From left: Larry Moore (BFA), James Wheeler, Rep. Ron Maag, Janet Maag, Gov. John Kasich, Rep. Jarrod Martin, Samantha Cotten (Leg. Aide), Joe Eaton (BFA), Gerard Valentino (BFA) Buckeye Firearms Association Leaders…
Letters to the editor provide common sense answers to newspapers’ objections to restaurant carry legislation
In the run-up to final passage of Restaurant Carry legislation in Ohio, newspaper editorial pages have been filled with dire warnings of what would happen if the bill became law. The letters-to-the-editor sections, on the other hand, have been filled with common-sense responses from fair-minded readers. Following are just a few examples.
The following letter to the editor appeared in The Columbus Dispatch on June 20, 2011.
Some teetotalers do indeed go to bars
“You say you’re not going to drink. Why are you going to a bar anyway?” This quote was in Thursday’s Dispatch article about concealed-carry, “Next idea: No permit necessary.” It is not the first time I have heard it, either.
I go to bars and I do not drink. I do not like the taste of beer and I’m too cheap to pay for mixed drinks. My beverage of choice is Diet Pepsi. I go to bars maybe to listen to my friends’ band or to celebrate a retirement or birthday or to watch a sporting event. For the free food on bike nights and happy hours.
There are taverns across central Ohio for which you can’t find a close place to park. The Short North’s Gallery Hop — there’s a parking nightmare. If a person has to park blocks away, shouldn’t she have the legal right to protect herself from point A to point B, then back again?
Cindy Grinstead-Glick
Galloway
The Idiot Chronicles, Volume 4: Your elected Representative Mark Okey
by Ken Hanson, Esq.
“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
While there is no definitive source for this quote (conflicting sources have it going all the way back to Napoleon), it clearly encompasses two things that are happening in the media coverage of the two Restaurant Carry bill spending in the Ohio General Assembly. The malice is coming from those opposing the law. These groups are spreading deliberate misinformation as wide and as far as possible. The stupidity is coming from those who listen to them.
A good example of this is the floor speech given May 11, 2011 by Representative Mark Okey (D-61) in opposition to H.B. 45, which would allow licensees to enter a liquor facility, so long as they are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and so long as the person does not consume alcohol while on premises. Rep. Okey, a 2010 Buckeye Firearms Association endorsee, offered several baffling explanations for his anti-gun vote against H.B. 45.
“First of all, if this becomes law, every proprietor, every business owner that’s touched by this is gonna need a lawyer.”
(It should be a short conversation. Private employers have civil immunity for the actions of licensees on their property. See R.C. 2923.126(C)(2)(a). If Applebees, TGI Friday’s, Ruby Tuesday’s etc. have not had liability problems in any of the other 42 states that allow restaurant carry, why is Ohio going to be different, Rep. Okey?)
Reps. Michael Foley and Bill Patmon: Blaming the many for the sins of a few
by Chad D. Baus On May 11, 2011, during House debate on Restaurant Carry legislation, two Ohio state representatives took to the floor to explain their opposition to the bill. Both Representatives…
The Idiot Chronicles, Volume 3: Random Elected Representative Comments You Might Have Missed
by Ken Hanson, Esq.
“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
While there is no definitive source for this quote (conflicting sources have it going all the way back to Napoleon), it clearly encompasses two things that are happening in the media coverage of the two Restaurant Carry bill spending in the Ohio General Assembly. The malice is coming from those opposing the law. These groups are spreading deliberate misinformation as wide and as far as possible. The stupidity is coming from those who listen to them.
The following are actual comments made May 11, 2011 on the floor of the Ohio House of Representatives. These comments were made by elected officials, the same elected officials who decide how to spend your tax dollars, in opposition to H.B. 45.
“So what’s to guarantee me that, you know, any one of the members in this chamber who hold a concealed carry wouldn’t shoot me in the head?” – Representative Tracy Maxwell Heard (D-26)
(Perhaps you could take a baby step towards safety by not making idiotic comments about the character of your peers.)
Attorney General Mike DeWine to form “Gun Crime Advisory Group”
by Jim Irvine
Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) has announced that he will form an advisory group “to deal with the huge problem of convicted felons who are using guns” while they are committing more crimes. “There are a relatively small number of individuals in the state who commit the vast majority of violent crimes,” DeWine said.
It may be concerning to gun owners that DeWine cited a flawed Columbus Dispatch series as part of his motivation for the study. It is unclear if DeWine knew that the referenced “study” was bought and paid for by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation for the specific purpose of “having a major public policy impact” on gun control laws when the press release was being written, but Buckeye Firearms Association has sent the information to his staff for their consideration.
Regardless of the origin of the idea, DeWine is right to pursue policies that remove repeat violent offenders from our streets. We don’t solve crime by infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owner, but by prosecuting violent felons for their criminal actions. DeWine is right to target the people committing the crimes rather than the tools they use in the commission of those crimes.
Anti-gun Columbus Dispatch editorial signals death of newspapers’ relevance in shaping public policy debates
[Editor’s Note: The following was submitted to The Columbus Dispatch as a guest op-ed response to the newspaper’s June 22 editorial on the introduction of HB256, entitled “Half-Cocked”. The Dispatch not only chose not to publish the editorial – they did not even offer the courtesy of a response.]
by Ken Hanson
The recent Dispatch editorial “Half-cocked” (June 22, 2011) is less an editorial and more an obituary lamenting the death of The Dispatch‘s relevance in shaping public policy debates. As with every other pro-self defense improvement in Ohio law over the past decades, The Dispatch editorial page immediately channels the spirit of Harold Camping and proclaims that the end of the world is upon us.
No editorial from The Dispatch would be complete without blaming their editorial irrelevance on the “deep pockets” of the gun lobby. A quick check on the Ohio Secretary of State’s website of the 2010 pre-general election expenditure reports filed for both the Ohio FOP and the NRA Political Victory Fund reveals that the Ohio FOP alone outspent the NRA by a 3-1 margin, $13,800 to $4,300. Apparently the editors feel the General Assembly is for sale, but they are simultaneously very bad at math.
Representative Adams introduces HB256: Constitutional Carry
by Jim Irvine
Representative John Adams (R-78) of Sidney, Ohio has introduced House Bill 256.
HB256 is identical to Adam’s HB129 from 2009 and HB225 from 2007, and substantially similar to HB91 from 2005 and HB559 from 2004 (the latter two having been sponsored by then-Representative Tom Brinkman). HB256 would repeal many of the onerous provisions of our current concealed carry law and allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed without a license.
Constitutional carry is an exciting possibility for gun owners in Ohio. It used to be said that it only worked in rural Vermont. Alaska is considered wilderness and didn’t seem to matter either. Then last year Arizona passed a constitutional carry law. The success there has changed the thinking of many and this once “radical” idea is becoming mainstream and is now working its way through many state legislatures.
Sportsmen Win Major Courtroom Battle Over Hunting on Public Lands
(Columbus, OH) – The lengthy battle over hunting access on dozens of units of the 100 million acre National Wildlife Refuge system has ended—and hunters can declare VICTORY!
In April 2011, federal Judge James S. Gwin ruled for sportsmen across America by granting summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other defendants while denying a lawsuit aimed at closing hunting on National Wildlife Refuge System parcels. After this ruling, an appeal process was opened, and the appeal clock began ticking. On Monday, that appeal period came to an end with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) failing to file any appeal.
“This long sought win is a great victory for hunters everywhere, and reinforces the process of keeping national wildlife refuges open for hunting, by hunters,” said Bill Horn, the US Sportsmen’s Alliance director of federal affairs.
Holding the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) Accountable
[Editor’s Note: The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Larry Keane recently updated NSSF members as follows: “The non-profit watchdog group Humanewatch.org has gone on the offensive with two full page advertisements running in the LA Times, educating the public that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) gives less than one percent of its budget to local animal shelters. Last year, Humanewatch issued a challenge to Humane Society of the United States CEO Wayne Pacelle: “Share just half of HSUS’s income with hands-on pet shelters, and we’ll shut this website down for good.” A year later…it looks like Humanewatch still has a job.” The following has been published at Humanewatch.org in response to a Times editorial defending HSUS, which is a rabid anti-hunting group.]
If you’re coming to HumaneWatch for the first time today because you saw an editorial that criticized us in today’s Los Angeles Times, welcome! It seems our hard-hitting national ads, including a recent one in the Times, have struck a nerve. Tinseltown is fast becoming the Humane Society of the United States’s power center, so we’re not surprised to learn that its leaders apparently persuaded the Times to take a closer look at our campaign to keep them honest.
The Times Editorial Board told its readers two important facts about the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Commenting on our recent ads in the paper, they wrote:
One of the current ads features a photo of dogs looking wide-eyed in shock under the caption “SURPRISED to hear the Humane Society of the United States shares only 1 percent of your donations with local pet shelters?” The ad goes on to state that the Humane Society “is NOT your local animal shelter.
The ad is true on both counts.
Too few Americans are aware of HSUS’s misplaced priorities and the Times‘ reiteration of our central message is an important step in educating more Americans about HSUS’s deception. But alas, the newspaper’s editors couldn’t stop there. They go on to write:
But [the ad is] also misleading. The Humane Society has never claimed that its mission is to fund local animal shelters… While some people may mistakenly believe that the Humane Society of the United States does the same job local humane societies do, it should not surprise anyone who has looked at the organization’s website that only a small percentage of its money goes to local shelters.
Here we disagree—strongly.