Dayton authorities still haven't found Tony Gordon's killer. And despite yet another attempt by the victim to follow the Ohio Highway Patrol's advice to "just drive away" when attacked, another Dayton man has been seriously injured in a carjacking strikingly similar to Gordon's.

April 8 cannot come soon enough. For a look at how obstruction by the OHP and Gov. Taft has cost Ohio's defenseless victims, look at the Ohio Crime Clock at the top right corner of www.buckeyefirearms.org

March 31, 2004
Police Search For Shooting Suspect

DAYTON, Ohio -- Dayton police are searching for the person responsible for shooting a man as he approached a stop sign at the intersection of Fairbanks and Gramont early Wednesday morning.

Officers said the 33-year-old man was shot at least three times and his 1982 El Camino was riddled with bullets.

align="right">
Investigators said the man was on his way to a friend's house when someone wearing gloves shoved a gun in the passenger side window and opened fire. The victim was shot in the chest, elbow and hip.

Police said the victim used his cell phone to call his friend, who took the victim to Good Samaritan Hospital. He is listed in guarded condition and is expected to survive.

Investigators do not have any leads because the victim never got a good look at his attacker.

March 27, 2004
New Philadelphia Times Reporter

To the Editor:

Recent headlines in The Times-Reporter have me very alarmed that the cities of New Philadelphia and Dover are trying to pass legislation restricting where Concealed Carry permit holders can carry their weapons. I do not live in either city, but I do often go to parks and other places in their cities.

I spend a lot of money in these two towns, as do many others who are in support of the Concealed Carry Law (House Bill 12). I urge them to do their research on the subject of concealed weapons and not blindly pass an ordinance. Such legislation would be in direct violation of the Ohio Revised Code. I am including a direct passage from House Bill 12 which clarifies my point.

The passage is as follows:

Section 9:

"The General Assembly finds that licenses to carry concealed handguns are a matter of statewide concern and wishes to ensure uniformity throughout the state regarding the qualifications for a person to carry a concealed handgun and the authority granted to a person holding a license of that nature. It is the intent of the General Assembly...to enact laws of a general nature, and, by enacting laws of a general nature, the state occupies and preempts the field of issuing licenses to carry a concealed handgun and the validity of licenses of that nature. No municipal corporation may adopt or continue in existence any ordinance, and no township may adopt or continue in existence any resolution, that is in conflict with those sections, including, but not limited to, any ordinance or resolution that attempts to restrict the places where a person possessing a valid license to carry a concealed handgun and may carry a handgun concealed."

It is clear to me that any ordinance passed by any city council attempting to regulate this would be considered null and void and would be thrown out of court immediately. It would be better to not pass an unlawful ordinance and not require any of us to be subject to an unlawful arrest. The state has clearly reserved the right to restrict where concealed handguns may be carried and has stipulated such in House Bill 12.

There are provisions within the bill which ban concealed weapons from certain public "buildings", but it does not mention parks or open property. Keep in mind, the Ohio General Assembly did not trust local government to regulate this and specifically prohibited you as a municipalities from enacting such laws.

Brent Baumberger,
Uhrichsville

-----------
Click on the "Read More..." link below to view a response from New Philadelphia Ward III councilperson Darrin Lautenschleger.

Reports of a few sheriffs telling reporters and constituents that they would not be accepting applications on April 8 have been filtering in for weeks. As we indicated on March 25 , OFCC PAC has been on the case, working with the Buckeye State Sheriff's Association to investigate these reports, and we are making progress.

Only the Ohio Attorney General had legal authority to delay implementation of the law, and only for a short time. However, the Attorney General's Office has assured OFCC PAC that there will not be a delay.

Ohio's sheriffs have NO authority to add requirements for applicants, or to forceably limit the number of applicants to a tiny fraction of those who wish to apply, or to delay acceptance of applications beyond April 8.

Ohio law states that sheriffs SHALL accept applications, and issue licenses to those who qualify, within 45 days of April 8, 2004. OFCC PAC will continue to work with the Buckeye State Sheriff's Association to ensure on-time implementation.

Please continue to forward reports of any potentially illegal delays to info@buckeyefirearms.org.

Click here to read the very latest on our progress with the BSSA and Ohio's sheriffs in preparation for on-time implementation of the law next week.