Court ruling; Past drug minor misdemeanor drug convictions takes away right to carry
This is a discussion on Court ruling; Past drug minor misdemeanor drug convictions takes away right to carry within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SIXTO
Here is an outline of what current Ohio law says;
Ohio Concealed Carry
Age: 21 years or older
July 25th, 2010 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by SIXTO
Well, that clear it up. It is Ohio law and not the judge that makes any drug offense a disqualification.
As the school teachers always tell the kiddos--- "it goes on your permanent record."
A bit harsh indeed, and personally I wouldn't applaud the harshness, but I suppose the Ohio legislature at least thought they were doing right when they passed it. What will be interesting, in the future, is whether or not such a provision will prove constitutional based on the supremes utterance that it is ok to restrict gun possession of felons. Does that mean it is also ok to restrict gun possession for folks who have done misdemeanors or does that mean only felons can have their right restricted? Time will tell.
July 25th, 2010 03:50 PM
...and there is this in Ohio law; 2923.14 reads;
Originally Posted by Hopyard
2923.14 Relief from weapons disability.
(A) Any person who, solely by reason of the person’s disability under division (A)(2) or (3) of section 2923.13 of the Revised Code, is prohibited from acquiring, having, carrying, or using firearms, may apply to the court of common pleas in the county in which the person resides for relief from such prohibition.
(B) The application shall recite the following:
(1) All indictments, convictions, or adjudications upon which the applicant’s disability is based, the sentence imposed and served, and any release granted under a community control sanction, post-release control sanction, or parole, any partial or conditional pardon granted, or other disposition of each case;
(2) Facts showing the applicant to be a fit subject for relief under this section.
(C) A copy of the application shall be served on the county prosecutor. The county prosecutor shall cause the matter to be investigated and shall raise before the court any objections to granting relief that the investigation reveals.
(D) Upon hearing, the court may grant the applicant relief pursuant to this section, if all of the following apply:
(1) The applicant has been fully discharged from imprisonment, community control, post-release control, and parole, or, if the applicant is under indictment, has been released on bail or recognizance.
(2) The applicant has led a law-abiding life since discharge or release, and appears likely to continue to do so.
(3) The applicant is not otherwise prohibited by law from acquiring, having, or using firearms.
(E) Costs of the proceeding shall be charged as in other civil cases, and taxed to the applicant.
(F) Relief from disability granted pursuant to this section:
(1) Applies only with respect to indictments, convictions, or adjudications recited in the application;
(2) Applies only with respect to firearms lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used by the applicant;
(3) Does not apply with respect to dangerous ordnance;
(4) May be revoked by the court at any time for good cause shown and upon notice to the applicant;
(5) Is automatically void upon commission by the applicant of any offense set forth in division (A)(2) or (3) of section 2923.13 of the Revised Code, or upon the applicant’s becoming one of the class of persons named in division (A)(1), (4), or (5) of that section.
(G) As used in this section:
(1) “Community control sanction” has the same meaning as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.
(2) “Post-release control” and “post-release control sanction” have the same meanings as in section 2967.01 of the Revised Code.
July 25th, 2010 04:24 PM
What scared me about the whole thing is that this could very easily be the first step in removing 2A altogether. Felons and domestic violence offenses are no-brainers. Now lets get rid of 2A for other misdemeanors like drug offenses. That's a huge amount of people right there. Next we can go after the 2A rights for any crime. Jaywalking, anyone? Who will speak up for them? They've all broken the law.
Originally Posted by SIXTO
IMO, we should pick the laws that we really want to keep, vigorously enforce them, and ditch the rest. Murder, theft, rape, fraud, tax evasion, drunk driving, plus a whole bunch of others would obviously remain illegal. Other crimes that don't affect anyone but the "criminal" like drug use would go the way of prohibition.
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
July 25th, 2010 04:40 PM
Not intending to make any sort of religious argument here save to make a simple "statement of known fact" that America was founded based Judea/Christian principle and if both of those religions teach anything it's that human beings sometimes make mistakes and then redeem themselves to become valuable, contributing, and worthwhile members of society.
This law would seem to smack that teaching right across the face especially for a long past minor misdemeanor.
July 25th, 2010 07:26 PM
QK, I'm all for redemption and second chances, but too often that isn't how things work. About 25 years back I knew a young man who desperately wanted to become a police officer. He couldn't get hired because he was honest about having once stolen a street sign as a kid. I don't know which one I rate as the more serious matter, taking that street sign or buying and using a substance such as weed. Who do we gift with the decision on such matters? I see rather clearly why the affected officers Sixto mentions are upset, but then perhaps they'd not have been hired in the first place if thoroughly vetted at the time they were hired.
Originally Posted by QKShooter
If I were King I'd have a tough decision and I don't know how I would come down on this one.
July 25th, 2010 09:22 PM
street sign is someone elses property, marijuana is a plant. there shouldn't even be such thing as a misdemeanor for drug possession.
July 25th, 2010 11:51 PM
"Shouldn't" is a value judgment. Bottom line here is that folks have engaged in minor criminal activity and we should not be hiring or retaining as officers individuals who have deliberately broken our criminal law.
Originally Posted by n3ss
So, it really doesn't matter much to me if the crime was misdemeanor theft or misdemeanor drug use or public intoxication or disorderly conduct. I want officers with clean records.
July 26th, 2010 01:20 AM
Wait until they go after people that take anti-depressants,or have chronic pain and take legally prescribed pain meds
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
By Tally XD in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: August 30th, 2010, 09:12 AM
By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: July 27th, 2010, 09:52 PM
By mprp in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: June 19th, 2010, 01:31 AM
By dukalmighty in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: February 2nd, 2010, 10:55 PM
By tex45acp in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: February 11th, 2006, 02:33 PM
Search tags for this page
can i get a ccw with a misdemeanor marijuana charge
discussion ohio gun laws with misdemeanor drug conviction
do i disclose a dui on ohio ccw marijuana
drug convictions and acquiring legal residency
georgia concealed carry with misdemeanor
gun permits with misdeameanor weed charge
juvenile marijuana conviction ohio concealed carry
ohio ccw disqualifications
ohio ccw marijuana
ohio ccw minor misdemeanor
ohio concealed carry misdemeanor drug possession
oklahoma concealed carry former drug conviction
Click on a term to search for related topics.