|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 19, 2015, 03:29 PM | #126 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
|
October 19, 2015, 06:58 PM | #127 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The version of 2901.5 I linked to and quoted in full in post 124 came from this site: LAW Writer® Ohio Laws and Rules. The URL is: http://codes.ohio.gov/. It appears to be the State site for on-line access to Ohio statutes and regulations. If searching for Ohio statutes on either FindLaw or Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute you will be linked to that site. According to LAW Writer® Ohio Laws and Rules, the statutes published are: So if you continue to claim that the version of 2901.5 I quoted and linked to is not current, you'll need to come up with some pretty good evidence. As I explained in post 124, Ohio law is not what you seem to think it is.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
October 19, 2015, 07:32 PM | #128 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
You have the most recent version. I was talking about the old article you and Oldmarksman drummed up. They look like the arguments that were used for changing the law to its current form.
Quote:
|
|
October 19, 2015, 07:43 PM | #129 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The statute, 2901.5, was last amended in 2008. The article that OldMarksman and I linked to was published on 31 July 2013. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 19, 2015 at 08:06 PM. Reason: ad link |
|||
October 19, 2015, 09:31 PM | #130 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 508
|
Frankly, even if the laws says you can, what kind of person shoots and kills somebody over property? Seriously what is so valuable that you own that someone needs to die over it?
I am not talking about someone threatening you or making menacing moves towards you. I am talking about Smedley the burglar attempting to steal your weed eater or your TV. You are going to shoot him, and potentially kill him, over that? Even if the law says you can my bet would be the lawyer fees will be more than the value of whatever was being stolen. Better to up your insurance on your personal property than waste your retirement account defending yourself over killing someone stealing from you. |
October 20, 2015, 05:31 PM | #131 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,783
|
Quote:
__________________
Stevie-Ray Join the NRA/ILA I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed. |
|
October 20, 2015, 08:27 PM | #132 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Posted by Stevie-Ray:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
October 20, 2015, 09:19 PM | #133 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Clearly you're frustrated and don't like the way things are. But know what? The world doesn't care. If you use force beyond what can be legally justified, you will not be happy with the way things turn out. You apparently don't care, but the point of these discussions is to help people understand what is likely to be legally justifiable and what is not likely to be legally justifiable. Such understanding can help people make better decisions. So we really don't care that you don't care, and your insouciance doesn't contribute to the discussion.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
October 21, 2015, 07:24 AM | #134 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 1,399
|
Quote:
Last edited by 45_auto; October 21, 2015 at 07:45 AM. |
|
October 21, 2015, 10:16 AM | #135 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,783
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Stevie-Ray Join the NRA/ILA I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed. |
|||||
October 21, 2015, 11:07 AM | #136 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Posted by Stevie-Ray:
Quote:
Quote:
Note: "occupied" means different things in different states. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
October 21, 2015, 11:13 AM | #137 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 508
|
I'll add to what I said above. Nothing I own is worth ending up dead or in prison for a good portion of the rest of my life.
It has nothing to do with being passive or a coward. It has to do with risk versus reward. Nothing in my life, other than my life or the lives of those I love, or under the right circumstances perhaps other victims of a violent crime, is worth my risking my life over. I am certainly not going to get involved in a confrontation, that I may die in, over my possessions. |
October 23, 2015, 01:05 PM | #138 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,783
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Stevie-Ray Join the NRA/ILA I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed. |
|||
October 23, 2015, 01:30 PM | #139 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
There is nothing in our laws that entitles anyone to a jury of his peers. One is entitled to an impartial jury (Constitution, Sixth Amendment); but you have no grounds upon which to insist that members of your jury be "your peers", i. e., from the of the same societal group, age, status, background or education, etc., as you. (The notion of a "jury of one's peers" comes from Magna Carta and was indeed intended to refer to being judged by one's equals. Magna Carta was forced on King John by the feudal barons to protect their interests. Their first concern was that they be judged only by nobles of similar rank. And indeed until relatively recently, a British noble charged with a crime was entitled to be tried in the House of Lords. The last trial in the House of Lords was in 1935, and the trial jurisdiction of the House of Lords was abolished in 1948.) This is how jury selection works:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
October 23, 2015, 01:53 PM | #140 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
From Stevie-Ray:
"It does apply here-it's called semantics. Have you ever been part of a jury selection?" Dude, you're arguing the law with lawyers. |
October 23, 2015, 03:05 PM | #141 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
... and it is so, so very tempting to close this overly-long thread on that delicious note.
Because the point has been made -- over and over again -- by the folks who do know what they're talking about. pax |
|
|