Ohio

A judge in Tiffin ruled yesterday that Ohio's decades-old ban on carrying concealed weapons violates the state Constitution because it prevents people from defending themselves. Seneca County Common Pleas Judge Michael Kelbley dismissed a case against a woman charged with having a hidden gun in a car. In a similar case, the Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge by activists from Hamilton County who argue the law is illegal. The Hamilton County Common Pleas Court found the ban violates the Ohio Constitution and people should be allowed to carry weapons. In April, the 1st Ohio District Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. The Supreme Court has not said when it will hear arguments in the case. Seneca County Prosecutor Ken Egbert said he will appeal Kelbley's decision to the 3rd Ohio District Court of Appeals.

This was a decision based on the state constitution, not the 2nd Amendment of the Federal Constitution, but still undeniably significant!

The state plans to test a system on the Ohio Turnpike that uses optical scanners to catch criminals and look for stolen cars.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol will use two scanners on turnpike gates and two scanners in patrol cars for four months. The system recognizes license plates registered with a national crime database that tracks stolen cars and serious crimes.

The patrol will report to lawmakers by year's end and won't implement the system or expand it without approval by the Controlling Board or the Legislature, said patrol spokesman Capt. John Born. Born said the devices don't take pictures or make videotapes and don't create any databases of individuals.

Oh, they don't create any databases, do they? Sure; it's just the people who receive the reports that create the databases. This is, to put it bluntly, the infrastructure of a surveillance state. They may claim that there will be no database -- but there is clearly the capability to create one, should they choose. They may claim that only "stolen cars and serious crimes" will be included in the database -- but these days, engaging in a peaceful protest against your own government may be considered a serious crime.

Hat tip to Politech.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry today announced that it is calling upon the Ohio General Assembly to remove the flawed media access loophole from the new concealed handgun license law.

The move is being made following the announcement by Shelby County Prosecutor Jim Stevenson that, in response to his request, Court of Common Pleas Judge John D. Schmitt has appointed a special prosecutor (Miami County Prosecutor Gary Nasal) to look into possible criminal violations by Shelby Co. Sheriff Kevin O'Leary and Sidney Daily News editor Jeffrey Billiel, a Brown Publishing Co. employee.

At least ten Ohio Concealed Handgun License-holders have contacted OFCC's Office of General Counsel for advice on seeking legal recourse for damages related to the release of their private, protected information. These people were referred to Attorney Ken Hanson with the firm of Firestone and Brehm, Ltd., for legal help.

Seems that some Ohio sherriffs released their list of concealed-carry-permit holders to the media, and the media decided to print the list, as many had threatened to do. While printing a list of names and addresses for people known to carry firearms is a royally stupid thing to do, no doubt, there are free-speech implications here, especially as the penalties available under the law for this act appear to be felonies. This will likely ruin the sheriff and his pet newspaper if the charges stand, along with all of the innocent people whose personal information has now been publically disclosed. It would have been much more proper for forbid the release of the information at all; as it is, the permit holders have already been harmed, and that harm cannot be undone. All we can do is punish those who harmed them.

The Troy Daily News completed this story by listing the name, county of residence, and age of concealed handgun license-holders issued by the Miami County sheriff's office. They join a list of "sour grapes" press outlets which also includes the Warren Tribune Chronicle (Trumbull Co.), Elyria Chronicle-Telegram (Lorain Co.), and Sidney Daily News (Shelby Co.). OFCC is also aware of a number of other newspapers which have made requests and are building lists of CHL-holders in their counties, but have not (yet?) published them.

What we have here is a case of monumental hubris. Ohioans For Concealed Carry covers it pretty well. If you want to contact the papers to complain, there are phone numbers in the article. They likely won't change their mind, but hearing from us should hopefully raise their awareness.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry, the state's largest grassroots organization working to reform Ohio's self-defense laws, announced today that its Office of General Counsel has sent letters to the first municipalities that have passed ordinances attempting to restrict the lawful carrying of concealed handguns by those licensed by the State of Ohio.

In these letters, Attorney Ken Hanson, Chair of OFCC's litigation section, details to the municipalities why their ordinances are invalid.

Hanson explained, "There has been a lot of bad information floating around, particularly with regard to so-called 'home rule' powers. This is not unexpected in the first ninety days of a new law. The purpose of these letters is to lay out in black and white exactly why the ordinances are invalid, and to give each letter recipient a last chance to avoid being sued over the offending ordinance."

Looks like the Ohioans for Concealed Carry are planning to sue municipalities who aren't abiding by the state law. Good for them; lawyers can be useful if they're on your side.

Seems that the Cleveland Plain Dealer printed a list of Ohio CCW permit holders in their newspaper. No Quarters has put together contact information for the newspaper's internet advertisers, with the idea of calling the advertisers to complain about the newspaper's actions. Complaints to advertisers yank the financial chain of the newspaper effectively when complaints to the newspaper itself are ignored.

So check out the post, and consider sending a polite note to the advertisers expressing your dismay that they choose to advertise in a disreputable newspaper like the Plain Dealer.

Xavier University had scheduled a debate between Dr. John Lott and Cincinnati Councilman David Crowley. But according to NRA News (Friday, October 30th), Crowley ducked the debate when he found out who his opponent was. It's already well established that gun control advocates have difficulty winning a debate on facts, rather than lies; usually, however, they are game enough to show up and try anyway.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry has learned that Sandusky County Common Pleas Judge Harry A. Sargeant, Jr. has granted our request for a temporary restraining order, which prohibits the City of Clyde from enforcing Ordinance # 2004-41 (a concealed carry ban). The City of Clyde has been ordered to remove its signs within 24 hours.

The issue is a lawsuit filed by Ohioians for Concealed Carry seeking to strike down a local ordinance forbidding concealed carry. They've filed a lawsuit and received a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the law. Way to go!

Ohioans for Concealed Carry has some news about anti-self-defense bills in their state legislature.

A recurring theme on this blog has been the exceptions to various laws made for law enforcement officers.  The idea that law enforcement officers are somehow special, and deserving of rights that ordinary citizens do not have, is not only wrong, but actually dangerous.  "Special rights" breeds all kinds of abuses. 

Most of the "special rights" relate to firearms.  It's supposedly OK for a police officer to possess and own a newly-manufactured machine gun, even though ordinary citizens cannot -- and even though the only crime committed with a legally-owned machine gun was committed by a police officer.  It's OK for police officers to carry a concealed firearm while off duty, outside of their jurisdiction, and even after retirement, but not for ordinary citizens. 

But there are other "special rights" hidden in the system that are only now coming to light.  And the stench is at least as bad as the firearms "rights".

Authorities gave Michelle Szuhay another woman's identity to use while undercover.

Haley Dawson has never been a stripper.

But Ohio liquor-control agents took her identity and gave it to a
22-year-old college student who they had recruited to work undercover as a nude dancer.

It's now OK for police officers (at least in Ohio; I wouldn't be surprised if other states have similar laws) to steal someone's identity as part of an investigation.  Even if the person's identity they appropriate is still alive.  Even if the stolen identity involves working as a stripper.  What kind of damage could that do to someone's reputation? 

There's a saying in the anti-spam community.  It's based on the fact that spammers often define spam narrowly, in a way that excludes their business model, and think that makes it OK for them to spam while claiming to be anti-spam themselves.  The saying goes: "Spam is what we don't do."

I think government needs a similar line: "Crime is what we don't do." 

Because we all know that governments, even the best of governments, behave like criminals -- enforcing their decisions by threat and application of violence, and carefully writes the laws they enforce so as to exclude their own conduct.

The city council of Columbus, Ohio is considering an assault weapons ban.  The Fifty Caliber Institute has got it covered:

Columbus, Ohio City Council held hearings this evening on a proposed ban on so-called "assault weapons," a ban that would also include certain models of   +.50 caliber competition rifles.  The hearing room was packed with concerned local citizens, the vast majority of which were present to speak against the ban.

Testimony kicked off with a representative of Ohio's "People's Rights Organization" (PRO) who spoke eloquently of the many reasons this idea was just plain wrong. He was followed by those in favor of the ban, including the Assistant Chief of Police of Columbus, a Columbus Police Officer, a representative of +the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police), and, finally, a representative from the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence.

The focus of the Columbus police presence was the recent incident of an alleged criminal fleeing police pursuit INTO the city of Columbus. The suspect was allegedly armed with an AK47 and allegedly proceeded to shoot up several homes and police cars in avoiding arrest.  This incident was held up as a reason why such a ban on "assault weapons" was needed in Columbus. How that would've stopped someone from outside Columbus already in the process of violating the law wasn't mentioned.

The OCAGV representative provided a Power-Point presentation to council on the reasons why "assault weapons" are bad and why they must be banned.Unfortunately, the audience was left wondering why almost all the incidents she illustrated of "assault weapon" use occurred during the term of the FEDERAL "assault weapon" ban under Bill Clinton. No reasoning was given as to why Columbus should institute a similar ban, one that had already been shown to be a failure, on a magnitude that even the US Congress recognized and, rightfully, allowed to expire.

The OCAGV representative then provided numerous examples of how the SKS rifle had been used as an "assault weapon" in crimes, but the SKS isn't covered by the definition of Columbus's own proposed ban.  (It is semi-automatic, but does not have a protruding pistol grip, nor one for the non-trigger hand, nor a barrel shroud, nor a flash hider/muzzle brake, nor a thumb-hole/folding/telescoping stock, nor is the magazine detachable.)

While there were numerous people present speaking against the ban, far more than for it, the most interesting point in the evening came when it was pointed out by one opponent that, while Columbus City Council was proposing to ban an entire class of firearm because they "...are the weapons of choice for terrorists..." and because they are "...primarily designed to kill humans quickly and efficiently...," that same city council had just appropriated funds to equip its own police department with the exact same class of weapon!

If you were unable to attend this evening's meeting, there's still time for you to respectfully weigh in with your own views. You can see details of the proposal, as well as comment on the bill, by going to this website:

http://www.columbuscitycouncil.org/assaultweaponban/

As always, please continue to visit the Fifty Caliber Institute website for all the latest on our efforts to defend your RIGHT to own the rifle caliber of YOUR choice.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

There's a LOT of good data in this testimony.

There are a number of amendments, and a final vote is scheduled for July 11th.  Some of the amendments are nasty; for example, exceptions for .22 caliber "assault weapons" were removed, and "assault weapons" purchased before the ban must be registered within 90 days, and normal-capacity magazines can only be possessed in conjunction with a registered assault weapon.

Scary stuff.

... and they passed it 6-0.  Citizens have 90 days to register their "scary" firearms.

I think it's clear that any appearance of public input into this legislation was nothing more than an illusion.

This bill, if passed into law, would rescind the Columbus, Ohio "assault weapon" ban. That would be a good thing.  Firearm rights are too important to be subject to the whim of local authorities, beyond the obvious regulations required for safe discharge.   

In the past two days, the Warren Tribune Chronicle (Trumbull Co.) and Elyria Chronicle-Telegram (Lorain Co.) have begun punishing the citizens of their respective counties as a means of protesting Ohio's new concealed carry law.

Both news outlets, known for a history of publishing vehemently anti-concealed carry editorials, published the names of every person who has been issued a CHL in the county.

This is a clear case of the journalistic class forgetting their duty to the people in favor of putting forward their own biases. In other words, these two papers have abandoned honor and abused their privileged position. While this may not sound like a big deal at first, it's significant because rarely have people in their position been willing to display their biases blatantly. Their power and influence derives from the perception of integrity -- that is, the idea that a journalist makes an effort to sort out the facts from the opinions and to responsibly present the major points of view.

When that respect is lost, so is the power. The media in general has already lost the trust of the people, who generally perceive the bias more clearly than they are given credit for. As their influence wanes, the media pundits -- like the editorial board of these papers -- will be driven to become even more shrill in attempting to force through their policies; all the while their readers will be slowly seeking alternatives sources of news.

That's the Internet, folks. It destroys the media influence block by providing alternative sources for information -- allowing people to doubt the accounts fed to them, and seek out better sources for themselves.

OFCC warned supporters about the next battleground in the concealed carry fight just hours after HB12 was signed into law. In Gun ban extremists' expected ''Business Blitz'' begins, we noted that Ohio's liberal media outlets were all-too willing to help "share the gospel" of business bans.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry has posted a list of businesses posting no-ccw signs. Many of these are national chains, so it's well worth checking out the list -- and evaluating whether you want to continue to do business with anyone on it.

See what happens when you tell a guy he can hide a gun under his sport coat? Right away, he starts strutting as if he were Matt Dillon kicking up dirt after a little coochy-coo with Miss Kitty. Threatening this, threatening that it's embarrassing, really, especially when the fellow playing shoot'em-up is a state official.

State Rep. Jim Aslanides is just full of spit and swagger now that his concealed-weapon bill has passed. Thanks to Cowboy Jim and his posse, your average citizen not to mention your not- so-average raging ex-spouse and disgruntled employee can carry a hidden weapon around any street in the state.

Actually, what's embarassing is the idea that a journalist -- supposedly someone with a responsibility for fair and honest reporting, rather than an advocate for their own opinions -- would characterize the debate in such childish terms.

What's actually going on here is that Ohio's legislature passed a concealed-carry bill that the governor signed. This took quite a while, and involved a number of compromises, and it happened over the strident objections of the news media. And now, rather than accept that the people's representatives honorably disagree, the media plans to take one of the "special rights" that the governor negotiated for -- specifically, the ability to find out who has a concealed-carry permit -- and abuse that right by obtaining and publishing the entire list.

What's their intent? Obviously, to expose those who choose to obtain permits to the community as a whole, defeating the intent of the concealed carry laws, and perhaps even to expose those with permits to sanctions from neighbors or employers who don't see eye to eye on the gun issue.

That's an extremely mean-spirited way to advance the debate. Some of Ohio's elected officials are rightfully outraged about it. Name-calling neither advances the debate nor grants the serious concerns of those officials the dignity they deserve.

In an often-lively debate, advocates for gun-rights told the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday that the state's ban on carrying concealed handguns infringes on their constitutional right to bear arms. The state attorney general's office countered that the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment right to free speech, is not absolute. Ohio is among six states without a system that allows citizens to carry hidden guns. Among the exceptions to Ohio?s ban are police officers and people who can demonstrate a need to carry concealed weapons because of their work or out of fear for their safety.

The Ohio Legislature is considering a right-to-carry proposal to lift some of the state restrictions on citizensı rights to carry concealed firearms. This indicates that even politicians can have occasional flashes of insight and wisdom. Liberals are, of course, convinced that this leads to street gunfights. Considering the shallow, emotional liberal philosophy, this reaction is expected. The truth is quite the contrary. For decades, gun control laws passed across the country, to the delight of our criminal element. While the crime rate rose, some communities and states recently eased some restrictions. In every case, stricter controls led to increases in violent crime while places that removed some laws preventing people from protecting themselves, experienced a decline in those same types of criminal activity. The statistics are absolutely indisputable.

This week, the state's highest court will hear arguments on one of the most controversial issues facing Ohio's lawmakers. Tuesday, the Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments in a lawsuit over the state's law banning concealed carry. The Second Amendment Foundation and Cincinnati residents question the constitutionality of state law that makes it illegal to conceal a gun, unless it's used for self-defense. Ohio is currently one of six states that does not allow residents to carry hidden weapons.

Having passed the Ohio House overwhelmingly, a concealed-handgun measure now is being debated in the state Senate, and the rhetoric is heating up. The debate isn't over whether the legislation will pass the Senate. The debate is over whether it will receive more than the 60 percent vote required to overcome a veto by Gov. Bob Taft. The bill proposes to allow trained, law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns for their protection. But opponents raise fears that the measure would instead generate more violence. The Ohio State Highway Patrol, the only Ohio law enforcement association opposed to the bill, predicts there would be shootouts on the road.

Angered by a judge's comments, the Cincinnati police union said yesterday it wants out of an agreement put in place after 2001 race riots to improve police relations with blacks. Officials with the Fraternal Order of Police said more than 200 members voted unanimously yesterday to pull out of the agreement and will soon ask U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott to make it official. The union blamed Judge Dlott for the decision, saying she believes police violate civil rights and engage in racial profiling. A spokeswoman for Judge Dlott's office declined to comment yesterday.

It took less than 48 hours in Ohio before some began trying to use the tragic Case Western incident for political gain. On Sunday (before the criminal's victim was even laid to rest), anti-self-defense activists, including Cleveland "Million" Mom March chapter president Lori O'Neill, held a press conference, at which they attempted to exploit this tragedy to prop up their opposition to reforming Ohio's ban on self-defense with a concealed firearm, and to support continued bans on "assault" weapons.

A group of Cleveland mothers devoted a portion of Mother's Day to an unlikely topic: gun control. At a hastily arranged news conference, a half-dozen members of the local Million Mom March chapter said recent violence, including the deadly shooting spree at Case Western Reserve University, could have been prevented by tougher gun laws.

It doesn't take them long to dance in the blood of the victims, does it? Suffice it to say that tougher guns laws would have prevented nothing.