By Chad D. Baus

It's getting tougher and tougher to know what to believe when the Ohio media writes about legislative action in Columbus.

On Friday, December 15, the Associated Press put out a wire service report entitled "Public records bill clears Legislature". The story, which was subsequently picked up by several Ohio news outlets, said in part:

A bill mandating public-records training for elected officials and stiffening penalties for withholding records, cleared the Ohio Legislature this week.

...Sponsored by Sen. Scott Oelslager and backed by Ohio newspapers, the bill contained one key concession: journalists will no longer have free access to information on concealed-carry permit holders.

As I noted in a story on HB9 earlier that day, Senate passage of the bill on December 13 had gone virtually unnoticed by the media. I also noted that the bill still faced concurrence in the House.

And then came this mysterious AP story. Knowing that HB9 had been withdrawn from the House calendar for further study on Thursday, and that the House had not held session on Friday, I was immediately suspicious that the story was wrong.

Was it possible that the Associated Press had mistaken Senate action on the bill to mean that it had "cleared the Legislature"? Indeed, had the word "Legislature" been replaced by "Senate", the AP story would have been true. But as written, the headline and opening paragraph were completely, 100% wrong.

Click on 'Read More' for the entire story.

By Chad D. Baus

The Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial page is at it again, writing about legislation we have good reason to believe they've never read.

This time, in addition to even more blather about why having one set of rules in the State of Ohio for gun owners is a bad idea, they're whining about legislation which would regulate the use of privacy-invading cameras that are used to find drivers guilty of violating laws without due process.

From an editorial entitled "What home rule?":

Once upon a time, the state of Ohio sub scribed to an idea known as "home rule." It held that municipalities should be free to govern themselves and to address the everyday needs of their citizens. Obviously, cities and towns could not nullify state or national laws, but other powers and responsibilities were reserved for local government.

Home rule was considered so fundamental that in 1912, it was enshrined in Article 18 of the Ohio Constitution. For most of the next nine decades, some of its most vehement supporters were Republicans who zealously insisted that the best decisions were those made closest to the people affected by them.

As per usual for those who want to keep Ohioans unfamiliar with what the Constitution actually says, the editorial does not quote the actual wording of the Home Rule clause, which is based on the Ohio Constitution's Article XVIII: "Municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations as are not in conflict with general laws."

But once again, the Home Rule Champions at the Plain Dealer have failed to mention that little pesky "not in conflict with general laws" provision. To them, it's as insignificant and problematic as the Bill of Rights Amendment that comes after, and protects, their precious First.

Click on 'Read More' for the entire commentary.

Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair Ken Hanson recently attend Blackwater USA’s 5 day pistol/carbine class.

While attending class, Ken kept a blog of his experiences. Since most visitors to this site take training very seriously, we thought you would enjoy his ramblings.

Ken's five day experience will be published on this website on Tuesdays and Thursdays through the end of the month.

Click on 'Read More' for the second installment.