-----> VOTE TALLIES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

On December 12, 2006, the Ohio Senate voted to override Governor Taft's veto of HB347 by a vote of 21-12. The House previously voted 71-21 to override Governor Taft's veto. House Bill 347 has now passed into law with an effective date in approximately 90 days, depending upon the exact filing and certification dates. This vote to marks the first joint override of an Ohio Governor's veto in almost 30 years.

"We are gratified that the General Assembly recognized that Governor Taft and a few mayors were playing politics with important firearm law reforms. We recognize this was a difficult step, but the fact that so many voted for this bill and obtained the first veto override in nearly 3 decades demonstrates just how out of touch the Governor and a few big city mayors really are," said Buckeye Firearms Chairman James Irvine. "Those opposed can look at the vote of a super majority and try and explain it away, but the cold, hard conclusion to be drawn is that Ohioans recognize gun control as the failure it is and understand that there is nothing to fear from trained, law abiding citizens being armed."

"Cities are out of the firearm regulation business" said Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair Ken Hanson. "As an attorney who litigates firearm rights cases and who also represents and has represented Municipalities, I can say that the mandatory attorney fee provision is a "big stick." Tax payers are not going to be happy if their elected representatives have to pay $50,000 in attorney fees over futile attempts to continue enforce worthless local ordinances.

The following is Buckeye Firearms Association's response to today's Toledo Blade editorial. Responses in red type.

EVEN in the waning days of his administration, Gov. Bob Taft "can't get no respect." (Respect is earned, not given. He’s had 8 years to earn it; the lack of it at this stage is well earned.) Leaders of his own party in the state House, and probably the Senate, are poised to hand him a striking legislative defeat on concealed-carry as a parting gift. (Absurdity is often dealt with firmly.)

But besides a reflection of the governor's depleted political capital in Columbus, the fast-moving developments in the General Assembly reflect a political leadership out of step with the populace. (What is an appropriate period of reflection prior to dismissing the irrational?) Only hours after Mr. Taft vetoed new concealed-carry legislation, the House easily voted to override his veto. (Only because they couldn’t do it quicker.)

It is widely assumed the Senate will follow suit. Picking up one additional vote in the Senate is all that is necessary for the Republican-led legislature to pre-empt all local gun laws throughout Ohio. "This vast prohibition of local control is unwarranted and failed to consider the differing challenges and circumstances faced by difference communities and regions of the state," said Mr. Taft. (We are absolutely certain the Blade and soon-to-be former Governor Taft will express the same respect for the differing challenges and circumstances faced by communities when it comes to telling them what they can do with their public records and public meetings.)

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

By Chad D. Baus

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Miss-Led (the name I gave Toledo Blade op-ed writer and anti-gun bigot Marilyn Johanek in 2004), allow me to catch you up to speed:

December 07, 2006
Columbus Dispatch

In response to Friday’s Dispatch editorial "Veto is way to go," concerning House Bill 347, I am sick and tired of Big Media always condemning legal gun owners for the actions of criminals.

The editorial stated that more gun restrictions are needed in cities than in rural counties. It would make more sense to say that inner-city people need firearms for protection more than people in rural areas. It’s a fact that criminals prefer unarmed victims.

The editorial also stated that the concealed-carry law has been of no benefit to Ohioans. According the several surveys, including one conducted by the U.S. Justice Department, firearms are used for self-defense up to 1.5 million times per year. Many times, firearms are used for self-defense, and it goes unreported. In the past, I used a firearm to prevent an assault, and it was not reflected in any survey.

The Dispatch, along with others, uses home rule to infringe upon U.S. and state constitutional firearm rights. What if certain jurisdictions around Ohio were to place restrictions on press rights? What if journalists were licensed in Ohio, but each city had different rules and regulations?

The Dispatch always came across as anti-gun but at the same time accepted money from firearms advertisers.

As stated in Webster’s dictionary, a hypocrite is a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. Isn’t that what the newspaper is doing here?

Why is it that some in our society are so willing to give away other people’s rights but don’t want their own infringed upon? As the saying goes, "It’s a lot easier to spend someone else’s money than your own."

Just remember: The rights you take from others today will be taken from you by others tomorrow.

Chris Sterner
Westerville

Click on 'Read More' for additional letters from pro-gun writers in response to Dispatch and Toledo Blade editorials.