By Chris Chumita

There are more stories pertaining to our gun rights in Ohio then we can possibly draw attention to with individual daily commentary. But they are worthy of mention.

What follows is our review of headlines from around the state though a pro-gun rights lens.
From "shooting ads" to closing the "police gun loophole", these articles should be a part of your required reading!
Click on the "Read More..." link below for several days of headlines accompanied by short, concise pro-gun analysis.

12/16/06: Washington Court House, Ohio: "Deputies Indicted On Charges They Failed To Arrest Colleague

From the article:

Three county sheriff's deputies accused of failing to arrest a former auxiliary deputy who authorities say later killed his wife and himself have been indicted on charges of dereliction of duty.

Also from the article:

Patricia Bailey, who is the sister of John Bailey, also was charged with obstruction of justice, a fifth-degree felony. Stanforth said she prevented the other deputies from removing all the guns from her brother's house.

According to the gun-grabbers, we don't have to worry about protecting ourselves, because the police will protect us. In this case the police did not only fail to protect the victim, but their failure to properly respond to this inciodent contributed to her death.

December 16, 2006
Cleveland Plain Dealer

I disagree with The Plain Dealer editorial board's view that local governments should be able to impose gun-control ordinances.

Section 1.04 of the Ohio Constitution guarantees Ohioans' right to bear arms. Why should the residents of big cities like Cleveland and Columbus enjoy this right any less than other Ohioans? Do we expect them to be less law abiding? If so, that's clearly prejudiced and another example of the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

I realize that many of these ordinances are well-intentioned. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Cities don't have rights, per se; citizens have rights. The purpose of a written constitution is to guarantee these rights. Ohio's legislators are merely doing their duty: seeing to it that all law-abiding Ohioans can freely exercise the rights guaranteed by Ohio's Constitution. For that, they should be commended.

Raymond J. Mangini
Strongsville

Click on 'Read More' for nother pro-HB347 letters to editors.

By Tim Inwood

In 1976, Washington D.C. passed a draconian law banning the possession of handguns. Today, there are hopes a lawsuit (Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia) may bring an end to this era of stupidity.

The D.C. law bans all handguns that were not registered with the city prior to September 24th, 1976. This law also applies to ammunition, and a special license to have "collector ammunition" is required. Special permission and licensing is also required for long guns and all guns must be kept in a disassembled condition or cable locked so they may not be of immediate use.

Ever since these crazy laws took effect, our nation's capital has had some of the highest homicide rates in the USA. Back in the mid 1980's, when I lived just outside of the District in Maryland, the city was dubbed the "Murder Capitol of the USA". With a murder or two every day they were not far off the mark.

As I sat across the border in Greenbelt, Maryland I was bewildered why D.C. citizens did not question why it was that they had a homicide rate so high, but the suburbs of Washington D.C. in Maryland and Virginia did not. The simple answer was that criminals knew their potential victims in those states were legally armed. The sheep in DC were not, and wolves prefer sheep.

The hypocrisy of the advocates of gun control never ceased to amaze me. In the summer of 1988 the late syndicated columnist Carl Rowan, an advocate for banning handguns in the whole United States, did something that turned the town on its head. He shot a teenager who had climbed his security fence and was swimming in his pool at his home in Washington D.C. (See Rowan Case and the Need to Bear Arms [Wall Street Journal, June 24, 1988])

The boy and some friends were taking a late night dip when Carl went to check with a Smith & Wesson .22lr revolver in hand. After arguing with the teens, one tried to walk in to the house. That is when Rowan shot him. The teen was not seriously wounded. The prosecutor in Washington decided that an upstanding and famous media figure like Rowan should not be charged with illegal gun possession. However, the teens were charged. When asked about the incident the following week in a television interview he said he was still "against guns", but until the criminals were under control he would reserve the right to defend himself with a gun." Gun control or prohibition is good enough for you and me but not him. Luckily, his son Carl Rowan Jr., a former FBI agent, views things differently and is actually on the board of directors of the NRA.

About the same time as this shooting, another incident happened in D.C. But this time, the incident did not make the news.

Click on 'Read More' for the entire commentary.