Ohio Legislature Bill Would Exempt Elected Officials From Bans On Guns In Public Buildings
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 5 months ago
Under a bill in the legislature, elected officials in Ohio could take hidden guns into government facilities where other people are banned from carrying weapons.
Rep. Nino Vitale said House Bill 310, which he introduced this week, is intended as a self-defense measure for elected officials.
“The political climate is unfortunately extremely extreme,” the Urbana Republican said. “There are a lot of places in government where we’re simply not protected.”
Vitale cited the shooting last month at a congressional baseball practice in Virginia as an example of the heightened threats against lawmakers. Vitale said he has been threatened, called names and followed from the Statehouse.
Vitale, a concealed-carry trainer, said the measure would apply only to elected officials who have a concealed-carry permit.
He said his legislation might contribute to civil discourse.
“If someone knows someone can defend themselves, they might keep their rhetoric at an acceptable level,” Vitale said.
But even some gun-rights advocates argue that the legislation would create a special class of concealed-carry permit holders by allowing elected state and local officials to carry guns on government property while other citizens are prohibited from doing so.
Jim Irvine, executive director of the Buckeye Firearms Association, questioned what makes lawmakers more deserving of expanded concealed-carry rights. His organization is reviewing the legislation before taking a formal position.
I don’t have to see the legislation and I can take a formal position right now. If the legislation exempts only elected officials and not everyone, then kill it. I oppose it in all its forms, for all time, and in any manifestation.
On July 30, 2017 at 9:41 pm, DAN III said:
“Rules for thee, but not for me.”
How typical of the ruling elites.
On July 30, 2017 at 9:45 pm, Fred said:
This is the exact kind of thing that is leading us to CW2.
On July 31, 2017 at 12:25 am, James said:
Oh look. Another carve-out for the king and the kingsmen. That’s new.
On July 31, 2017 at 1:13 am, StillSworn said:
Would passage of such a bill open the door for
a discrimination law suit?
On July 31, 2017 at 4:54 am, DAN III said:
Stillworn,
Let me advise you to put the thought of “lawsuit” out of your mind. A lawsuit only works to enrichen lawyers and justify the court, the “justus” system. The cost for a private citizen to file and pursue a lawsuit is beyond the means of most citizens. Acting Pro Se, regardless of your skill level, will get you no love from the court. They will look down on you as you are not one of “them, an “officer of then court” as all attorneys are. You, a Pro Se litigant, are to bd despised. A win for you will be a rarity. So, trying to save money as a Pro Se litigant is not much of an option.
It is evident to me that your lawsuit remark stems from never enduring the cost and time investment of a plaintiff against the government. I suggest you as a private citizen and other folks, get the “lawsuit” as an avenue to obtain justice, out of your head, now !
On July 31, 2017 at 8:36 am, Randolph Scott said:
Maybe, just maybe we will get to read about a legislative session that gets really heated and a CQB takes place between the Dem’s and RePugs. Hopefully they will exterminate each other.
On August 1, 2017 at 9:30 pm, Brian P. said:
How about bringing a criminal case against these and every other legislator that carves out special rights for themselves? This is violating every concept of equal protection under the law. If any state’s gun laws are too burdensome for the politicians’ rights to self-defense than the laws they’re altering are too burdensome for every citizen.