By Ken Hanson Esq.

It is the end of 2005. A time to gather with family and loved ones and enjoy the season together. A time to reflect on the year’s accomplishments and failures. A time to resolve to do better in the coming year.

For me, as we look forward to a very exciting legislative year, it is a time to look at the predictions of the two sides of the concealed carry debate and examine how reality measures up to the hype.

I will defer to anti-gun crusaders to show the examples of the soccer mom shootouts, the fender-bender murders and the valuable uses of the media access loophole, and instead focus my efforts on the pro-gun predictions offered when Ohio first passed HB 12, Ohio's concealed carry law. The examples cited are drawn upon the first 18 months of the law being in effect.

I would like to apologize to the individuals involved in these examples, their families, and anyone impacted by the incidents. It is not my intent to re-open old wounds or to gain from your tragedy. However, it is critical that the public understand how well this law is working.

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

An outdoors writer from Crawfordsville, Indiana has published an excellent column on current events regarding gun control and politics.

The volume of hate emails has dribbled off considerably so I think it is a good time to check in with Second Amendment issues and see what kind of vitriol we might dredge up from a few of the regular readers/cranks.

Our first item is an article from the Boston Globe newspaper published on Dec. 17 that says the Democratic Party is “rethinking its approach to the gun debate to improve the chances of its candidates in the western states.” Apparently it has finally dawned on the national Democratic leadership that people who own firearms are not deranged sadistic rednecks but instead, ordinary American citizens who vote religiously.

Many Democrats, such as Senate candidate Paul Hackett from Ohio, are also concerned about the fallout of being cast as the chosen political party of anti-gun advocates. Hackett told The Globe that gun-friendly Democratic candidates “are depicted by some in our party as a bunch of yahoos and we’re not.”

National Democratic Committee Chairman Howard Dean is telling candidates to soften their stance on gun control laws by considering them a state-level issue that can be tailored specifically for rural “pro-gun” states or urban “anti-gun” areas. This whole concept of repackaging the party first gained steam during the last presidential campaign when candidate John Kerry tried to pass himself off as an avid hunter and shooter.

As an aside, this corner would be interested to see a copy of the Mr. Kerry’s current 2005 hunting license.

We mention this news item not as an anti-Democrat rant but simply a plea for all registered voters not to be fooled by politicians wearing hunter orange, regardless of political affiliation.

It has been predicted by this corner and various other commentators that the swamps, fields and shooting ranges of our great country will be crowded the next few years with pink-cheeked politicians swinging around brand-new shotguns, chafing in new boots and generally trying to appear as if they know which end of the duck call to blow. We beg concerned hunters and shooters to remember: even if something quacks like a duck, it isn’t necessarily a duck.

It might be a lying weasel.

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