Judging by the frequency of letters to the editor on the topic alone, it is clear that concealed carry reform in particular, and some Republican's lack of leadership in general, are THE hot topics facing the Ohio legislature this fall.

Not Nuts, by a Long Shot
October 30, 2003
City Beat (Cincinnati)

Regarding Greg Flannery's article, Show of Force (issue of Oct. 1-7), I was there at the Northside march. He blew it, big time. "Vigilante posse?" Ridiculous! Sixty people? He can't count. We had 84 people sign in. Plus about 20 cops who didn't want to sign in for fear their departments might retaliate. They don't want to have to rely on the "Affirmative Defense" when they retire.

As for the group being all white, I had two neighborhood black men walking alongside me at one point and we discussed the problems with the neighborhood. There were many more than three women, as well as a little girl, who were directly around me. Hence it wasn't just a "vigilante posse" of white men.

If anyone was behaving badly, it was Aaron Rogers with his silly squirt gun. He was provocative, profane and rude and had no facts to back up his claims. There was only one reasonable person in the group that protested us, and I was able to have a civil conversation with him, the chap with the shaved head and beard.

Why did Flannery not mention that there were only eight anti-self defense protesters? He downsized our group by half. Why did he not mention how few of them there were? Hardly objective reporting on his behalf, in my view. It speaks poorly of your publication that the standards of honesty and detail are not higher.

You can see me in the picture used. The yellow post in the right side of the picture. My left knee is level with its top. I am wearing beige pants and a blue coat. If you look to the left of me, you'll see a red blotch -- that was the shirt of one of the neighborhood black men I was talking with. His face is hidden by the man in front of him. He marched with us because he was shot in this neighborhood near his home and wants his rights to self defense restored -- as do all who marched.

Gun nuts? Now there's objective language. Some of these people own only one gun, and it's for defense of hearth and home. For most there's no obsession with guns. They want to be able to defend themselves. Why does that get them the label "gun nuts?"

Concealed carry benefits everyone, even those who don't arm themselves. Since the weapon is concealed, the criminal doesn't know who's armed and is deterred from attacking. It works well in [45] other states. It has reduced crime in those states.

Rogers and the seven other protesters can decry "blood in the streets" and "Dodge City," but the facts don't back up the balderdash they were spewing. So I suggest you might want to research this subject a bit more and put a reporter on this to give fair coverage next time.

-- Timothy Inwood

Click on the "Read More..." link below to review two anti-concealed carry letters, including one from a Perrysburg police officer who says government should "make it tough to own guns."

While all eyes look to the General Assembly for announcement about a meeting time for the HB12 Conference Committee, defenseless Ohioans continue to be victimized, and the Ohio Crime Clock tally (located at the top-right of the www.buckeyefirearms.org homepage) continues to rack up numbers of Ohioans who would not have been victimized if HB12 were already law.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for some of the tragic crimes that have been perpetrated on the innocent this week.

This is long, but WELL worth the read. Why won't today's media, supposedly concerned with modern day racism and bigotry, report on the facts about the history of Ohio's concealed carry ban?

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Concealed Carry Ban
September 24, 2003, 8:18 a.m.

I guess I'm not too surprised. Ohio's law prohibits carrying a concealed handgun, but allows you to raise an affirmative defense at trial that you needed to do so for self-protection. In practice, it was only a few years ago that this affirmative defense was finally successfully used at trial. Even law enforcement officials who testified during the initial trial in Hamilton County couldn't agree on what was a lawful reason to carry concealed.

Part of the opinion makes sense. They acknowledge that the right to bear arms under the Ohio Constitution is fundamental. But they also argue that fundamental rights are subject to reasonable limitations, and point to the fact that in both State v. Hogan (Ohio 1900) and State v. Nieto (Ohio 1920) the Ohio Supreme Court upheld limitations on carrying of arms as reasonable limitations. Because of constitutional conventions between 1859 (when the first ban was passed) and the present, which kept the Ohio right to keep and bear arms provision unchanged, they have a legitimate argument when they claim that this is evidence that concealed carry is not constitutionally protected.

What is disappointing is how embarrassing both Hogan and Nieto are, and how unconcerned the Ohio Supreme Court is with citing these cases.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.