By Tim Inwood

This March has been wonderful. On Wednesday the 14th
the provisions of HB347 became law. I no longer have
to wrinkle my clothes trying to comply with the silly
open carry provision in my car. That delighted me. But
days before that, the great news came that the DC
Circuit Court had finally issued a ruling in the Shelly Parker case, a ruling that turned out just as I
had hoped it would. The Court stated in a two to one
decision that the Second Amendment is indeed a
recognition of an individual right to keep and bear
arms.

Judge Silberman wrote, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read
intratextually and in light of Supreme Court
precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in
question is individual."

The majority opinion sums up
its holding on this point as follows:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new
government under the Constitution and was premised on
the private use of arms for activities such as hunting
and self-defense, the latter being understood as
resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat
from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear
arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of
helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic
purpose was also a political expedient for the
Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in
part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The
individual right facilitated militia service by
ensuring that citizens would not be barred from
keeping the arms they would need when called forth for
militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it
protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an
individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon
his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the
militia.

As someone who lived in Washington D.C. metro area in
the 1980’s and dealt with the repercussions of that
murderous ban, I jumped for joy at the news it would
soon die. That is something 44 year old men do not do
very often.

The melt down from the leftist elites and the
anti-gun lobby has been predictable in the wake of
this ruling. Mayor Fenty of Washington D.C. vows to
enforce the ban anyways and fight the ruling no matter
what. It appears he will appeal the case. We will see.

The hysteria over at the Brady Center was palpable as
they sent out fund raising letters screaming to send
money fast to fight activist judges. "The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia
striking down the District of Columbia's handgun law
is judicial activism at its worst." wrote Paul Helmke,
President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. I can almost picture him foaming at the mouth as he
whacked that out on his keyboard.

Predictable comments of alarm came from the Washington
Post crying the court had “gutted” the ban and that
"will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded
as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder." As I
read that I thought, 'oh yes, the ban has been so
successful in keeping gun out of the wrong hands' and
rolled my eyes. Other liberal papers across the
nation reacted much the same. The New York Times said
that the D.C. Circuit had looked "blithely past a
longstanding Supreme Court precedent, the language of
the Constitution and the pressing needs of public
safety."

With each article I read I must confess I
was guilty of some schadenfreude, as I was enjoying
watching these liberal anti-gunners writhe in pain
like a vampire exposed to sun light. Like a glutton, I
wanted more. So as I perused the leftist commentary I
must admit I was surprised to see an article in The
New Republic by Benjamin Wittes that took a completely
different stance than the other alarmists. You see
Mr. Wittes realized something that the others had not.
The Second Amendment might actually mean what it says.
But his solution to dealing with it meaning what it
said was, to put it mildly, disturbing to me.

Click on 'Read More' for the entire commentary.

Over the past several weeks, USCCA, the official magazine of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, has published several online articles written by Buckeye Firearms Association Central Ohio Chair Gerard Valentino, which have appeared in the past on this website.

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 all worthy of mention.

What follows is our review of headlines from around the state though a pro-gun rights lens.

From another mayor leaving Bloomberg's anti-gun group to another failure of the system, 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.

Cam Edwards, host of Cam & Company at NRANews.com has followed up on a BuckeyeFirearms.org story published last week which revealed that Cleveland's police union is not pleased with Mayor Frank Jackson's order to ignore HB347.

Cam interviewed Buckeye Firearms Association Region Leader Chris Chumita on his show last Friday about the story, and in a follow-up segment yesterday, Edwards blew the story wide open during an interview with Officer Steve Loomis, the president of the Cleveland Police Patrolman’s Association.

From Cam's blog story following up on the interview:

Officer Loomis told me that the mayor has instructed the police to continue to enforce the local ordinances that have been pre-empted, but Officer Loomis also told me that he has told the police to not follow the mayor’s order, because he believes the mayor is telling the officers to act illegally.

Officer Loomis also made extensive comments on how troublesome and dangerous the old "plain sight" requirement in Ohio law was for Cleveland's law enforcement officers, and how happy his officers were to see "plain sight" provision repealed.