Media temper tantrums in full swing over HB347
The temper tantrums of the anti-gun media elites are in full swing following the override of Bob Taft's veto of HB347.
Akron Beacon Journal: Gunning to be mayor:
Jim Irvine, the chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, applauded the Ohio Senate for joining the House in overriding Gov. Bob Taft's veto of legislation concerning the carrying of concealed weapons. He added that lawmakers demonstrated "just how out of touch the governor and a few big city mayors really are.''
Out of touch?
Taft and the mayors wanted to preserve the authority of cities and other communities to craft local ordinances as defined by local circumstances. A Dayton, Cleveland or Akron may find that conditions call for mandating guns be sold with trigger locks or stored out of the reach of minors. As it is, the legislation pre-empts roughly 80 local gun laws, including assault-weapons bans in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Toledo.
Marc Dann, the attorney general-elect and one of three Democratic senators to vote for the override, argued that "having contradictory gun laws all over the state doesn't make sense.'' For starters, the laws aren't contradictory. They reflect a shared purpose: curbing the danger posed by guns.
At least the Beacon Journal is willing to admit that objections to HB347 had nothing to do with Home Rule and everything to do with gun control. And once again, the editors inadvertantly revealed exactly why statewide preemption was necessary, but noting once again that that "80 local gun laws, including assault-weapons bans (AWBs) in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Toledo." There was simply no practical way for the law abiding to keep track of every single ordinance, rule or administrative regulation in literally hundreds of municipalities across Ohio.
Dayton Daily News: Our view on gun law ban: Lawmakers want you to forget this:
The Legislature's enactment of a ban on local gun ordinances is appalling in so many ways.
Lawmakers have bowed to the gun lobby — and waited until after the election to do so. They have snuck the ban into a pending piece of legislation. They have flouted Republican pretenses of commitment to local control and autonomy. They have flouted public opinion. They have flouted the old if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it rule. They have flouted reason.
Advocates for the ban say that uniformity in gun laws is needed across the state.
Said Rep. James Aslanides, R-Coshocton, the sponsor, "A hodgepodge of many different ordinances that no one knows how to follow is gun prohibition. The home-rule argument is really a red herring. The issue really is gun prohibition."
Nonsense. Among the 80 local laws overturned by the new law are registration requirements, gun lock requirements and bans against gun dealers being near schools.
That fact renders the most commonly heard point of the supporters pointless: That a person needs to be able to travel freely around the state without worrying that gun-possession laws might differ from one city to another.
Oh, the humanity.
But wait, the DDN isn't finished.
Dayton Daily News: Lawmakers ignoring will of people:
Scenes from Wednesday's front page:
- A 3-year-old boy is fatally shot in the back at the home of his baby sitter. The boy's father, Darian LeBlanc Sr., breaks down and cries out, "Another life taken."
- The Ohio Senate voted 21-12 to override Gov. Bob Taft's veto of the gun bill — House Bill 347 — which strips cities and villages of the right to pass their own gun-control laws.
...[Dayton City Commissioner Dean Lovelace believes] the passage of the gun bill...will only compound that problem because it erases some local restrictions on handguns and assault weapons.
Crime is by no means going to be aided by this legislation. Aside from the fact that the tragic shooting of this three year-old happened in spite of all of Dayton's local gun controls laws:
- AWBs are never used to charge persons committing crimes with those types of guns, because those persons are committing felonies, trumping any local ordinance.
- The only impact AWBs have, as demonstrated by many years of actual operation in Ohio, is to punish those who are law abiding.
- Similar dire predictions were made when the Federal AWB expired over 2 years ago, and have proven to be false.
- Full state and federal firearm laws still apply, and those individuals society needs to be worried usually cannot own ANY firearm under state or federal law, anyway.(To their credit, amidst their ridiculous sky-is-falling editorials, the Dayton Daily News at least saw fit to publish a guest op-ed from Ohioans For Concealed Carry's Mike Kinsey.)
Toledo Blade: Arrogance of the vanquished:
AS IT schleps toward adjournment, the Republican majority in the Ohio General Assembly is deliberately thumbing its collective nose at anyone in the Buckeye State who might be naive enough to believe that the legislature is supposed to act for the good of all citizens.The way they're acting, you'd think the Republicans won everything in sight on Nov. 7. Instead they lost every statewide office but one and only retained control of the legislature because of gerrymandered districts, even though their House candidates received 125,000 fewer votes statewide than the Democrats' House candidates received.
Lawmakers displayed an appalling disregard for local control on Tuesday when they completed the override of Gov. Bob Taft's veto of a law that loosens restrictions on the concealed-carry of weapons law.
...The action...was an incredible display of arrogance on the part of a Republican majority that often howls loudly about the absence of local control on other matters, such as schools.
...Ohioans repudiated the GOP in the November election and broke the party's death grip on power. Yet the Republicans clearly don't understand the public's anger and continue to try to booby-trap the Democrats before the Strickland administration even takes office.
Newspaper editors continue their efforts to make this a Republican issue, all but ignoring the fact that HB347 could not have become law without the support of pro-gun Democrats in the House and Senate, and glossing over the fact that Democrat Governor-elect Ted Strickland has long-voiced support for statewide preemption.
"Vanquished?" No, sorry Toledo Blade - not the pro-gun movement. Thanks to the will of the people, even more pro-gun candidates are headed to Columbus in January than are there now.
Contrast the above sky-is-falling editorials with the following well-thought out, informative, accurrate editorials:
Warren Tribune-Chronicle: Conceal carry reforms offer many benefits:
Wheeling (WV) Intelligencer: Protecting Rights Of People of Ohio:
There are many benefits to Ohio’s new concealed carry reform legislation.
...The biggest bonus is that local governments can no longer adopt differing, sometimes contradictory, firearm ordinances.
We empathize with inner-city communities that are struggling with violent crime and passed gun laws stricter than state law. But there is no statistical data to prove that these laws help reduce violent crime.
Ohio has about 80 local ordinances governing guns. Somebody taking a one-hour drive from home could easily fall under a half dozen different laws on the trip. It is ridiculous to expect Ohioans to know every boundary and the laws within those boundaries.
There are other benefits to the new law:
n It abolishes the requirement to have guns in the open while driving. Such a requirement contradicts the meaning of ‘‘concealed carry.’’
n It specifies a first degree misdemeanor when a person carrying a concealed firearm fails to keep their hands in plain sight during a police stop.
n It raises the penalty for failure to inform a law enforcement officer about carrying a concealed firearm from a fourth degree to a first degree misdemeanor and suspension of the person’s conceal carry license.
n Violations of most provisions in a motor vehicle are now increased, many to felonies.
...The bill also should clarify a recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling. The court unanimously upheld Cincinnati’s ban on assault weapons because there is no state law preventing it.
The mayors of Cleveland and Columbus are vowing to take the state to court over what they call the “home rule” issue. Good. The sooner the better. Perhaps the courts can remind the mayors that there are limits to city sovereignty.
Earlier this month, some big city leaders claimed that state rules concerning use of eminent domain proceedings to take private property are an infringement upon “home rule.” What they really mean is that they don’t want anyone limiting their ability to use eminent domain.
Now, the issues are gun control and cameras used to catch motorists who exceed speed limits or run red lights.
A few weeks ago, state legislators passed a measure regulating possession of concealed weapons. Gov. Bob Taft vetoed it; lawmakers responded by overriding the veto. Once implemented, the law will impose state controls that, in about 80 locations, will take precedence over existing local laws. Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson already has said his city will file a lawsuit challenging the state rules.
This week, legislators approved a bill that will limit severely the ability of cities to use automated traffic camera systems — similar to one rejected by Steubenville voters earlier this year — to catch motorists who break the law.
Jackson and Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman quickly claimed that — you guessed it — the state rules are another attack on “home rule.”
Most Ohioans probably would agree that there are certain issues on which local governments should be able to write their own rules. But when the issues are wider in scope — possibly involving the basic rights of Ohioans — the state has a right to exercise its power. Big city politicians such as Coleman and Jackson apparently don’t understand that — or simply don’t want any curbs on their own power.
Resolving such disputes is one of the basic functions of the court system. It exists both to decide individual cases and to ensure that the basic rights of individuals — whether infringed upon by local, state or national governments — are safeguarded. In this case, the issue of city sovereignty clearly needs to be addressed by the courts in order to remind big city politicians that there are limits on their power.