Can anybody confirm if this is true in any form?

M

MicroBalrog

New member
'Ohio is another state where the NRA showed its pro-gun control instincts in 2001, Fusarro reports. Local Gun Owners of America activist Douh Joseph was backing the 'Vermont Carry' bill sponsored by state legislator Tom Brinkma, who now fills the seat once occupied by the equally pro-gun-rights Ron Hood.

(Vermont is the one state in the union where law-abiding citizens - and even visitors - are allowed to carry concealed weapons without seeking any sort of state license or permit... helping to explain the states' unusually low crime rate. The Brinkman bill would merely acknowledge that law-abiding Ohioans enjoy the same constitutional right.)

"The Brinkman bill has twenty-two co-sponsors and it was doing fine. Well, the NRA couldn't have that. So suddenly the NRA had their own bill that would require state permits to carry a concealed weapon, and that has forty-eight sponsors'

"Even [Ohio legislator] Ed Jerse, who's an anti-gunner, took one look at that and asked the NRA rep, 'Wait a minute. Isn't it your position that carrying a gun is a consittutional right? Isn't it less constitutional to require a permit?'

Vin Suprinowitch, 'The Ballad Of Carl Drega' p.397, Mountain Media, Reno, USA, 2002
 
Same kind of thing happened in Utah. We had a good bill going, and the NRA scuttled it.


I'm sure the same has happened in almost every state.

That's why they don't get my money. I don't CARE if they are the loudest voice in Washington - they say the WRONG things!
 
Politics is the art of the possible.

Please choose one of these possibilities:

A. A bill which completely recognizes your unlimited RKBA and never makes it out of committee.
B. A bill which partially recognizes a limited RKBA and becomes law thereby increasing the number of right-to-carry states in the U.S.
C. No bill. No change. Ohio remains a "right denied" state.

Hint: A & C are the same.

The NRA backed the bill that was actually capable of being passed by the legislature and signed into law by a governor who opposes the RTC. It is not a perfect bill and the law regarding carrying in a motor vehicle is onerous to the point of stupidity.

We lost our rights one step at a time, and that's the way we will regain them.

-Dave
 
The Brinkman bill had 22 co-sponsors and NEVER made it out of committee. This is all past-tense stuff, Micro. :) Your post has the date 2001 in it. I'm talking about 2003-4, but it is still a done deal.

"Doing fine" is one man's opinion. I supported that bill, but I am enough of a realist to know that it was DOA in the committee. Brinkman made an attempt to attach his bill to Ohio HB12 as an amendment during debate and it was soundly defeated.
 
I wolud also note, TBM, that strategically, your approach has disadvantages just as it has tactical advantages. Think Lee vs. Grant. :)
 
Suzanne Gratia Hupp tried to get a Vermont bill passed in Texas but didn't get enough support from the right people - to their shame.

It is funny I have seen claims of credit for NRA support for the recent Vermont style bill getting through in Alaska.
 
MicroB, fellow Buckeye The Blues Man covered several points well about what happened in Ohio. Rep. Brinkman has come to a few of my gun club's annual dinners, and always stayed w-a-y late to chat with us. As much as I liked the idea(l) of Vermont style carry as proposed by Mr. Brinkman, Tom could never satisfactorily address one concern that we had about it: The lack of carry reciprocity with other states.
One other small point before the soapbox collapses under my bulk. While the Ohio law as passed has some flaws, one extremely important feature stayed in there through all the hearings: the "SHALL issue" language.
 
The camel and tent tactic worked up here. First "shall issue", then loosening the rules on where, then "Vermont-carry".

If Croft or the others had gone for "Vermont" out of the gate we'd still be back in the bad old days.

Nothing wrong with using incrementalism against the incrementalists.

Calling pro-gunners who take the long (and actually realistic) view "traitors" doesn't get anyone anywhere. We've lost a lot of freedoms over the years one step at a time, leave the Libertarian wet dreams in the storybooks and start working toward getting them back the same way.

But hell, doing things the smart way might actually WORK and could therefore prevent the societal meltdown I think some of "us" secretly desire. :rolleyes:
 
Carebear,

When the Honorable Gratia Hupp attempted to get the Vermont style bill into the Texas legislature there already were carry permits.
 
LAK,

Wasn't the cause of her personal tragedy the limitations on where she could carry? Was that corrected first, before going for the whole deal? I don't mean these as "challenging" type questions, I just can't remember if Texas was even "shall-issue" then.

I'm not saying that its going to work every time the first time, but, in general, it seems like the progression and growth of right-to-carry laws in recent years has demonstrated that it is easier to go from "may issue" to "shall issue" to "less-restricted shall issue" and then (hopefully Alaska will lead the trend on this step) to outright "Vermont carry".

Turning up the heat on the anti's slowly while providing concrete, local evidence of no "blood flowing in the streets" and thus the emptiness of the anti's fear-mongering for the undecided but wary non-gun public.
 
If you look closely, NRA only supports carry by those who are "qualified", and they would like to handle the training and decide who is "qualified". Rights are not first priority...not in a pure sense. Licensed carry was their idea 75 years ago, and here we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top