of proof in law, what would it mean? Like some laws say "knowingly" and it's pretty easy to define that in terms of "reasonable doubt". So how would it possibly apply to John Q traveling in OH?

 

[swmp9jrm]

I'm going to post this again here since the subject has been brought up again - it didn't seem to generate much interest when I posted it in the 2nd amendment forum. This still concerns me, and I'd like to hear what others have to say.

Reading the bill (HB234) it appears that it will take effect 3/23/2015. I'm certainly not an expert, but there is something that does make me wonder if Indiana's LTCH qualifies for acceptance. Sec. 109.69.(A)(1)(a) says the requirements for the license-issuing state should be 'substantially comparable' to the Ohio requirements. Sec.2923.125(3) requires proof of competency, which is not required in Indiana. Does this preclude our LTCH from being accepted? I'm going to go ahead with renewing my Utah permit just in case.

Sec. 109.69.

(A)(1) The attorney general shall negotiate and enter into a reciprocity agreement with any other license-issuing state under which a concealed handgun license that is issued by the other state is recognized in this state, except as provided in division (B) of this section, if the attorney general determines that both of the following apply:

(a) The eligibility requirements imposed by that license-issuing state for that license are substantially comparable to the eligibility requirements for a concealed handgun license issued under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.
(b) That license-issuing state recognizes a concealed handgun license issued under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.
​

(3) One or more of the following competency certifications, each of which shall reflect that, regarding a certification described in division (B)(3)(a), (b), (c), (e), or (f) of this section, within the three years immediately preceding the application the applicant has performed that to which the competency certification relates and that, regarding a certification described in division (B)(3)(d) of this section, the applicant currently is an active or reserve member of the armed forces of the United States or within the six ten years immediately preceding the application the honorable discharge or retirement to which the competency certification relates occurred:


​

 

[jwh20]

I'm going to post this again here since the subject has been brought up again - it didn't seem to generate much interest when I posted it in the 2nd amendment forum. This still concerns me, and I'd like to hear what others have to say.

Reading the bill (HB234) it appears that it will take effect 3/23/2015. I'm certainly not an expert, but there is something that does make me wonder if Indiana's LTCH qualifies for acceptance. Sec. 109.69.(A)(1)(a) says the requirements for the license-issuing state should be 'substantially comparable' to the Ohio requirements. Sec.2923.125(3) requires proof of competency, which is not required in Indiana. Does this preclude our LTCH from being accepted? I'm going to go ahead with renewing my Utah permit just in case.

Sec. 109.69.

(A)(1) The attorney general shall negotiate and enter into a reciprocity agreement with any other license-issuing state under which a concealed handgun license that is issued by the other state is recognized in this state, except as provided in division (B) of this section, if the attorney general determines that both of the following apply:

(a) The eligibility requirements imposed by that license-issuing state for that license are substantially comparable to the eligibility requirements for a concealed handgun license issued under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.
(b) That license-issuing state recognizes a concealed handgun license issued under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.
​

(3) One or more of the following competency certifications, each of which shall reflect that, regarding a certification described in division (B)(3)(a), (b), (c), (e), or (f) of this section, within the three years immediately preceding the application the applicant has performed that to which the competency certification relates and that, regarding a certification described in division (B)(3)(d) of this section, the applicant currently is an active or reserve member of the armed forces of the United States or within the six ten years immediately preceding the application the honorable discharge or retirement to which the competency certification relates occurred:


​

From the analysis of the bill text at: http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/analyses130/h0234-rs-130.pdf

Provides that if a person who is not an Ohio resident and has a valid concealedhandgun license from another state, regardless of whether the other state hasentered into a reciprocity agreement with the Attorney General, and the person istemporarily in Ohio, that out-of-state license will be recognized in Ohio during thetime that the person is temporarily in Ohio (R.C. 109.69(B)(3)).

 

[chipbennett]

I'm going to post this again here since the subject has been brought up again - it didn't seem to generate much interest when I posted it in the 2nd amendment forum. This still concerns me, and I'd like to hear what others have to say.

Reading the bill (HB234) it appears that it will take effect 3/23/2015. I'm certainly not an expert, but there is something that does make me wonder if Indiana's LTCH qualifies for acceptance. Sec. 109.69.(A)(1)(a) says the requirements for the license-issuing state should be 'substantially comparable' to the Ohio requirements. Sec.2923.125(3) requires proof of competency, which is not required in Indiana. Does this preclude our LTCH from being accepted? I'm going to go ahead with renewing my Utah permit just in case.

Sec. 109.69.

(A)(1) The attorney general shall negotiate and enter into a reciprocity agreement with any other license-issuing state under which a concealed handgun license that is issued by the other state is recognized in this state, except as provided in division (B) of this section, if the attorney general determines that both of the following apply:

(a) The eligibility requirements imposed by that license-issuing state for that license are substantially comparable to the eligibility requirements for a concealed handgun license issued under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.
(b) That license-issuing state recognizes a concealed handgun license issued under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.
​

(3) One or more of the following competency certifications, each of which shall reflect that, regarding a certification described in division (B)(3)(a), (b), (c), (e), or (f) of this section, within the three years immediately preceding the application the applicant has performed that to which the competency certification relates and that, regarding a certification described in division (B)(3)(d) of this section, the applicant currently is an active or reserve member of the armed forces of the United States or within the six ten years immediately preceding the application the honorable discharge or retirement to which the competency certification relates occurred:


​

You're looking at the wrong section. See Section (B), not (A).

 

[swmp9jrm]

You're looking at the wrong section. See Section (B), not (A).

Yep - you are right. Just didn't read far enough into the bill. Thanks for the insight. My Utah permit is due for renewal this year - I might go ahead with renewal at least this time just to give the new law some time to settle in!

 

[Bill of Rights]

So, in terms of proof in law, what would it mean? Like some laws say "knowingly" and it's pretty easy to define that in terms of "reasonable doubt". So how would it possibly apply to John Q traveling in OH?

It means, "If you have a gun and you know or have reason to believe you are in a school zone, and no license from the state in which the school zone exists, you have broken a federal law. (and we, the Congress of the United States, can't make laws against you carrying a gun you lawfully own, but we can, under the Constitution, make a law about something that traveled in interstate commerce.)" In short, it's Congress's way of telling SCOTUS to go pound sand, because SCOTUS told them that the law they originally passed was unConstitutional.

The effect on you, John Q, traveling in OH, is that you need to stay the hell out of that 1000' range around any place you know to be a school. That's about a fifth of a mile circle around the school.

Although Wiki is not an absolute source, here's a wiki that explains it for you, too: Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From that page:

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was originally passed as section 1702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990. It added 18 U.S.C. § 922(q); 18 U.S.C. § 922 itself was added by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.

The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.

Following the Lopez decision, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno proposed changes to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) that were adopted in section 657 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub.L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009, enacted September 30, 1996.[SUP][4][/SUP] These changes required that the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce."[SUP][5][/SUP] As nearly all firearms have moved in interstate commerce at some point in their existence, critics assert this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling.[SUP][4][/SUP]

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[nick112288]

This might be a dumb question, but does it pertain to firearms being on school property in any possible situation? I ask because my wife is a preschool teacher in Kentucky and we are getting her LTCH. If she can't have one even in a lockbox unloaded in her car then she wouldn't be able to carry any time other than the weekends

 

[Thegeek]

It means, "If you have a gun and you know or have reason to believe you are in a school zone, and no license from the state in which the school zone exists, you have broken a federal law. (and we, the Congress of the United States, can't make laws against you carrying a gun you lawfully own, but we can, under the Constitution, make a law about something that traveled in interstate commerce.)" In short, it's Congress's way of telling SCOTUS to go pound sand, because SCOTUS told them that the law they originally passed was unConstitutional.

The effect on you, John Q, traveling in OH, is that you need to stay the hell out of that 1000' range around any place you know to be a school. That's about a fifth of a mile circle around the school.

Although Wiki is not an absolute source, here's a wiki that explains it for you, too: Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From that page:



Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Bill

The hypothetical link....

I could smoke crack out of the barrel, I guess I should look up all the laws pertaining to drug paraphernalia.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The hypothetical link....

I could smoke crack out of the barrel, I guess I should look up all the laws pertaining to drug paraphernalia.

Are you just trying to be argumentative? Or is it that you'll only believe it if someone tells you whatever it is you think it means really is what it means?

Tell you what. Since no one on here will qualify, you find yourself a good, licensed attorney, pay his/her retainer, and ask your questions there. That way, you'll get what you pay for and we'll all be happier- you for getting an answer you'll believe and the rest of us for not having to try to explain something to someone who chooses not to understand.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Thegeek]

No, I get it. Throw some bogus qualifier in there about it having to do with interstate commerce and it changes the landscape. It's just as over-reaching as my my statement.

You could just make any hypothetical link you wanted..... Say it could be used as an instrument for amputation and require a medical license.....

 

[Bill of Rights]

No, I get it. Throw some bogus qualifier in there about it having to do with interstate commerce and it changes the landscape. It's just as over-reaching as my my statement.

You could just make any hypothetical link you wanted..... Say it could be used as an instrument for amputation and require a medical license.....

Oh, OK, I misunderstood your meaning. You meant it as a flag to the Congress, where I took it as an intentional failure to understand. I apologize.

The only difference between the "interstate commerce" thing and what you said is that either way, YOU are the one who pays the penalty, not the Congress-critters.

Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. The error was mine.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Actually, it's worse than that. There was a case, and I think it was CA, where someone had for sale an item wholly grown in-state. (that is, seeds had not traveled across state lines, either organic or no fertilizer and no weed killers from over state lines, etc.) and the ruling was that Congress could still control it due to the fact that something of that nature, while it did not itself travel in interstate commerce, still affected interstate commerce due to preventing said commerce by exclusion. In simpler terms, if you bought that one here, you didn't buy one from somewhere else, and therefore still affected those purchases. Even more simply, this would be like saying that if every schoolchild brought lunch from home and no one bought the school lunch last week, the school was forced to waste lots of food, therefore, a rule is made that no child shall bring lunch from home. All must eat lunch prepared in the school cafeteria.

Blessings,
Bill

Actually it's even worse than that. I believe the case you're thinking of is Wickard v Filburn the farmer was growing wheat for on farm use, not for sale. The argument was that if he didn't grow it, he would have to buy animal feed and since animal feed travels in interstate commerce....
Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia