mattman the gun fan
Member
thanks SMM like i said before,you guys are the most welcoming group ive been in.Many people on other forums jump all over new people.you guys have accepted me right from the beggining. 
thanks
thanks
ohio gun question.
- Thread starter mattman the gun fan
- Start date
- Status
SMMAssociates
Member
Matt:
Or we've got really low standards
.
Seriously, we're glad to have you here. Someday, maybe, you can do this for another young person.
Regards,
Or we've got really low standards
.Seriously, we're glad to have you here. Someday, maybe, you can do this for another young person.
Regards,
mattman the gun fan
Member
hmmm confliction..I heard that in Akron you can own a handgun at 18.Is this true?
Ohio Rev. Code
2923.211. Underage purchase of firearm or handgun.
(A) No person under eighteen years of age shall purchase or attempt to purchase a firearm.
(B) No person under twenty-one years of age shall purchase or attempt to purchase a handgun, provided that this division does not apply to the purchase or attempted purchase of a handgun by a person eighteen years of age or older and under twenty-one years of age if the person eighteen years of age or older and under twentyone years of age is a law enforcement officer who is properly appointed or employed as a law enforcement officer and has received firearms training approved by the Ohio peace officer training council or equivalent firearms training.
(C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of underage purchase of a firearm, a delinquent act that would be a felony of the fourth degree if it could be committed by an adult. Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of underage purchase of a handgun, a misdemeanor of the second degree.
The City of Akron can't allow you to do something the State of Ohio prohibits you from doing.
2923.211. Underage purchase of firearm or handgun.
(A) No person under eighteen years of age shall purchase or attempt to purchase a firearm.
(B) No person under twenty-one years of age shall purchase or attempt to purchase a handgun, provided that this division does not apply to the purchase or attempted purchase of a handgun by a person eighteen years of age or older and under twenty-one years of age if the person eighteen years of age or older and under twentyone years of age is a law enforcement officer who is properly appointed or employed as a law enforcement officer and has received firearms training approved by the Ohio peace officer training council or equivalent firearms training.
(C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of underage purchase of a firearm, a delinquent act that would be a felony of the fourth degree if it could be committed by an adult. Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of underage purchase of a handgun, a misdemeanor of the second degree.
The City of Akron can't allow you to do something the State of Ohio prohibits you from doing.
SMMAssociates
Member
Zahc:
It's important to note that while a person under 21 (disregarding the LE ownership issue) cannot possess (let's call that "own") a handgun, he or she can use one under the supervision of a person over 21. (Or, I suppose a qualifying LEO.)
So mom, dad, or uncle Jake can take the kids to the range....
Without looking, an "under 21" probably can inherit or receive a handgun as a gift, and "own" it, but actual control would have to be deferred. IOW, I can give my 19-year-old daughter a .22 target pistol, but not the key to the box it's in. When she turns 21, she can have the key. Meantime, we can take her and the gun to the range. (She cannot transport the gun herself without a responsible adult in the car. Lord knows about putting it in a backpack and walking to the range, but that's probably a non-issue if said adult is with her.)
IANAL....
Now, if I only had an "uncle Jake".... I had two uncles with firearms experience during WWII, and dad was a machine gunner at a CCC camp before the war. All three were essentially anti's, although dad and one uncle had no problems with me once I got the badge. The other one was a little iffy about it. His older brother bought me a gun once.... (I was over 21
.) Very long story, but we were driving through a bad part of Canton OH one day, and he said: "Stu, I hope you have your gun with you." I just smiled....
****
The funny thing about Matt's Akron reference is that there's some legal stuff in process in Toledo because Toledo is trying to forbid some stuff that OH law permits, and the law in question appears to pre-empt that. Cities in OH can pre-empt State laws where the law in question lacks wording to the effect that they can't.... Wonder why the Courts are involved?
Regards,
It's important to note that while a person under 21 (disregarding the LE ownership issue) cannot possess (let's call that "own") a handgun, he or she can use one under the supervision of a person over 21. (Or, I suppose a qualifying LEO.)
So mom, dad, or uncle Jake can take the kids to the range....
Without looking, an "under 21" probably can inherit or receive a handgun as a gift, and "own" it, but actual control would have to be deferred. IOW, I can give my 19-year-old daughter a .22 target pistol, but not the key to the box it's in. When she turns 21, she can have the key. Meantime, we can take her and the gun to the range. (She cannot transport the gun herself without a responsible adult in the car. Lord knows about putting it in a backpack and walking to the range, but that's probably a non-issue if said adult is with her.)
IANAL....
Now, if I only had an "uncle Jake".... I had two uncles with firearms experience during WWII, and dad was a machine gunner at a CCC camp before the war. All three were essentially anti's, although dad and one uncle had no problems with me once I got the badge. The other one was a little iffy about it. His older brother bought me a gun once.... (I was over 21
.) Very long story, but we were driving through a bad part of Canton OH one day, and he said: "Stu, I hope you have your gun with you." I just smiled.... ****
The funny thing about Matt's Akron reference is that there's some legal stuff in process in Toledo because Toledo is trying to forbid some stuff that OH law permits, and the law in question appears to pre-empt that. Cities in OH can pre-empt State laws where the law in question lacks wording to the effect that they can't.... Wonder why the Courts are involved?
Regards,
mattman the gun fan
Member
I also hear that alot of places are trying to ban guns all together.If that happens i know alot of people that will be hitting the streets for there guns.sad but true.I wish it were back in the founding fathers era were we could over throw the goverment if they tried to screw us over.Oh yes the good days
SMMAssociates
Member
Matt:
I'm hoping that the pendulum is swinging back the other way, but who knows. We've got to work together to help that along.
It seems to be a fact that there are indeed a lot of people out there who either just plain don't care, or actively seek to make serfs out of us. The former we can deal with, I hope, but the latter are probably already taken....
They fear us, and may even wish to be armed, or to have armed bodyguards, but cannot tolerate the idea that us serfs could be able to defend ourselves. After all, if we thought about things like that, we might notice their gold-plated urinals and other great priveleges....
So they pull a Rosie O'Donnell.... Scream to High Heaven that us serfs shouldn't even be able to know what a gun is, and then demand that their kids have armed bodyguards while in school.... (That's one of the funnier ones, actually.)
Why do the people who claim to want to protect me feel that the best way to do it is to disarm me? 
If the activist Judges can be calmed down or eliminated (by the ballot, thank you), our system of government, with all it's flaws, may still be one that can be changed from within by the ballot instead of by the gun.
But, or Founding Fathers seem to have felt that the option should remain, as should the option to protect ourselves (since nobody else really can be counted on, and we might not be able to do it either). "Sporting Purposes" are never mentioned. Part of the problem is that 200+ years have passed, and there are people in positions of power who want to keep it, no matter what, and don't care how many of us are harmed in the process.
There's also another issue (might want to keep this under your hat "in school") - it's not Politically Correct. There are a lot of people out there who are scared to death of an African-American with a gun.... Any restriction on that is going to pass muster. The Black "leaders" want it because they want anything that requires their constituents be dependent on them. White leaders seem to quietly accept that too. This leads to situations where the folks in a Black neighborhood are defenseless against criminals of whatever color, and beholden to the Politicians for protection. Anybody who thinks that a Patrol Unit racing by between hot calls can protect anybody from anything, please stand up....
(If you've not seen "Politically Correct" before, it's sort of slang for "don't offend anybody", which translates to "don't talk about guns, race, religion if it's not Christianity, etc." The sort of thing that lets Muslim clerics run anti-everybody schools and Mosques in the UK because the Government is afraid to offend them. Come to think of it, that's happening in the US, too....)
The good news is that a great many States (I'm too lazy to look up the count) now seem to recognize some of this, and FL (and some other states) have realized the we need further protection by way of "Castle Doctrine". OH's rules are goofy, but who knows - things could improve. Blood hasn't run in the streets, you can't buy a UZI at the 7-11, and my gun hasn't jumped off the table and sprayed bullets around the room yet. In PA and FL this has been the case for at least ten years, too....
One really curious thing. When FL first authorized Concealed Carry (just for FL citizens), the criminal element started preying on tourists, because they almost certainly weren't armed. People started staying away from Florida....
Two results: The rental car companies removed their "thank you for renting from 'whoever'" tags from their cars, which kind of removed the "hey, I'm a tourist, rob me!" signals, and FL started issuing non-resident licenses. I could (never bothered for other reasons) get a non-resident FL CHL for at least 8 years before it was possible to get a CHL in OH for a resident. 'Course, the FL CHL wasn't any good in OH either, but it was good in FL. Great for tourism....
The streets haven't run red yet....
Want a good laugh? When OH's CHL law went into effect, the folks at ODNR wasted no time in publishing rules which prohibit Concealed Carry while hunting. (To be fair, they really are concerned more about poaching than self protection, but it's still insulting.) PA offers a $5 "hunting-only" CHL for all comers.... Concealed Carry while hunting? Horrors....
Regards,
I'm hoping that the pendulum is swinging back the other way, but who knows. We've got to work together to help that along.
It seems to be a fact that there are indeed a lot of people out there who either just plain don't care, or actively seek to make serfs out of us. The former we can deal with, I hope, but the latter are probably already taken....
They fear us, and may even wish to be armed, or to have armed bodyguards, but cannot tolerate the idea that us serfs could be able to defend ourselves. After all, if we thought about things like that, we might notice their gold-plated urinals and other great priveleges....
So they pull a Rosie O'Donnell.... Scream to High Heaven that us serfs shouldn't even be able to know what a gun is, and then demand that their kids have armed bodyguards while in school.... (That's one of the funnier ones, actually.)
Why do the people who claim to want to protect me feel that the best way to do it is to disarm me?
If the activist Judges can be calmed down or eliminated (by the ballot, thank you), our system of government, with all it's flaws, may still be one that can be changed from within by the ballot instead of by the gun.
But, or Founding Fathers seem to have felt that the option should remain, as should the option to protect ourselves (since nobody else really can be counted on, and we might not be able to do it either). "Sporting Purposes" are never mentioned. Part of the problem is that 200+ years have passed, and there are people in positions of power who want to keep it, no matter what, and don't care how many of us are harmed in the process.
There's also another issue (might want to keep this under your hat "in school") - it's not Politically Correct. There are a lot of people out there who are scared to death of an African-American with a gun.... Any restriction on that is going to pass muster. The Black "leaders" want it because they want anything that requires their constituents be dependent on them. White leaders seem to quietly accept that too. This leads to situations where the folks in a Black neighborhood are defenseless against criminals of whatever color, and beholden to the Politicians for protection. Anybody who thinks that a Patrol Unit racing by between hot calls can protect anybody from anything, please stand up....
(If you've not seen "Politically Correct" before, it's sort of slang for "don't offend anybody", which translates to "don't talk about guns, race, religion if it's not Christianity, etc." The sort of thing that lets Muslim clerics run anti-everybody schools and Mosques in the UK because the Government is afraid to offend them. Come to think of it, that's happening in the US, too....)
The good news is that a great many States (I'm too lazy to look up the count) now seem to recognize some of this, and FL (and some other states) have realized the we need further protection by way of "Castle Doctrine". OH's rules are goofy, but who knows - things could improve. Blood hasn't run in the streets, you can't buy a UZI at the 7-11, and my gun hasn't jumped off the table and sprayed bullets around the room yet. In PA and FL this has been the case for at least ten years, too....
One really curious thing. When FL first authorized Concealed Carry (just for FL citizens), the criminal element started preying on tourists, because they almost certainly weren't armed. People started staying away from Florida....
Two results: The rental car companies removed their "thank you for renting from 'whoever'" tags from their cars, which kind of removed the "hey, I'm a tourist, rob me!" signals, and FL started issuing non-resident licenses. I could (never bothered for other reasons) get a non-resident FL CHL for at least 8 years before it was possible to get a CHL in OH for a resident. 'Course, the FL CHL wasn't any good in OH either, but it was good in FL. Great for tourism....
The streets haven't run red yet....
Want a good laugh? When OH's CHL law went into effect, the folks at ODNR wasted no time in publishing rules which prohibit Concealed Carry while hunting. (To be fair, they really are concerned more about poaching than self protection, but it's still insulting.) PA offers a $5 "hunting-only" CHL for all comers.... Concealed Carry while hunting? Horrors....
Regards,
mattman the gun fan
Member
i was talking with one of my friends and he said that the only reason we have so many gun rules is because the goverment is afraid of us trying to take over.In a sense i agree but i think there are good reasons for gun laws,but some gun laws are a bit extreme.Cant wait till i can vote im takeing full advantage of it.i think the idea the founding fathers had with the ability to overthrow a corrupt goverment was a good idea.I think america has a bit of a one sided fight.The goverment can control our every move but we have nothing to say that can change them? we cant pass bills only they can, we cant decide who gos to war only they can, we cant make final decision on were our tax dollars go.As my friend said the goverment has us whipped in a sense.Dont get me wrong if everyone had there way things wouldnt be going well,but we should have more say in what gos on in OUR home.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Yes, Matt, our system is the worst in the world -- except for all the others. Majority rule (pure democracy) does not provide the valuable protections of a constitutional republic (like we have).
In many states (not Ohio), a bill can be passed by "initiative." That is you collect enough signatures and it will be put on the next ballot. the State legislature cannot overrule it. It can only be repealed by a vote of the people.
Majority rule (pure democracy) does not provide the valuable protections of a constitutional republic (like we have).In many states (not Ohio), a bill can be passed by "initiative." That is you collect enough signatures and it will be put on the next ballot. the State legislature cannot overrule it. It can only be repealed by a vote of the people.
Well and good, that's the way I understand the law as well, but it of course does me no good as my parents don't stay with me at my apt to make sure I'm handling my handguns properly. Shotguns are better for HD anyway but it's no less insulting as a result. The fact remains that in OH I cannot keep my handguns with me at my place, or transport them to and from the range or shoot them without my parents
presence. Of course 50bmg is fair game, but .25 auto makes me a felon :banghead: Making the 'ownership' pointless.
- Status