LTEs: Dispatch's support for Clyde ''not surprising'', but hypocritical

May 18, 2005
Columbus Dispatch

Section of House bill clear on gun licenses

In its May 11 editorial, "Safety is a local issue," The Dispatch states that "(Ohio Attorney General Jim) Petro contends that the state — and only the state — can restrict where people holding licenses to carry guns can go." Fortunately for the law-abiding citizens of Ohio who have taken the time to get the required training and have successfully passed a background check for a concealed handgun license, Petro is correct.

On Jan. 7, 2004, the Ohio General Assembly passed a revised House Bill 12, making the concealed carry of handguns legal for any Ohioan who qualifies. A quick read of Section 9 of the bill, tells us that "No municipal corporation may adopt or continue in existence any ordinance, and no township may adopt or continue in existence any resolution, that is in conflict with those sections, including, but not limited to, any ordinance or resolution that attempts to restrict the places where a person possessing a valid license to carry a concealed handgun may carry a handgun concealed."

In reading the above, I find it very easy to come to the same conclusion as Petro. I can only conclude that The Dispatch must have missed Section 9.

Mike Bott
Westerville

Support of ban on guns in parks not surprising

I read the May 11 Dispatch editorial "Safety is a local issue" and ended up laughing so hard I nearly spit out my coffee.
The Dispatch was against concealed carry from the get-go. Are readers really to believe the paper would support a city’s home rule as a matter of law if such laws were to restrict the First Amendment (free speech) instead of the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms), or if a city tried to ban abortion? Or gay rights?

Try to keep the liberal hypocrisy a little less transparent.

Brad Hennebert
New Albany

Related Story:
Editorial boards' collective howl over recent Clyde developments earns reply