The Cleveland Plain Dealer has published an unsigned editorial criticizing a move this week in the Statehouse to close the Media Access Loophole.

From the editorial:

This attempt speaks volumes about Ohio's lawmakers and their skewed priorities. It's not enough that, while Ohio's economy continued to slide, the General Assembly spent nearly a decade debating the issue of guns. Now, legislative gun zealots would focus on a further extension of gun rights rather than on Ohio's pressing budget, economic development and tax-reform needs.

If the Plain Dealer is so concerned about preserving legislators' time to focus on "budget, economic development and tax-reform needs", why is it demanding that the legislature address measures to ensure that they get "timely access to routine records" right here, right now, via House Bill 9? By acting to close the Media Access Loophole in a bill that deals with the issue of public records, and which has already been introduced, isn't Rep. Seitz actually saving time, versus introducing an entirely new bill to address the issue of these abuses? Do these Plain Dealer editors honestly believe that law-makers' time can only be spent on other issues when it benefits them?

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

Columbus police officer Mark J. Johnson, who was first on the scene in a recent shooting involving a criminal with a semi-automatic AK-47, testified Thursday at a Columbus City Council hearing that he is opposed to a ban on such firearms.

From the Columbus Dispatch:

A ban wouldn’t have prevented the incident, he said at a hearing last night on assault weapons.

Criminals will continue to get their hands on such weapons, ban opponents have said.

"An outright ban would hurt law-abiding citizens," Johnson, a 37-year-old Navy reservist, said after the hearing.

Also testifying was a member of the Ohio National Guard, who informed council members he gets nearly all of his range-training in not while on duty with the Guard, but rather with a semi-automatic version of his military rifle, which he purchased with his own money and which he practices with on his own time.

Speakers offering testimony opposing a proposed Columbus assault weapons ban out-numbered supporters at the hearing more than 5 to 1.

Dr. Jonathan Groner, the trauma medical director at Children’s Hospital, told council members that assault weapons should be banned because "their only purpose is killing people." His testimony was questioned by speakers, including one who described the target shooting competition held each year at Ohio's Camp Perry.

Groner also told council people that trauma surgeons rarely treat people with wounds from assault weapons because they are usually fatal. But the truth, of course, is that people are rarely injured with these firearms. Guns defined as "assault weapons" are used in only about 1% of violent crimes.

Rosetta Craig, a coalition member from the Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights, said her definition of an assault weapon is simple: "Guns that carry a lot of bullets."

"Do you need an assault weapon to protect your family?" Craig asked.

In their coverage of the hearing, both the Dispatch and Columbus's 10TV noted that those advocating gun-rights were clearly in the majority among people attending the forum.

Although two other hearings had been held, few had attended. After a postcard mailing by the NRA, and email alert and website coverage by OFCC and the OFCC PAC, however, the third and final hearing was packed with more than 50 people.

The measure was tabled, but it is likely Columbus Councilman Michael C. Mentel will continue to push the issue.

align="center">

The Arizona Republic is reporting that under a bill that passed Thursday in the state Senate, carrying your loaded gun into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol would be legal - as long as CHL-holder doesn't drink.

"There are already guns in bars and restaurants now, but they are brought in by the criminals," Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu, who supported Senate Bill 1363, to the newspaper. "If we don't allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, we're doing a great disservice to the public."

According to the story, the bill passed by a vote of 17-11 and now moves on to the House where supporters are confident there are enough votes for passage. Last year a similar bill passed the House, but fell one vote short in the Senate.

From the story:

The National Rifle Association is pushing for the bill as a way to allow law-abiding gun owners to dine in restaurants without leaving their weapons at home or in the car, where they could be stolen and are useless for protection. The bill would allow establishments to prohibit guns by posting a sign, though the sign's language would not refer to guns, only to the statute's official number.

NRA lobbyist Darren LaSorte said 33 other states allow citizens to carry guns where alcohol is served, and only Alaska prevents gun carriers from drinking, as Arizona's law would.

"Arizona's would be one of the most restrictive laws out there," said LaSorte, who predicted the bill will pass in the House.

Related Stories:
Letter to the Editor: Prevent death with concealed weapon

Columbus nightclub: Disarmed CHL-holder watched helplessly as people died

Musings from a ''red-neck idiot''...

March 1, 2005
New York Post

By John R. Lott Jr. & James K. Glassman

In the wake of their election defeat, Democrats have promised to mend their ways by emphasizing moral values. So, in their first major legislative initiative of the year, what are the party's two top senators offering? A bill to guarantee that millions of convicted murderers, rapists and armed robbers can vote.

This week, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Kerry will officially introduce the Count Every Vote Act, which she claims is "critical to restoring America's faith in our voting system." Among the provisions: A measure to insure that voting rights are restored to "felons who have repaid their debt to society" by completing their prison terms, parole or probation.

Sen. Clinton says there are 4.7 million such disenfranchised felons in 48 states and the District of Columbia.

The power to deny voting rights to ex-convicts now rests with the states, so standards vary across the country. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly allows for states to deny felons the right to vote.

Clinton and Kerry do have good reason to want ex-convicts to vote: Felons overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

Click here to read the entire op-ed in the New York Post.