BUCKEYE FIREARMS: Stay up-to-date on gun laws, politics, and events. Plus get the Grassroots Action Guide FREE!
by Chad D. Baus
In an exclusive report last week, ABC News reported that Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
Noble told ABC News there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called "soft targets" are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.
"Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."
The following letter to the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer was published last week.
The letter does an excellent job of addressing the supposed racial aspects of certain self-defense laws.
It is apparent elected officials and anti pro-rights groups in the state of Ohio are in an uproar regarding the implementation of Stand Your Ground. These individuals fear more people will be gunned down at an increasing rate if this law is passed. Unfortunately there is the constant comparison of Trayvon Martin case being precedent.
Let’s set the record straight. I attended the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Orlando, Fla., in 2012. Mr. Mark O’Mara, the attorney for George Zimmerman, held a press conference. By law he could not discuss the facts of the case, but stated it was about the justifiable use of deadly force and not Stand Your Ground. You are allowed to use force to react to force. As usual, some in the media and anti pro-rights organizations continue to ignore this stated fact.
by Chad D. Baus
Friends and acquaintances in political circles who are unfamiliar with our state's gun laws are often surprised by my lack of absolute zeal for the Ohio Republican Party. To them, the Republicans are the pro-gun rights party, Democrats are the anti-gun rights party, and that is the end of the discussion.
For gun owners, however, especially ones who follow the matter closely, there is another question. We aren't just interested in who pays lip service to support for gun rights, or who is generally less likely to propose anti-gun rights legislation. We're also expecting that candidates who so enthusiastically espouse support for gun rights during their campaigns will then turn those words into action once they are elected.
To be fair, Ohio has made some progress in the past decade since concealed carry became law - most under Republican leadership. But as two recent GunsandAmmo.com articles have shown, we still have a long way to go to restore Ohioans' gun rights. And in my opinion, given the domination of Ohio politics by the "pro-gun rights party" for much of the past two decades, we ought to have far more to show for it.
Chairman Mike Dovilla has announced that the Policy and Legislative Oversight Committee will be hearing proponent testimony on Representative Terry Johnson's (R-McDermott) HB 203 next Tuesday, October 29 at 10:00 a.m. in Statehouse Room 115. This will be the second hearing for this important bill. Chairman Dovilla has indicated that a substitute bill may be offered.
Any persons who are interested in testifying are welcome to contact Jim Irvine ([email protected]) for help in preparing and coordinating your testimony.
Buckeye Firearms Association will be testifying in support of the bill.
As introduced, HB 203, seeks to make many improvements to Ohio's concealed carry laws.
The bill would strengthen the background checks required to obtain an Ohio Concealed Handgun License (CHL). Under the bill, Ohio concealed handgun license (CHL) applicants would be a National Instant Check System (NICS)-compliant background check, making it compatible with more states. This improvement will also help prevent people with mental health disqualifiers who have been entered into the federal database from obtaining a CHL.
Ammo shortages concentrated around areas where there are the largest numbers of gun owners/shooters and rangesSubmitted by cbaus on October 25, 2013 - 8:00am.
by Jim Shepherd
After reading a lengthy email exchange between a group of friends that includes competition shooters, writers, law enforcement and instructors, on "what's causing the ammunition shortage" yesterday, it seemed high time to wander out and do some decidedly un-scientific research for myself.
My first stop was the closest Walmart. I wandered into the sporting goods section and there on the shelves was ammunition-including .22 LR in boxes (no bricks) and virtually any handgun caliber ammunition I wanted, so long as I didn't want the "premium" ammo lines. No dice there.
There was also a decent selection of rifle calibers for hunting (including .223 and .308) although a two box limit was still in effect.
It was a similar story at two local gun shops, although inventory and product selection was considerably reduced. Lacking the buying power of big box retailers, many local shops are offering lesser-known brands of accessories.
"There is nothing in Obamacare that prohibits another federal agency from compiling a database of gun owners."
by Rachel Alexander
What does gun control have to do with health care? As odd as it seems, Obamacare contains provisions that jeopardize gun ownership, especially for veterans. Anti-gun provisions were added to initial drafts of Obamacare legislation under the pretext of prohibiting people with mental illness – which can include PTSD - from owning guns. Fortunately, the NRA stepped in and got some of the worst language revised last December. Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c. prohibits the creation of a firearms database and stops doctors from disclosing or collecting information relating to a patient's firearms. Ironically, this provision was probably the only positive result of most members of Congress not bothering to read the bill before voting on it.
Recent news out of Texas has pro-rights parents reaching for their children's backpacks after it was revealed that a popular textbook used to teach high school advanced placement U.S. history courses includes a shocking misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. Published by AMSCO School Publications, Inc., and titled, United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Exam, the 2010 edition of the textbook incorrectly summarizes the Second Amendment as meaning, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia." The Canejo Valley School District of Thousand Oaks, Calif., has made a copy of the entire text of the widely-used volume available on its website.
As most Americans know, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives--and perhaps others in the Obama administration--knowingly allowed guns to be smuggled from the United States to Mexican drug-smuggling cartels, on the hope that the guns would be recovered at Mexican crimes scenes and eventually traced to sales in the United States. The goal of the effort, dubbed Operation Fast and Furious, was to give anti-gun politicians evidence to use in their campaigns against general-purpose semi-automatic rifles, such as the hugely popular AR-15. As for the carnage that might precede the guns' recovery? That was obviously a risk the planners of the operation were willing to take.
Some of the smuggled guns were indeed used to kill people in Mexico, but one was also involved in the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. An investigation ensued, the House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to cooperate with its investigation of the scandal, and senior officials associated with the scandal were forced to resign.
by Jeff Knox
When two teams of cowardly, Muslim extremist terrorists stormed the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya last month, police and government forces were slow to respond, but local gun owners were not. Kenya has very strict gun laws, banning most semi-auto rifles, and tightly restricting possession of handguns, but, like New York City, those with the right connections, enough money, and who are persistent enough, can own, and even carry, personal defense handguns. One such concealed carry license holder was standing in line at a bank in the mall when the shooting started. A New York Times story from September 26 reported that the man, identified as Raju, immediately sent out an urgent text message to friends in his shooting club. The story then says that shooting club members, neighborhood watch volunteers (like George Zimmerman?), and "plainclothes police officers" rushed to the mall and gave the terrorists something to worry about while they helped people trying to get out of the besieged buildings.
by C. D. Michel
"It started with a coffee date. Now I'm married with kids. How the heck did that happen?"
How indeed? Life sneaks up on us. Change occurs in tiny increments. Before you know it, the order of life has been inverted.
It's the same with the law. Aristotle knew what he was talking about when he wrote "Jealously maintain...the spirit of obedience to law, more especially in small matters; for transgression creeps in unperceived and at last ruins the state, just as the constant recurrence of small expenses in time eats up a fortune."
The California slippery slope of anti-freedom legislation – whatever the political agenda – has been a model for the rest of the nation. This is the ceaseless, incremental strategy of the California gun control movement that continues to this day. On gun control, thankfully, the rest of the nation has mostly failed to follow. But here in the Golden State, the Golden Rule of gun control has always been to swipe freedoms one small step at a time. Over, and over, and over again.