*

*
Politics Extra
Enquirer reporters give the scoop on what your politicians are doing


Jessica Brown,
Hamilton County reporter


Jon Craig,
Enquirer statehouse bureau


Jane Prendergast,
Cincinnati City Hall reporter


Malia Rulon,
Enquirer Washington bureau


Carl Weiser,
Blog editor


Howard Wilkinson,
politics reporter

Powered by Blogger

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Senate overrides Taft gun bill veto

The Ohio Senate today overrode Gov. Bob Taft's veto last week of a revised concealed-carry gun bill, by a vote of 21-12, one vote more than was needed for a supermajority.

It marks the first override of a governor's veto since James Rhodes in June 1977.

When it becomes law in 90 days, House Bill 347 will wipe out more than 80 local gun laws including Cincinnati's ban on assault weapons, despite Friday's ruling in favor of the city by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Thursday, the Ohio House voted 71-21 to override Taft's third veto of his eight-year tenure, the first by that chamber of the General Assembly since 1990.

When House Bill 347 passed the Senate last month, it got 19 votes although four senators were absent.

Senate President Bill Harris, an Ashland Republican, supported the bill lawmakers originally sent to Taft.

The Senate has a 22 to 11 Republican majority.

Taft, a Republican leaving office Jan. 7, vetoed the bill Thursday saying it exceeds its goal of cleaning up Ohio's concealed weapons law by preempting local gun laws.

Backers defend the clause because it brings uniformity to a confusing patchwork of local bans and other restrictions.

A majority of respondents to an Ohio survey released earlier today said overriding local gun laws is a bad idea, according to the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute based in Hamden, Conn. The institute's assistant director, Peter A. Brown, said he found the results particularly interesting given Taft's continued unpopularity in the public-opinion poll.

See detailed results of today's Quinnipiac survey here


13 Comments:

at 2:54 PM, December 12, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Finally the wRong wingnut misleaders got something right !

Every citizen should be allowed to carry weapons. After all, it is the wRong wingnut whacko government that is assaulting us !

OTR street thugs beware, we'll pop a cap in your finney fanny kisser !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

 
at 2:56 PM, December 12, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

When the House and Senate is finished ramrodding legislation through against the public's will (i.e, Democrat majorities), hopefully the Ohio Highway Patrol is waiting outside to arrest every single Republican Senator and Representative as an accessory to Marcus Feisel's murder.

 
at 3:27 PM, December 12, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee....I looked at that poll and without a breakdown of weighting, methodology, number of Rep vs Dems it is meaninless.

Might have well said.....54% of people love puppies and ice-cream.

Since they only bothered to call 1027 voters (likely, registered, stil breathing?,who knows) I highly doubt the findings.

Not to mention the fact that every anti-gun newpaper in Ohio has been screaming about this for over a year, yet the 54% of mystery voters who are for local entities making their own laws didn't bother to pickup the phone and make their views known.

 
at 6:43 PM, December 12, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

guys - how about onpening a thead regarding the legislativeproposals to: charge the state for every rule it passes, to restrict fundraising for the party that didn't engage in pay to play, to exempt all low wage earne fromthe minimum raise law we just passed, to require the ag to perform functions reserved for the executive branch, or to re-do the district map drawing rules
so everything voters voted to get rid of or bring in, is effectively eliminated -

How about a thread on THAT!

THese issues only violate the constitutional separation of powers - what the heck?

 
at 6:57 PM, December 12, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you liberals hate freedom so much? The 2nd amendment wasn't put there to hunt ducks and bunnies.

 
at 10:39 AM, December 13, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

...to exempt all low wage earne fromthe minimum raise law we just passed,...

You don't really expect the wRing wingnut fishwrap to report on any real news do you ?

Only puff, bias fast food pieces !

PATHETIC !

House Weakens Wage Bill; Fight Looms in Senate


Call Your State Senator Today! Don't Let the Senate Pass Another Bad Bill!

The Ohio House passed a bill today that attempts to rewrite parts of the newly passed Constitutional Amendment to raise Ohio's minimum wage, better known as Issue 2. The bill (Sub. HB 690) excludes certain groups of employees who were recently given a pay raise by Ohio voters, like home healthcare workers and firefighters. It also weakened other worker protections specified in the voter-approved Amendment.

It's now up to the Senate to right these wrongs. Debate will ensue this week over two bills, one sponsored by Sen. Steve Stivers (R-Columbus) and Issue 2’s opponents (SB 401) and another by Senate Minority Leader and Ohioans for a Fair Minimum Wage Co-Chair, CJ Prentiss (SB 402).

Call and urge your state senator not to support SB 401, or any bill that selectively denies the minimum wage to certain groups of workers and weakens the protections approved by voters on Nov. 7. Click HERE to find your senator's contact information.

What These Bad Bills Do...

1) They rewrite the voter-approved amendment to deny the new minimum wage to workers who were very clearly covered in the amendment, such as home healthcare workers and fire fighters.

2) They change Ohio court rules to protect “bad apple employers” from having to repay unpaid minimum wages to all of their employees.

3) And they eliminate the current Ohio rule banning agreements to work for less than the minimum wage, creating a “back door” provision which could eliminate the minimum wage altogether.

What Ohioans for a Fair Minimum wage Has to Say ...

Bill Denies Raise to Some Employees,

Weakens Protection Provisions in Voter-Approved Amendment

We Need Your Help...

Call your state senator today and tell him/her to vote NO on Senator Steve Stivers’ bill, or any other bill that weakens the coverages and protections of the voter-approved amendment.

 
at 10:45 AM, December 13, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

....Why do you liberals hate freedom so much?.....

It is wRong wingnut whackos who hate freedom as they sit idle and let the cokehead misleader strip our constitutional bill of rights !

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

 
at 12:01 PM, December 13, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 2nd amendment obviously wasn't just put in for hunting bunnies, but it sure as f*** wasn't put in so that a bunch of you psychos could carry assault weapons and terrorize us all.

The 2nd amendment was included in the context of an unstable and new country whose citizens worried about foreign invasions and those native "savages". At that time we had plenty of civil militias. That and plenty of Americans hunted for their food.

If you think you really NEED the right to own a powerful weapon this day in age for self defense, surely you have lost touch.

 
at 4:45 PM, December 13, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

....If you think you really NEED the right to own a powerful weapon this day in age for self defense, surely you have lost touch....

No, you refuse to face reality !

Due to the wRong wingnut policies, China now finances our country.

Due to the wRong wingnut policies, our constitutional rights are violated and revoked !

We all need assault riffles, period !

I've got mine !

 
at 8:22 PM, December 13, 2006 Blogger Brah Coon said...

" The 2nd amendment was included in the context of an unstable and new country whose citizens worried about foreign invasions and those native "savages". "

WRONG! The founders were strongly opposed to the nation having a " standing army " because they realized that such an army (as we have today)would be essentially a mercenary force that do what the commander in chief, whomever that may be, tell it to do regardless of what the individuals who make up that force think about it. Perhaps they anticipated a day when we might have an IDIOT, madman or person who does not have the best interest of the country in mind when using this force.

They prefered the idea of the citizen soldier - the well armed militia. Ideological soldiers. And we need that more today than ever.

 
at 10:19 PM, December 13, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Every evil one can do with an "assault weapon" (a fictional term that city council couldn't even really define when it passed its idiotic law in 1989-Just ask former asst solicitor Rodney Prince if you don't believe me) is already BANNED by FEDERAL AND STATE laws

TELL ME WHY someone who violates with impugnity laws that can result in a sentence of death or a life sentence is going to care about a city MISDEMEANOR statute?

All that moronic city law does is create a hostile environment for honest gun owners

felons are already violating federal (18 USC 924) statuts.

 
at 8:40 AM, December 14, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

....They prefered the idea of the citizen soldier - the well armed militia. Ideological soldiers. And we need that more today than ever....

I'm with ya !

Guess I've gone native !

 
at 3:11 PM, December 19, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

....They prefered the idea of the citizen soldier - the well armed militia. Ideological soldiers. And we need that more today than ever....

Does that have anything to do with gangs killing each other and innocent people with guns on the street.

Why are we even debating this subject? The gun debate, like the 2nd amendment, should have been rendered obsolete long before the 20th century. Guns serve absolutely no practical need, and arming citizens hardly serves as a check on the President's power.

Some of you guys have to be nuts.

 
Post a Comment*

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.

<< Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck