Ohio Supreme Court shows why we must over ride Taft veto of HB 347

[gopguy]

Demonstrating why we need 347 Cincinnat vs. Baskin
Pity for Baskin this ruling was made now. The lowly SKS seems to be an assault weapon.......sigh. Tim


http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3421.html

OH Supremes: Cincinnati gun ban ''not in conflict'' with state law


Decision regrettable but not unexpected

Buckeye Firearms Association announced today that they regret the Ohio Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the Cincinnati vs. Baskin case, upholding that city’s assault weapon ban. However, the decision was not unexpected and the preemption language in H.B. 347 addresses every one of the Court’s criteria as set forth in the Baskin opinion. The reason the preemption language was changed between the “dash 1” version and the “dash 2” version that ended up passing was in anticipation of this decision.

“There was hope that the ‘conflict by implication’ analysis the Court made in the predatory lending cases would allow the Baskin case to succeed, but we always recognized a weakness with the case was that the court was faced with competing levels of prohibitions,” said Ken Hanson Esq., Legislative Chair of Buckeye Firearms Association. “The preemption language in H.B. 347 was changed to address this problem by making an affirmative grant of the right, meaning the Court’s analysis has already been accommodated. The Baskin decision has no impact on H.B. 347 and, in fact, makes the road map clearer for post-H.B. 347 litigation with municipalities.”

For further information:
OSC Opinion Summary

Associated Press

Cincinnati Enquirer

Columbus Dispatch

 

[gopguy]

The letter the Cleveland Plain Dealer refused to print

My buddy Jim Irvine wrote this and I think it deserves wider distribution as it is quite good. It also demonstrates the need for HB 347 to become law. Tim

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3423.html




Editor's note: The Cleveland Plain Dealer has printed several front page stories about firearms, all with factual errors. The following was submitted to as a letter to the editor, but they chose not to allow this correct information in their paper. They have continued to show their bias by citing anti-gun sources, but refusing to cite information from sources that are actually knowledgeable with the subject at hand.

The letter the Cleveland Plain Dealer refused to print

Senator Eric Fingerhut said, “If you don't respect my constituents, you don't respect me.” That is quite ironic coming from a guy who does not respect either my U.S. or Ohio constitutional rights, or even my right to defend my own life. In truth, Fingerhut understands less about guns than a two year old understands about quantum physics. (At least two-year olds don't pretend to be experts.)

Fingerhut and the media have done an excellent job explaining why we need statewide preemption. Neither they, nor any other person in Ohio can do, is discover, keep track of and explain every local restriction on firearms. Preemption fixes that problem. That is the point.

HB347 allows someone with a “concealed” handgun license to finally carry their gun “concealed.” That is not controversial, it is common sense.

HB347 does not overturn ANY local bans on carry in parks or other public areas – that was done three years ago in HB12. Despite several elected officials and the media misunderstanding this simplest part of the law, there has been no reported mayhem caused by license holders following the law in parks. What exactly is the problem they are claiming they need to address? At the same time, another media darling being tenaciously defended, reporter access to the list of license holders, is abused by this paper among others by publishing lists of license holders instead of identifying when someone acting in self-defense has a license. (For the most recent example, see the 11/29/06 Plain Dealer, where they conveniently left out the hero had a concealed carry license.)

HB 347 gives law enforcement broad new powers. Few states even require a license holder to notify a police officer they are carrying, apparently because most states understand license holders are not a threat to law enforcement. HB347 imposes the strictest penalties in the nation for failing to notify a law enforcement officer what they most likely already know, the traffic stop involves a license holder.

The only people/organizations opposed to HB347 are those who do not understand the bill, or guns, or both.

We look forward to the next four years – unlike Taft, Governor-elect Ted Strickland understands firearms, and common sense.

Jim Irvine, Chairman
Buckeye Firearms Association

 

[Standing Wolf]

What exactly is the problem they are claiming they need to address?

Why, commoners owning guns, of course!