Law enforcement officials ask Cuyahoga County fair board to tighten rules for gun shows

[AnOhioan]

"Cuyahoga County fair board directors say they will consider a request by law enforcement officials to require criminal background checks for vendors and for people who buy firearms from non-licensed sellers during gun shows at the fairgrounds.

Cleveland Police Chief Michael McGrath, Cleveland Safety Director Martin Flask and Capt. Frank Bova of the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office met with directors of the Cuyahoga County Agricultural Association on Wednesday to ask for help in stopping illegal firearms sales.

"Too many guns are in the hands of people who should not have them," Flask said. "One conduit for them is gun shows." "

Continued at:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/10/law_enforcement_officials_ask.html

[iverglas]

1. Canada will thank them

Gun shows in Ohio are recognized sources of crime (gang) guns in Ontario. Not to mention in the US.

Anything they'd like to do to squeeze that part of the iron pipeline will be appreciated.

In fact, it's time for a thread ...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Should we care?

Arguably that is less relevant than the discussions that Pratt had down under.

[iverglas]

5. You?

If I were going to make a list of things you should do, that would admittedly not be at the top of the list.

[rl6214]

113. Pssssst

I don't care either.

[ileus]

9. Who cares about canada, they should secure their border, and control their criminals.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see American arms stay here in America. They were built to be loved, cared for, and enjoyed by Americans I don't want to see them abused by criminals anywhere Canada or USA.

[iverglas]

10. I'm always curious

Who cares about canada, they should secure their border, and control their criminals.

Is this statement consistent with liberal, progressive, democratic or Democratic thought, or some combination thereof?

It should be an easy question to answer and an easy answer to justify.

I mean, you all spend so much time contending that your various stances on firearms policy are some if not all of the above, you must have a pretty good grasp of the issues and arguments, eh?

In your own time.

Do you ordinarily spell proper nouns with lower-case letters? I haven't noticed your usual practice.

[ileus]

13. you make the call

[iverglas]

15. no, I asked a question

It's pretty simple.

Certainly I have my own opinion, and a strongly arguable one it is. But you must have your own. If you adhere to a liberal, progressive, democratic and/or Democratic philosophy, you must obviously know and be able to explain how any belief or position of yours is consistent with it. It's not like you're living an unexamined life here, eh?

It really is quite simple. You're the one who made a statement. It's an implied premise, when statements are made at this site, that they are consistent with some variety of those philosophies. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to whom the statement was made -- and that includes any member of the website -- to enquire about the philosophical underpinnings of the statement.

Just think how useful it could be if we all made this implied premise explicit when we said something. I could see, for instance, that a statement arises from adherence to a "liberal" philosophy that I do not share, there being so many varieties of this "liberal" business, some being even mutually contradictory and exclusive. I would know that finding common premises for a discussion with such a person would involve going back further in the process to where we diverged to see whether we could reach any common conclusions at all.

I'm getting the feeling that in order to do this with your statement, I'd have to go back too far, to where liberal / progresive / democratic / Democratic philosophy diverged from something else altogether. But of course I know that can't be. So I'm just asking for your help in understanding the philosophical underpinnings of your statement in order to identify the locus where there is matter for discussion between us.

If I heard Ron Paul make that statement -- and I'm reasonably certain that he would make that statement with no difficulty -- I'd know what the underlying philosophy it stemmed from was, because I know what his foundational beliefs are (not that they're coherent enough to bear much scrutiny, but the threads can be followed at least some distance).

In your case, I just don't.

Since you made the statement in a discussion forum, I assume you are inviting discussion of it. I'd like to oblige. It would therefore be enormously helpful if you would identify the philosophy it stems from, you see?

No point in my saying "This runs entirely counter to the spirit of international solidarity among peoples of all nations that motivates progressive action in the 20th and 21st century", just for example, if you don't adhere to that progressive philosophy. You see?

So as I said, it's a fairly simple question. I would expect that you could describe your political philosophy rather succinctly and identify it in such a way that your audience would know where you are "coming from" and how your statement does (or does not) follow from it. Do give it a shot, won't you?

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Not according to our DoJ.

[iverglas]

110. don't know what that means

What the heck, this is as good a place as any.

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/staring/ellwand.html

"Do I have to fill out any forms?"

That's my question to the man trying to sell me a .45-calibre, semi-automatic Taurus, a handgun modeled on the popular Beretta.

"No" he replies. "We're just two civilians making a private deal."

That's the way things are in Ohio.

... They can legally sell any weapon as long as they don't know the buyer came from out-of-state or had intent to commit an illegal act. Two questions that I was never asked in several negotiations with sellers.

[rl6214]

114. Ahhh, look at the source

WHO CARES

[iverglas]

120. "WHO CARES"?

Not arrogant xenophobes, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. Can't you secure your border?

[rl6214]

128. No fear, just indifference

[AtheistCrusader]

117. He made some errors.

Likely he's not terribly familiar with the buying and selling of firearms. For instance, the bazooka is an empty tube in the shape of a bazooka, nothing more. Obviously de-milled. And no one can privately transfer a machine gun, period. He doesn't specifically state they did, but he seems to have lumped it in by implication.

"Here guns are considered personal property and their sale between two individuals requires no more paperwork than buying a book or an old chair at a garage sale."
That is absolutely correct. In fact, you can buy guns at garage sales.

[iverglas]

121. no, I don't think so

And no one can privately transfer a machine gun, period. He doesn't specifically state they did, but he seems to have lumped it in by implication.

The article was about gun shows. It would be wrong to assume everything in it is about private sales. It wasn't.

That is absolutely correct. In fact, you can buy guns at garage sales.

Yes, no news there. I wasn't actually linking to the article so you could learn that, you know.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. I found the things he listed... odd then.

If the point was how easily guns can be acquired without background checks. There are no private transfers for machine guns, period. (Not lawfully anyway)

Calling an empty metal tube a bazooka is just silly. The nazi memorabilia thing smells like a guilt by association swipe to me.. Like the media will often interview the biggest idiot they can find at the protests, and ignore the people with a coherent, reasonable list of points about the financial system. It has nothing to do with private transfers or anything else. (Many gun shows simply ban that crap now, by the way)

[PavePusher]

131. Yeah, I call bullshit.

Just on terminology alone, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about or looking at.

Taurus does not make a .45 knock-off of any Beretta.

"clips of ammunition."

"weapons designed for just one purpose...to kill people."

"semi-automatic assault rifles"

"sawed-off shotguns, a favourite of bank robbers"

"fully operable machine guns, presumably for collectors, many of World War II vintage, but some much newer." How new and at what price/paperwork?

This makes the rest of his "report" highly suspect.

I'd say hoyt took up a new nom-de-plume.....


edit: And what the hell does a 110-year old murder have to do with a modern-day gun show? Insinuation for teh phale, I suppose.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Given that private sales are a lawful activity, be interesting to see if they can stop them

Probably ban private sales in the rental agreement, but if that contract is already signed, its too late. However, they can still twist the promoter's arm and threaten the next event, which is what will most likely happen.

[SteveM]

76. The same kind of thing was tried in Austin, TX a few years back...

The police wanted to shut down a gun show under state "nuisance" laws, and forced a sub-lessor (who rented the hall from a large corporation) to cancel the show. The gun show(s) are back, however, and such pressure has subsided to an occasional gun "buy back." I can't wait for the latter since I have an old H & R .22 which cannot be repaired, and it's worth $50 worth of groceries! I hear some folks are parking near the "buy back" sites and holding up signs offering to pay more $ for a gun than what the buy backers are giving away in food vouchers.

I believe less than 5% of guns used by thugs have been purchased a "gun shows." What with all the LEO around, who wants to take a chance? I should think it would behoove the police to NOT shut down these shows because they can sometimes pick up hard core crims who attempt a straw purchase.

[iverglas]

123. believe what you want

I believe less than 5% of guns used by thugs have been purchased a "gun shows."

but you may not state that as a fact.

The dumb survey in question showed only the answers given by a particular group of inmates who stated a source for the firearm they were in possession of at the time of the offence for which they were incarcerated.

That was the source they obtained it from. If they bought it on the street, it didn't land there from a cloud. If they got it from a friend, the friend didn't make it in the bathtub.

In fact, neither you nor anyone else has any idea whether those inmates' guns had been purchased at a gun show by someone, prior to being used in the commission of the particular crime in issue.

Some firearms bought from private vendors at gun shows are trafficked. That means they are sold on to another party. Get it?

[PavePusher]

4. Ohio has state preemption of gun law, this will not go well if they try it....

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf

Sec. 9.68. (A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.
(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.
(C) As used in this section:
(1) The possession, transporting, or carrying of firearms, their components, or their ammunition include, but are not limited to, the possession, transporting, or carrying, openly or concealed on a person's person or concealed ready at hand, of firearms, their components, or their ammunition.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. They've already been spanked once in court

From the linked article in the OP:

...Cuyahoga County learned a harsh lesson in 2001 that it cannot stop gun shows from being held at the fairgrounds. The fair board stopped renting out the fairgrounds for gun shows in 1999 in the wake of the school shootings in Columbine, Colo.

The operators, Vienna, Ohio-based Niles Gun Show Inc., sued the fair board in federal court. The two sides eventually settled, with the fair board's insurance carrier paying promoter Richard Walters a $75,000 settlement and giving him a new contract to rent space at the fairgrounds for gun shows....

Are they taking stupid lessons from Chicago?

[burf]

8. LOL!

It just goes to prove you can't fix stupid.

[SteveM]

77. You can't fix stupid, but it can certainly be perfected. nt

[iverglas]

11. I wonder

I suppose they're also prohibited from refusing to rent out the fairgrounds for pornography exhibitions and sales ... first amendment, blah blah ...

"The people" just don't get a say in anything at all down there, do they?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Public facility, public accomodation, that kind of thing

We don't allow nearly as much overt discrimination down here as seems to done in Canada

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oneka]

89. 3rd party perspective.

"I suppose they're also prohibited from refusing to rent out the fairgrounds for pornography exhibitions and sales ... first amendment, blah blah ...

"The people" just don't get a say in anything at all down there, do they?"

Goose.


"We don't allow nearly as much overt discrimination down here as seems to done in Canada"



Gander.

"Your post is the post of an ignorant bigot.

And yet here it sits on the board still. I guess there aren't any non-ignorant non-bigots around reading posts ... just ignorant bigot sympathizers reporting the posts naming ignorant bigotry for what it is.

If you actually believe that the US doesn't allow nearly as much overt discrimination as seems to be done in Canada, you are ignorant beyond belief, unfathomably ignorant, plumbing the depths of ignorance. To believe that, you would have to be unaware that we have had a decade of legal same-sex marriage in this country along with total equality in all other respects for GLBT people, including protection against private-sector discrimination; decades of total non-interference in women's reproductive rights; a constitution that guarantees the right to equal treatment under (not merely before) the law and the equal benefit (not merely protection) of the law, and that guarantees the treaty, ancestral and aborginal rights of the First Nations and "overtly" makes all other provisions subject to the equality rights of women; and I could go on and on and on, naming areas in which discrimination in the US is not just "overt" but legal, or if illegal is still overt.

If you know these things and make statements like yours anyway, you aren't ignorant, you're just a bigot. The practice of insulting people based on their ethnicity/national origin is bigotry, pure and simple. And that's all you're really up to here."



Really fucking childish tirade, that has no place in civil discourse.

[oneshooter]

93. What else would you expect? n/t

[iverglas]

94. no, speaking from ignorance

"I suppose they're also prohibited from refusing to rent out the fairgrounds for pornography exhibitions and sales ... first amendment, blah blah ...

Are you telling me that a county fairgrounds authority in the United states IS prohibited from refusing to rent out its fairgrounds for pornography exhibitions and sales?

Really?


"'The people' just don't get a say in anything at all down there, do they?"
Goose.
"We don't allow nearly as much overt discrimination down here as seems to done in Canada"
Gander.

Nope. Sarcastic remark referring to a specific situation in which "the people" actually did not get a say vs. remark demonstrating ignorance of and/or bigotry toward another national group.


Really fucking childish tirade, that has no place in civil discourse.

Really. And you characterize
"We don't allow nearly as much overt discrimination down here as seems to done in Canada"
as ... what, now?


You're an amusement too, you are.

[Oneka]

118. "Are you

telling me that a county fairgrounds authority in the United states IS prohibited from refusing to rent out its fairgrounds for pornography exhibitions and sales?"


Im telling you nothing. I merely quoted your words then wrote the word ,GOOSE, behind them. Please learn to follow along.


"Nope. Sarcastic remark referring to a specific situation in which "the people" actually did not get a say"

Pretty fair description. but what did the people not get a say in again ? it's a little unclear.

"Really. And you characterize
"We don't allow nearly as much overt discrimination down here as seems to done in Canada"
as ... what, now?"

An opinion criticizing your beloved Canada, certainly not something deserving of your vile response.

[rl6214]

115. Grown to expect it

[iverglas]

119. what has no place in civil discourse

is a statement that is cannot possibly stem from anything but blind ethnocentricity, since it is not based on fact:

"We don't allow nearly as much overt discrimination down here as seems to done in Canada"

It's patently false, and it's made for no purpose but to misrepresent and insult an entire country/people.

What place, exactly, does this have in civil discourse?

[Oneka]

126. The same place that this comment has:

first amendment, blah blah ...

The people" just don't get a say in anything at all down there, do they?"

seems to me that i could easily apply your own description,

it's made for no purpose but to misrepresent and insult an entire country/people.

to your quote as this quote,

We don't allow nearly as much overt discrimination down here as seems to done in Canada

I"m just not that damned thin skinned.

This piece of trash on the other hand:

I guess there aren't any non-ignorant non-bigots around reading posts ... just ignorant bigot sympathizers reporting the posts naming ignorant bigotry for what it is.

Well ,, it is, what it is,,,, OWN IT PROUDLY!

[iverglas]

14. nice copy & paste

Now maybe you could use your own words to tell us how a requirement that purchasers of firearms on publicly owned property submit to background checks is contrary to that provision.

Doesn't seem to me that this is an interference with anyone's ability to own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, blah blah blah. Unless they're trying to do so illegally.

That's the thing, ain't it? All the requirement does is ensure that there are no illegal transfers going on: transfers by or to people who are not legally qualified to possess firearms. You people do understand that, right?

Of course, I fail to see how a decision by a public authority that its property will not be used for displaying firearms and conducting firearms transactions runs counter to that provision anyhow. Unless the authority were violating some other provision of law (such as anti-discrimination legislation), well, I just don't see it. Just have no clue how declining to rent out premises amounts to imposing some "further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process" on anything. I guess my legal culture is just a little too sophisticated for me to grasp this.

Can municipalities in Ohio not adopt zoning bylaws that regulate the location of gun stores within the municipality and even prohibit the opening of gun stores in certain zones? Does state legislation expressly permit this?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

31. Ohio specifically has preemption involving firearms & defense laws.

A town/city/county/jurisdiction cannot enact more stringent laws than permissable by the state's Ohio Revised Code. I believe a jurisdiction can enact looser restrictions altogether... the laws just cannot be stricter.

Basically, within Ohio the firearms laws are uniform. Nothing's wrong with having background checks at gunshows - so long as such a law is at ORC level and applies to the entire state. Cuyahoga County (an urban county) will have to push for this restriction across the entirity of much more rural & numerous counties as well.

[iverglas]

34. what law is this?

This is a term in a commercial lease sort of thing, I believe.

Would it be unlawful to require that vendors at a wine exhibition at the fairgrounds, where wine producers display and sell their wares, that they require proof of the purchaser's age before making a sale? How about that an operator who leases the fairgrounds to hold a beer garden event require proof of age before serving a customer?

Assume that the law doesn't require proof of age when a sale is made, it just prohibits sales to the underaged.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. I don't know much about liquor license laws, sorry.

[iverglas]

39. you don't need to know anything about liquor license laws

All you need to do is answer my question.

Funny how almost nobody around here seems to be willing and/or able to do that simple thing, eh?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

50. You specifically ask, "Would it be unlawful to ..."

"Would it be unlawful to require that vendors at a wine exhibition at the fairgrounds, where wine producers display and sell their wares, that they require proof of the purchaser's age before making a sale? How about that an operator who leases the fairgrounds to hold a beer garden event require proof of age before serving a customer?"

I do not know the specific laws (or lack thereof) pertaining to the exhibition, display, & sampling of wines and beers.
I also do not know about laws (or lack thereof) involving the lease of space where alcohol may be consumed.
I also don't know if Ohio has statewide preemption involving liquor or lease laws.

You specifically ask about the legality pertaining to such actions and then subsequently state, "You don't need to know anything about liquor license laws. All you need to do is answer my question"... which just so happens to be about serving alcohol. :crazy:

Sure, I'll answer your question... Maybe. :shrug:

[iverglas]

53. and I specifically said:

Assume that the law doesn't require proof of age when a sale is made, it just prohibits sales to the underaged.


I do not know the specific laws (or lack thereof) pertaining to the exhibition, display, & sampling of wines and beers.
I also do not know about laws (or lack thereof) involving the lease of space where alcohol may be consumed.
I also don't know if Ohio has statewide preemption involving liquor or lease laws.

Why do you need to know any of those things?

The terms of a lease ARE NOT A LAW. F.F.S.

You can assume that if a property owner is leasing space for the exhibition and sale of wine, it is legal to do that, and to exhibit and sell wine at an event on leased premises.

Just as it is legal to lease space for the exhibition and sale of firearms and to exhibit and sell firearms at an event on leased premises.

Otherwise, my question would have made no sense ...

So back to the question. Answer?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

65. Then I would have answer: Possibly unlawful and Not unlwful, respectively.

The second question seems to be worded such that the person leasing the space is implementing their own additional rules for their own event. I don't think there's anything wrong with them requiring people to show proof of age before serving.

The first question seems to be phrased such that a third party or regulation is requiring that vendors at the event adhere to special rules. Perhaps this is ok... or perhaps it isn't... I think that would depend on the nature of the restriction and who is mandating them.

For example, in the OP it is not the gunshow or participants that are incorporating more restrictionsvia the lease. It is the police pushing for more legislative restriction locally in state that mandates uniform laws regarding friearms. I actually think it would be 100% ok for the operators of an Ohio gunshow to require all vendors/sellers to go through use FFL/NICS checks... but I also think that it would not be okay for a county to *require* gunshows do this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that requiring background checks at a gunshow is a bad thing - it would keep alot of sales from going to criminals. At this point, I'm just saying that what Cuyahoga County is trying to do is not going to work (legally) in Ohio.

[iverglas]

67. this explains a lot, doesn't it?

The second question seems to be worded such that the person leasing the space is implementing their own additional rules for their own event. I don't think there's anything wrong with them requiring people to show proof of age before serving.

Yes, except that they are required to make "their own additional rules" by the terms of the lease agreement they sign with the owner of the premises. My question was: could the party leasing the premises to the promoter of the wine show require -- as a term of the lease agreement -- that all vendors be required by the promoter (in its agreements with the vendors) to demand proof of age before making a sale.

The first question seems to be phrased such that a third party or regulation is requiring that vendors at the event adhere to special rules. Perhaps this is ok... or perhaps it isn't... I think that would depend on the nature of the restriction and who is mandating them.

No, not "or regulation". Where are you getting this?

The "third party" is the owner of the premises. The owner of the premises is requiring that the party leasing the premises from the owner impose terms on the vendors participating in the show it is sponsoring.

My municipality leases an exhibition hall to a company that puts on Christmas craft fairs all over Ontario. That company has separate agreements with each vendor who rents a booth where they offer goods for sale at the craft fair. See how it sounds kind of like a gun show?

The municipality doesn't want dangerous items being sold at the craft fair on its premises. So it puts a term in its agreement with the company running the craft fair that requires the company to require that the vendors it rents booths to not sell items coated in lead paint. It's up to the company how it organizes that, but the company has a contractual duty to the municipality to ensure that nothing coated in lead paint is sold at the craft fair by any third party that the company allows to operate on the premises at the craft fair.

So a municipality that leased premises to a gun show operator would require the gun show operator to ensure that no firearms sales were made on the premises without a background check. The gun show operator could organize that however it wanted. It could decline to rent booths to anyone other than licensed firearms dealers. It could arrange for a licensed firearms dealer to handle all private sales (there is obviously a mechanism for doing this) -- it could even retain a single dealer's services for that purpose and make them available to all private vendors and include the service in the price of renting a booth, just off the top of my head.

It's perfectly simple, really it is. The gun show operator agrees not to allow any private sales on the premises without a background check. If a gun show operator doesn't want to agree to that, it doesn't have to hold a gun show on those premises. Just as a craft fair operator doesn't have to hold a craft fair in my municipality's exhibition hall if it doesn't want to agree that no lead-painted objects will be sold at the craft fair.

There are no laws or regulations or rules that come into it anywhere. There are agreements that all parties are free to sign and agree to abide by or not.


I actually think it would be 100% ok for the operators of an Ohio gunshow to require all vendors/sellers to go through use FFL/NICS checks... but I also think that it would not be okay for a county to *require* gunshows do this.

This county is proposing to do that for gun shows held on the county's own premises, in which case the county is the "landlord". Why can it not do that in the same way that you or I could? Does a county have to lease premises to anyone at all, and permit them to do anything at all on its premises?

[petronius]

83. I don't see why that preemption law cited elsewhere in the thread wouldn't

apply to lease terms and any other restrictions the county wished to impose; it's not just about passing laws. If the county banned private sales on its property, or required a vendor to ban them, that would be placing an additional restriction on the sale and transfer of firearms - which is prohibited.

I'm not 100% certain, however, that this is county property. The Ag. Association mentioned in the article is a private entity, and my quick look at its web page makes no mention of the fairground being publicly owned. It seems to me that a private entity could make the proposed restriction on its own property, no matter who suggested it...

Edit: I misspoke - not "ban" private sales, but impose additional restrictions on them that don't apply elsewhere.

[iverglas]

95. "it's not just about passing laws"

And yet ... that's what it says it's about. What's your basis for saying it isn't?

If the county banned <placed conditions on> private sales on its property, or required a vendor to ban them, that would be placing an additional restriction on the sale and transfer of firearms - which is prohibited.

How? The restrictions relate do the use of property, not the transfer of firearms. No restrictions on firearms transfers are being imposed -- people can engage in secret firearms transfers to their hearts' content, just not on this property.

If the county could not place conditions on firearms sales on one of its properties, it could not do so on any other property either. You could have people setting up tables in the county's parks and playgrounds to make private firearms sales. I see no way anyone who calls the conditions attached to private sales at gun shows on county property (we'll assume county property) could say otherwise.

I actually am at a complete loss to understand how a county could be prohibited from refusing to lease its property for gun sales at all. How could it then be prohibited from banning the selling of guns on any of its properties?

Can the county ban the selling of guns out of the trunk of a car in the fairgrounds parking lot at rock concerts, or from tables in a park?

The Ag. Association mentioned in the article is a private entity, and my quick look at its web page makes no mention of the fairground being publicly owned. It seems to me that a private entity could make the proposed restriction on its own property, no matter who suggested it...

Well, it certainly could. So if you're right and this is a private entity (I guess I had read the wording as implying public appointments of the executive or some such), then what's all the squealing about??

[petronius]

109. From what PavePusher posted in #4, the OH law refers to

"license, permission, restriction, delay, or process" and "ordinance, rule, or regulation" - I take that as a clear signal that the legislature meant a broad prohibition on local governments placing restrictions or conditions on firearms through any process, not just in the narrower sense of passing laws.

On the flip side of the question, however, I don't see that this law prevents counties from regulating commerce in general, through zoning or whatever else. If it's generally legal to set up a table in a park and sell things (although I doubt it is), than guns couldn't be specifically excluded. If widget vendors can rent the fairground, then gun seller are supposed to be able to do so in the exact same way. (The caveat, or course, is that "except as provided by ... state law" - there may be allowable restrictions but I'm not inclined to wade through OH law to find them out.)

What this law does is preclude counties from placing additional restrictions and conditions on gun sales over and beyond the restrictions imposed by state and federal law (subject to the caveat above). The county can't treat firearms sellers differently from anyone else: if you can sell widgets at a certain place, then you can sell guns. If you can sell guns, then you can't be required to adhere to stricter regulation than the state requires. But if you can't sell anything at a certain place then you can't sell guns either...

[iverglas]

111. we could go around and around

"license, permission, restriction, delay, or process" and "ordinance, rule, or regulation" - I take that as a clear signal that the legislature meant a broad prohibition on local governments placing restrictions or conditions on firearms through any process, not just in the narrower sense of passing laws.

Except that it is no such thing. It is not a restriction or anything else on firearms sales. It is a term of permission to use property.


What this law does is preclude counties from placing additional restrictions and conditions on gun sales over and beyond the restrictions imposed by state and federal law (subject to the caveat above).

Exactly. And a lease does not affect the legal requirements or process for buying/selling firearms.

[petronius]

112. Right - it's a term that places conditions on firearms sales beyond what the state

requires or allows. The conditions are spatially and temporally limited to the show, but it's still regulation of gun sales. Just because the county has pulled back one step (requiring the vendor to require the condition) doesn't mean it's not the county doing it...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

49. self delete (n/t)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. Apples and Orangutans

The alcohol example you are using is one of upholding state law.

To require ban private sales would be beyond state law. More along the line of require 25 years of age to drink alcohol.

IIRC the Fair Board once before kowtowed to the antis and it cost them. Be interesting to see what happens this time.

[iverglas]

54. dizzy yet?

The alcohol example you are using is one of upholding state law.

Hot damn.

As I understand it, the law is that an ineligible person may not purchase a firearm. Like, kinda by definition.

So requiring that an alcohol vender demand PROOF of age is pretty must precisely analogous to demanding that a firearms vendor demand PROOF of eligibility to purchase a firearm. How much more precisely analogous could you get??

To require ban private sales would be beyond state law. More along the line of require 25 years of age to drink alcohol.

Not remotely along the lines. Because there is NO LAW involved. There is a term in the lease of premises.

But let's stick to the analogy I proposed, can't we?

Can no one here engage in even the most minimally abstract thought?

requiring a background check for a firearm sale at a gun show
is analogous to
requiring that proof of age be produced for a liquor sale at a wine show

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. Not at all. Your spinning and dancing does not impact me in the least

Your analogy is deeply flawed as usual so most of us are not going to entertain it or you.

If this were just a simple private lease issue, why did this same fair board get spanked earlier?

[iverglas]

62. well I've been meaning to ask you about that

If this were just a simple private lease issue, why did this same fair board get spanked earlier?

You did notice that the previous suit was settled, right? And that one party launching an action against another party that could cost it dearly even if it won is "spanking" only in the sense of "behaving like a godawful bully"?

And you're aware that a private agreement between parties is no proof of anything when it comes to the law on the matter?

That's because agreements aren't laws ... as I've been saying all along here.

:rofl:

[pneutin]

85. well if you're really going to stick to your analogy

Requiring a background check and requiring proof of age are two different things.

Instead of a background check, would you be ok with a picture ID card that said "I am eligible to purchase a firearm."

Instead of proof of age, would you be ok with a national background check system that considered the following each time you attempt to purchase alcohol:
1. age
2. criminal record
3. DUI record
4. mental health history
5. motor vehicle accident record
6. moving violation record
7. signed affidavit under penalty of perjury that you are buying the alcohol for yourself and not another person
8. fingerprint

[iverglas]

98. oh, you betcha!

Instead of a background check, would you be ok with a picture ID card that said "I am eligible to purchase a firearm."

I am perfectly okay with it. I demand it! It's called "a licence", and it's exactly what we have where I'm at. Obviously, I would have it no other way.


Instead of proof of age, would you be ok with a national background check system that considered the following each time you attempt to purchase alcohol:
1. age
2. criminal record
3. DUI record
4. mental health history
5. motor vehicle accident record
6. moving violation record
7. signed affidavit under penalty of perjury that you are buying the alcohol for yourself and not another person
8. fingerprint

No, silly. Because none of those things, apart from age, is a legal condition for purchasing/consuming alcohol.

You don't understand this "analogy" stuff, really, do you?


Requiring a background check and requiring proof of age are two different things.

Duh.

What they both are, this being the relevant issue for the purposes of the analogy, is a way of providing proof that Person A is legally eligible to engage in Action X.

See?

I can never actually tell whether I'm dealing with genuine blindness or pretend blindness in cases like these.



typos, typos and more typos ...

[rl6214]

127. Except you are NOT required to show proof of age in the state of Texas

So your analogy fails

[redgiant]

86. You could have a point

I'm not sure the Ohio preemption law would apply in a situation like this. There is no right, I suspect, for anyone to use the fairgrounds for any purpose whatsoever. That's what the fair board can control and regulate. Keep in mind, I'm not against gun shows, per se, but it would seem to be within the authority of a fair board to put conditions on the activities as part of the contract with the gun show promoter. The fair board isn't making a law, only regulating activities on grounds for which they are responsible. I can't quibble with that as a legitimate authority.

A logical outcome of such a ruling, however, might be either the canceling of the show by the promoter, or the regulations will cause the show to be a non-profitable bust. In that case, the promoter would likely move the show to another venue for future events.

[iverglas]

99. the voice of reason is heard in the land!

I wonder whether anyone will attempt to refute that.

A logical outcome of such a ruling, however, might be either the canceling of the show by the promoter, or the regulations will cause the show to be a non-profitable bust. In that case, the promoter would likely move the show to another venue for future events.

Might be. But that is the promoter's choice.

[rl6214]

116. You do know that every time a transfer is done, it costs money

"Doesn't seem to me that this is an interference with anyone's ability to own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, blah blah blah. Unless they're trying to do so illegally.

That's the thing, ain't it? All the requirement does is ensure that there are no illegal transfers going on: transfers by or to people who are not legally qualified to possess firearms. You people do understand that, right?"

The reason people go to gun shows is to get a good deal. You add that $25+ to the cost of a gun and it is no longer a good deal.

You do understand that, right?

[iverglas]

122. do I understand it?

Of course.

Do I care?

Nope.

My suggestion was that gun show promoters retain a licensed dealer (maybe designate one of the dealers already at the show) and have private sales go through them, possibly as part of the cost of renting a booth, possibly at a per-transaction fee. I'd doubt that $25 is the actual cost of the process, it's just what a dealer charges. No reason a deal couldn't be struck with a dealer to provide the service to gun show vendors for a much lower fee. If a dealer processed 100 transactions on that basis in a day, $10 would seem like a reasonable price to cover the cost of an employee assigned to the task at the show maybe.

[ileus]

18. Excellent information to have. Thanks for posting the law...

[Oneka]

6. This tactic is not new.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/gun-show-owner-police-at-odds-over-recommendations-186641.html

It would seem that "law enforcement officials" have been using this tactic in other cities around the country.

[iverglas]

12. "tactic"?

Seeking measures to reduce local, inter-state and international firearms trafficking is a "tactic"?

What is the goal of this "tactic"?

I kind of thought it was to reduce local, inter-state and international firearms trafficking ...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Yes it is a tactic...

And and ineffective one at that

[iverglas]

35. do you understand the concepts of "question" and "answer" at all?

Perhaps you're one of those who reads only a subject line before "replying" to a post.

Beats me.

[ileus]

38. Lot's of people buy the "it's for the children/people" lie

They'll willingly give up anything if you can convince them of that.

[iverglas]

40. what in god's name are you yammering about?

I think I need a drug to follow this conversation.

"It's a tactic".

What has your jibbering in this post got to do with that statement?

If you've figured out what "it's a tactic" is talking about, would you let me know?

Words do have meanings.

Let me check; I think I knew what "tactic" means when I asked my question. ... Yup, I was bang on:

tactic: An action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.

This would be why I asked the question:

Seeking measures to reduce local, inter-state and international firearms trafficking is a "tactic"?
What is the goal of this "tactic"?
I kind of thought it was to reduce local, inter-state and international firearms trafficking ...

Is it wrong of me to assume that when people use a word here, they use it to mean what it actually means?

[ileus]

42. catfish soup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. with matzo balls

http://www.bonappetit.com/tipstools/tips/2009/04/matzo_ball_101

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oneka]

52. It certainly is a "tactic"

The stated goal of this tactic is, "stopping illegal firearms sales."

Another obvious goal is, one that law enforcement has abused over the years, a fishing expedition.

"The problem is, you don't know who's here," Flask said. "You don't know who's selling guns, legally or illegally. You don't know anything."

In this case they {law enforcement} are requesting that, County Fair board directors, break Ohio state preemtion law, by requiring criminal background checks for vendors and for people who buy firearms from non-licensed sellers during gun shows at the fairgrounds. Neither group has the authority to enact such a regulation.


"Seeking measures to reduce local, inter-state and international firearms trafficking" should be done at the legislative level, not by requesting that county fair boards break laws and infringe on citizens rights.

Perhaps the law enforcement officials in question should "request" that the legislature take up their cause and enact a law, rather than attempting a back door enforcement of a law that does not exist.

[iverglas]

55. aha, there we are

The stated goal of this tactic is, "stopping illegal firearms sales."

And this is ........... bad?


Another obvious goal is, one that law enforcement has abused over the years, a fishing expedition.
"The problem is, you don't know who's here," Flask said. "You don't know who's selling guns, legally or illegally. You don't know anything."

Well, that's your bizarre little misreprentation of the meaning of that statement.

A regular person looking at that knows that what's being said is that because no one knows who is who, no one knows whether illegal transfers are taking place.

The way to prevent illegal transfers is to require background checks.

Anybody who doesn't want to submit to one doesn't have to buy a firearm from a dealer or private vendor at the gun show in question.

In this case they {law enforcement} are requesting that, County Fair board directors, break Ohio state preemtion law, by requiring criminal background checks for vendors and for people who buy firearms from non-licensed sellers during gun shows at the fairgrounds. Neither group has the authority to enact such a regulation.

That's just off the wall. Doesn't even qualify as a misrepresentation.

What am I missing here? The requirement would be a term in an agreement; the promoter would have to agree to the term before being permitted to use the premises for its purposes.

Not a law, not a regulation. A term in an agreement.

If you leased your empty office space to a gun show promoter, could you require that they allow only Glocks to be offered for sale at the show? I think so. You could also require that no private vendors be allowed at all.

[Oneka]

58. And this is ........... bad?

Yes it is.

It is bad because law enforcement is asking for a "term in an agreement" that violates state preemption law.

Like i stated in my earlier post, if law enforcement wants a law enacted to require background checks, they should take it up with the legislature.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oneka]

66. If

the county fair board, requires this "term in an agreement" the promoter may very well file a civil action. A judge may decide if the portion below, of the preemption law in Ohio,applies, to a "Term in an agreement", and declare the contract illegal.


Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.



I can only speculate on which way a judge would rule on such an issue, and unless it happens, that is all you can do as well.

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

[iverglas]

79. yeah, well, whatever I said the first time

applies, probably in spades.

If your interpretation governs, you can sell guns out of your trunk at the county fairgrounds whenever you happened to feel like it.

For the county to try to prohibit you from doing that would be to impose a further "restriction" on your right to sell, transfer, etc., any firearm.

Sure glad I'm not the one saying ninny things like that.

[Oneka]

82. Including the personal attack?

"If your interpretation governs, you can sell guns out of your trunk at the county fairgrounds whenever you happened to feel like it."


I can do that now , though i don't live in Ohio. Ohioan's enjoy that ability also.

"For the county to try to prohibit you from doing that would be to impose a further "restriction" on your right to sell, transfer, etc., any firearm."

If the countie's actions, carry the force of law, they most certainly would impose restrictions on my rights, I would have no problem with the
state of Ohio enacting legislation to require background checks on private sales, but counties have no authority to do so.


"Sure glad I'm not the one saying ninny things like that."

Not quite sure how to respond to this comment?? If you are trying to say that it's ninny like for me to attempt to hold government to task
where its own laws are concerned, then i guess i'm guilty of saying "ninny" things.

[iverglas]

96. respond however you like

If you're actually saying that a county or other public authority could not ban the selling of guns out of the trunks of cars on its property, or from tables set up in the parks it operates, or in the elevators of its headquarters, etc., then I can't think of any way to respond other than the way I did.

If that really is an accurate interpretation of the "pre-emption" law, then I'll just say things are even more bizarre and uncivilized than I had already imagined.


damn stalling firefox ... cut off my subject line ...

[DissedByBush]

134. End goal: Gun ban

Admittedly to be achieved in small steps, an encroachment here, a further encroachment there.

This is the restriction, with the desired eventual banning, of private sales of legal items between individuals.

[iverglas]

41. any chance the person who said it would like to explain?

What is the goal of this "tactic"?

Am I typing in wingdingese?

[iverglas]

43. your link

What were you meaning it to be illustrative of? Crimes being committed at gun shows? Good job.

Austin police said that last year, while assisting federal agents in combating the sale of guns to undocumented immigrants, they recorded a number of illegal transactions. The repeated offenses at the site — a former Sam's Club location on North Lamar Boulevard — prompted police to refer the location to the department's nuisance abatement unit, which works with owners to reduce the number of crimes on their properties.

... The suggestions included permitting only licensed gun dealers to sell firearms, providing private security to prevent parking lot gun sales and defining a process for people other than licensed dealers who want to sell a gun at the show.

... "What they did was strong-arm H-E-B into making me do what I did," he said. "The problem is that it is unconstitutional to say I can't sell my private firearm to another individual."

And yet ... nobody said that.

Does something say that a third party may be forced to allow you to sell your private firearm to another individual on their property? The owner of this property didn't think so:

Police officials said they met last week with representatives from H-E-B, which handles the lease of the property, and with Boedeker, during which they outlined recommendations for reducing crime at the site.

... H-E-B spokeswoman Leslie Lockett said Tuesday that police told company officials Monday about a possible illegal gun sale during the weekend and have decided that gun shows should not be hosted at the site until the issue is resolved.

I'm blamed if I can figure out why the public should be forced to allow any kind of gun sales, or anything else, on property it owns.

Nobody is being discriminated against on any prohibited ground of discrimination -- nobody is saying that Christians can't rent fairgrounds for bible rallies, or the NAACP or NOW can't rent it for an event. "I want to buy/sell my gun" just simply really does not bring somebody within a class that is protected from discrimination when it comes to the use of property, any more than "I want to buy/sell my lawnmower" does.

I'm sure there's something I need to be educated about here.

[Oneka]

71. Allow?

Allow is the default position.

That which is not prohibited by law : is allowed.

Ohio state law does not prohibit gun sales on public property.

[iverglas]

73. meow?

Damn, this is an enlightening conversation here.

Allow is the default position.
That which is not prohibited by law : is allowed.

Really?

Is there a law that prohibits me from spitting in your living room?

Don't think so. Know there isn't, in fact. You invite me into your living room, there's no law that says I can't spit there, so I am allowed to spit there.

Have I got it right?

Here's how the word "allowed" was used in my post, that I see:

Does something say that a third party may be forced to allow you to sell your private firearm to another individual on their property?
I'm blamed if I can figure out why the public should be forced to allow any kind of gun sales, or anything else, on property it owns.

Are you actually familiar with the concept of "property"? That which is owned. By someone/something. Not by anybody else. The right to control what is done on/with the property. A right that, in modern societies, is subject to a whole host of limitations: no dumping toxic waste, no making loud noise, no this, no that. But hey: that which isn't prohibited is allowed, eh? As long as yer on yer own property.

You're prohibited from refusing to rent your residential premises (or serve food and beverages, or hire employees) on the basis of anyone's race, religion, etc. etc. But if you want to refuse to rent to someone because they are an accountant or a Democrat, you may do that with impunity. You may also refuse to rent residential premises to someone because they own firearms. Or hell, because they don't own firearms. (Although there you might run into trouble if it looked like you were trying to refuse to rent to a family with children, if that is a prohibited ground of discrimination where you are, since it would be indirect discrimination against people who put their children's safety above the second amendment.)

May you refuse to rent your commercial premises to a gun show promoter to hold a gun show?

(You don't need me to give you a hint on that one, do you?)

Why in the name of the great gun gods would a municipality not be able to do the same?

Can no one give a minimally coherent answer??


Ohio state law does not prohibit gun sales on public property.

It probably doesn't prohibit the holding of porn film festivals on public property, either. Do you think a court would force the fairground trustees in question to rent out the fairgrounds for that purpose?

[Oneka]

84. "Have I got it right?"

Yes, you got that right. while decorum would suggest that it is in very poor taste to spit on somoene's floor, it would not be unlawful, provided that the spitter didn't do any property damage.

The property owner can at any time, for allmost any reason, ask the spitter to leave , then he/she would be compelled to leave, why?
Because staying on someone else's property after being asked to leave, is prohibited by law. see how that works.

That which is not prohibited by law : is allowed.

"May you refuse to rent your commercial premises to a gun show promoter to hold a gun show?"

Privately owned commercial premises? absolutely I can refuse to do business with a promoter or anyone.

"Why in the name of the great gun gods would a municipality not be able to do the same?"
"Can no one give a minimally coherent answer??"

I will try, but i would be surprised if you don't characterize my answer as a "ninny" again, or a nonsense or some such.


Public property is just that PUBLIC. that means that i can use it, since i own it.

If a public body who controls a public facility rents that facility to a promoter who wants to have a dog show, horse show, auction, craft fare, antique sale, or any other legal business venture, then how can they refuse to rent to a promoter of a gun show, which is also a legal
business venture.

Simply because some people think that, EVIL GUNS are BAD!!!!!, is not a valid reason to deny a gun show promoter a lease, when other legal ventures are granted one.

In the case outlined in the OP, reality does not favor your opinion.


"Cuyahoga County learned a harsh lesson in 2001 that it cannot stop gun shows from being held at the fairgrounds. The fair board stopped renting out the fairgrounds for gun shows in 1999 in the wake of the school shootings in Columbine, Colo.

The operators, Vienna, Ohio-based Niles Gun Show Inc., sued the fair board in federal court. The two sides eventually settled, with the fair board's insurance carrier paying promoter Richard Walters a $75,000 settlement and giving him a new contract to rent space at the fairgrounds for gun shows."

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/10/law_enforcement_officials_ask.html

[iverglas]

97. but the thing is

If a public body who controls a public facility rents that facility to a promoter who wants to have a dog show, horse show, auction, craft fare, antique sale, or any other legal business venture, then how can they refuse to rent to a promoter of a gun show, which is also a legal business venture.

The public body in question COULD REFUSE to rent the facility to a dog show, for instance. It might not want traces of dog left behind in case of allergic reactions by subsequent users. Whatever.

The legality of a business simply is not the issue -- unless you can provide some basis for saying that a public authority is compelled to allow the use of its premises by any "legal business".

There are laws that prevent public authorities from discriminating on certain grounds, like race, religion, etc. etc. A public authority may not refuse to allow the use of its premises by Muslims for a religious event if it allows the use of its premises by Christians for religious events, for instance.

If a public authority decided not to allow the use of its premises for ANY religious events, it would not be discriminating against anybody on any prohibited ground of discrimination.

This "first amendment" business just does not place a positive onus on anyone to provide the means for someone else to do something. Newspapers are not compelled to publish your letters. No one is compelled to provide a forum for anyone else.

What is there that says that a public authority may not "discriminate" against dog shows, gun shows? Dog vendors and gun vendors are not a protected class of anything.


In the case outlined in the OP, reality does not favor your opinion.

I'll say it One More Time.

The REALITY is that the case involved a SETTLEMENT, not a judicial decision, and is not PRECEDENT for anything. No one's guess about why any party settles a civil action means anything. The insurer may have told the county that it would refuse to insure it if it lost the case and a large damages award resulted, or if the county exposed itself to liability if by maintaining its policy on gun shows. We have no idea why the county settled.

[Hoyt]

16. You mean I can't sell guns to some guy with a fist full of cash who can't pass a background check?

That's UnAmerican of local law enforcement.

[ileus]

17. My rule: never sell to someone you don't know, unless it's a dealer.

That's just my rule...Sometimes I'll give a firearm to someone to sell for me. I've also never sold a firearm that I filled out a 4473 on.

[iverglas]

19. who cares?

That's just my rule.

Another odd use of the word "rule".

What is the relevance of your personal practices to the issue in this thread?

[ileus]

20. You don't have to care....

I just believe in looking out for my best interest when making a private sale. Hoyt was upset that he has on way of knowing if the person with a wad of cash was/is legally able to buy a firearm. I was commenting on his personal practices, we all want to sell guns the safest way possible....right?

Easiest way to avoid trouble is to put a middle man in the deal.

[iverglas]

21. "I was commenting on his personal practices"

No you weren't.

You were playing "let's pretend" and pretending that the poster was talking about his personal practices.

Isn't it at all difficult to try to hard to make yourself look silly?


Easiest way to avoid trouble is to put a middle man in the deal.

Huh. Is that not exactly what this proposal would require?

"a request by law enforcement officials to require criminal background checks for vendors and for people who buy firearms from non-licensed sellers during gun shows at the fairgrounds"

Of course, if all you're concerned about is covering your own ass, and you really don't give a hoot about public safety or the public interest ... well, you're all right, Jack.

[ileus]

22. ok....you said it not I.

you mean he wasn't upset about who he could sell guns to? I had no idea, I was just trying to get him to be safer when selling firearms. My bad...


and don't call me jack. :)

[PavePusher]

27. "You were playing "let's pretend"...."

"...and pretending that the poster was talking about his personal practices."

The expert speaks.

[Hoyt]

25. Actually, I'm concerned about tables where guns are sold at gun shows without background checks.

Of course, the obsfucators here claim that is not a "loophole" because "dealers" are required to do background checks. Maybe so, but some guy who claims he's not a dealer often allowed to sell without background checks. That's what the law enforcement officials are concerned about -- AND RIGHTLY SO.

Gunners should be concerned as well -- but too many are just concerned about the kink that might put in their ability to profit off their guns.

[gejohnston]

28. slight correction

Maybe so, but some guy who claims he's not a dealer often allowed to sell without background checks.

more accurate to say forbidden from doing background checks. A private person can not even if he wanted to without using an FFL as a broker.

[Hoyt]

30. A private citizen shouldn't be able to determine whether you or I can pass.

So it's not like your rights are being "violated" or anything. Go pay an FFL to handle the purchase/transaction.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. That's the problem... you're advocating a system where one has to "PAY"

to have access to firearm transactions. It's already clearly been established that there is a 2A right to keep and bear firearms. That it's an enumerated & protected right is pretty cut & dry.

So the regulation you are proposing will require people to PAY to excercise that right. It's no different than requiring people to pay a fee in obtaining Voter ID cards.

[iverglas]

36. I'll bet marriage licences are free where you're at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. Some can not get them at any price

and the entire concept is in many ways specious.

[iverglas]

56. and your point is?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. Just responding to your post about marriage license

[iverglas]

63. no ... you weren't ...

You clicked the reply link in that post, but you didn't do anything that could remotely be described as "responding to" it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. I did indeed respond about marriage licenses

It was unclear why you even brought them up, but since you are so tightly wound on following context, I thought I would try.

[iverglas]

80. no ... you didn't ...

It was unclear why you even brought them up

I don't think anyone would really say that if they didn't think it, because the personal cost would be too high relative to the potential gain.

So I'll have to believe that it really and truly is unclear to you why I brought up the subject of a licence being required (and charged for) in order to exercise something your SC has defined as a fundamental right, in this particular context and in response to the particular post I responded to ...

And shake my head with a pitying look on my face, not just for you but for all those alleged students of yours ...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. There is just no pleasing you is there?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

64. Excellent point...well said.

[iverglas]

68. will you explain the point to me?

Marriage is characterized as a fundamental right ... and that right is systematically violated in the US.

So what's the excellent point here?

Does it have something to do with the fact that although marriage is a fundamental right, nobody seems to be saying that the state may not require a licence in order to marry, and charge money for the licence?

[AtheistCrusader]

133. Marriage is not an enumerated civil right.

[rl6214]

130. What in the world are you going on about/

The discussion is about gun shows.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. 60 years ago they were.

They were instituted for the purpose of controlling who gets to marry whom. At the time, it prevented black people from marrying white people (and vice versa). It is now leveraged to prevent Gay people from marrying.

Less than a hundred years ago, there was no such thing in the US.

[Hoyt]

44. So, you aren't willing to pay a few dollars to protect society from your selling guns to criminals.

Just more evidence that gun owners don't give a chit about what their bad habit does to society.

The courts have ruled over and over that states, cities can impose reasonable restrictions including fees.

Yes, it is different from charging fees for voting. "Your" guns directly kill and maim people. Your voting doesn't directly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. If there was a reasonably priced instant check service I would pay for it as the seller

since I do not want any firearms falling into the wrong hands. I did something like that the last time I did a private transfer in a state where that was allowed.

In California it has both long delays and high costs, but then California is doing whatever it can to repress gun rights.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. Would you insist that all car sales go through a dealer, what about houses and groceries?

There is a private property right here that needs to addressed.

If there was an instant authoritative check available, private parties would use it. Those who oppose it are actually making the problem (which is indeterminate size) worse.

[iverglas]

57. is there a law that determines eligibility to purchase any of the above?

[rl6214]

129. He was giving his response to a question posed

Just like you often do. That's "who cares?"

And why is it an odd use of the word rule? Many people have rules that guide them. Just because it is his own rule does not make it an odd use of the word.

Rule, ruler, ruling usually refers to standards for activities.

Obviously his rule is a standard for his activities.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. Sure you can.

Just open your local Penny Saver or other newspaper classifieds.

Anyone with a fist full of cash can buy guns.

[ileus]

29. My "daler" told me earlier this week...

He's started buying more guns from these trader times type papers. He picked up 3 this week from one listing...

He said people are needing money and he's picking up deals every week. I read the listings of three of our local ones every week but hardly ever find anything I'm interested in at the price I'd be willing to pay.

[SteveM]

78. You can, but you would violate the law...

if you knew the person could not pass a NICS test. If you want to extend the NICS test to all purchasers, and to all sellers, then make a proposal. This has been the subject of debate some years back in this forum, and many good points were made. You may be interested to know that most pro-2A folks were philosophically in favor of such a requirement. I will assume if you do NOT make a proposal, then you really view such measures as inadequate to fulfill your want, which is:

Prohibition.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

72. Guess they didnt learn the first time....

State preemption is a bitch, ain't it?

[iverglas]

74. I'll just try again

By "the first time", you mean the time their insurer made an out-of-court settlement with the deep-pocketed bullies intent on getting their own way at any cost and with no concern for the public interest or anyone's interest but their own?

You are aware that having one's insurer settle a claim out of court (entirely possibly against one's real wishes) is not a lesson in anything, right?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. You have that backwards

deep-pocketed bullies intent on getting their own way at any cost and with no concern for the public interest or anyone's interest but their own

I would point out the the Fair Board is the one with the deep pockets and the one bullying a lawful event to accept controversial restriction beyond those required by law.

[iverglas]

100. I would point out

that you're talking out your bum.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

102. snork

The facts do not fit your projections, inconvenient as that may be for you.

Thank you for showing your continuing support of civil discourse.

[redgiant]

87. The best thing to do...

...if the fair board goes along with the restriction--please see my post #86 as to why it's probably not a preemption violation--would be for this or any gun show promoter to cancel any shows on this fairground and seek a more friendly venue. Then, hold the FB directors accountable for the loss of revenue. I'm sure there is an owner of vacant space in a declining shopping center that would welcome the shows. A good example is the Westland Shopping Center in the Columbus area. I've been to many gunshows in the old Penny's location.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. Be interesting to know if the board is appointed or elected

Ours is elected and would get tossed out if they pulled such a stunt, even in California.

[iverglas]

101. well, I thought I was seeing reason

Then, hold the FB directors accountable for the loss of revenue.

Really? Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on the internet?

What cause of action are you proposing here?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

103. There is a fiducary duty here, but suits on that tend to be weak

but given the number of lawyers underemployed in the US, one might well be found to take it on contingency.

However, if the board members are elected, the locals can boot them at the next election, using this issue as the reason.

[iverglas]

105. there is a fiduciary duty??

To would-be lessees???

What mail-order institution have you been paying to teach you silly words?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. They are stewards of the resources and should maximize value

utilization etc. Don't they have taxpayer suits or shareholder suit in your village? Arguably it is weak, and according to the legal beagles often settled for some token payment. However, that coupled with the earlier payment may well be enough to get them turned out of office. At least one can hope.

[iverglas]

108. god damn that's a dog's breakfast

What I originally replied to was this:

for this or any gun show promoter to cancel any shows on this fairground and seek a more friendly venue. Then, hold the FB directors accountable for the loss of revenue

Now, I assumed that meant hold them accountable for the promoter's loss of revenue. That certainly seemed like a reasonable assumption, given that nobody else was brought into the paragraph there.

Now you're saying there should be accountability for loss of revenue to the fairgrounds authority. Well, I guess someone would need standing even to try that, and it wouldn't be the promoter. But some ratepayer could give it a shot, I suppose.

And then every time an operator of such public premises decided not to lease them to anybody at all for any reason at all, they'd be opening themselves up to a suit by some ratepayer with time on their hands ...

[redgiant]

107. Yes, you did see reason

I just didn't make my comment clear. IANAL, nor do I play one on the internet. I did not mean "hold accountable" in a legal sense, but in a public relations sense. It is not uncommon for gun show promoters to hold several, let's say three to six, shows at the same venue each year. If one or more promoters opted out of the fairgrounds due to such regulations, bringing the loss of revenue needed by a public facility to defray its operating expenses to public attention via letters to the editor, letters to the county commissioners, etc., could be a legitimate tactic by the pro-show side to push back and bring pressure on the board to reverse its position. Or,it at least might give other jurisdictions a reason to more carefully consider pushing similar rules.

A little history. The Ohio Gun Collectors Association is a large private organization for gun enthusiast and collectors with a long and respected history. To become a member, you must be sponsored by another member and approved by their membership committee. You can attend their gun shows only as a member or guest of a member. OGCA has thousands of members who come from nearly every state. Their shows and meetings bring millions in revenue to convention centers and related businesses. They used to hold their meetings and shows in Columbus, until the 1989 gun ban was enacted by city council. OGCA moved on to the Cleveland area. The annual loss to the convention business due to this move was reported to be $20 million. Making these kinds of issues known to the public is the kind of "accountability" to which I was referring.

[Oneka]

104. Are we all about to see,

a whole new meaning to the words "gunshow loophole". ?