Mayor Michael Coleman fiddles with gun control while Columbus burns

Posted on by Buckeye Firearms Association

by Gerard Valentino

NBC4i.com is reporting that the Columbus Police Department will lose 98 officers to early retirement programs in 2011. The programs were put in place eight years ago, which gave the City of Columbus more than enough time to prepare for the loss of so many experienced officers.

According to the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, Jim Gilbert, and others, the city failed to lift a finger to make sure the retirements do not affect public safety.

Even more startling was Public Safety Director Mitchell Brown’s argument that understaffing is a good way to find out where the department can be more efficient.

From the article:

“This is the best time to determine their efficiencies, not while their[sic] fully staffed. You look at, ‘Alright, wait a minute. Could you do the job with five as opposed to six and we can put that sixth person someplace else, based on the work volume?'” Brown said.

When public safety is at risk, citizens expect the police administration to make decisions that allow individual police officers the opportunity to succeed. Instead Mitchell Brown’s own words make it seem like the city is willing to play Russian roulette with public safety by randomly understaffing police department organizations.

We can only hope such an experiment doesn’t end with a dead citizen, or a dead police officer.

Legislators note opponents to HB45 (Restaurant & Car Carry Rules Fix) offer same tired claims, but no evidence to back them up

Posted on by Buckeye Firearms Association

by Chad D. Baus

On Tuesday, February 22, the House Committee on State Government and Elections, which is chaired by BFA “A” -rated Rep. Bob Mecklenborg, held a third hearing on HB45, sponsored by Representatives Danny Bubp (R-West Union) and Terry Johnson (R-McDermott).

From the Gongwer News Service:

Statewide groups representing police chiefs, prosecutors and bar owners raised objections Tuesday to legislation loosening Ohio’s concealed handgun restrictions.

The testimony from John Gilchrist, legislative counsel for the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, prompted the most reaction from Republican members of the House State & Local Government Committee who support the bill. The lawmakers mainly expressed concerns with what they viewed as a lack of data to back up the group’s objections.

Mr. Gilchrist said his group opposes the two main components of the measure, which would allow the carrying of concealed handguns into establishments that serve alcohol and remove various restrictions placed on hidden weapons in vehicles.

“The association believes that allowing guns in barrooms, stadiums, taverns, restaurants and other businesses that sell alcohol will result in more gun violence,” he said.

In 2003 Gilcrest also predicted that a shall-issue concealed carry law in Ohio would itself lead to increased gun violence. He was wrong then, which begs the question about why legislators should be expected to listen to him now.

But Gilcrest wasn’t finished:

Regarding the vehicle-related changes, Mr. Gilchrist said they would “allow gun owners to have their firearms openly displayed, laying on the passenger seat or on the dashboard. Law enforcement officers in Ohio make millions of traffic stops a year. Allowing drivers to have ready access to their guns pose a greater safety sisk[sic] for these officers.

Gilcrest offered no explanation for why he believes Ohio officers would be in any more danger than officers across the rest of the country, since no other state has the type of egregious rules regarding concealed carry in a motor vehicle, nor are they experiencing any increased officer safety issues as a result.

It was Gilcrest’s attempt to allege that concealed handgun license-holders are committing crimes that finally got the committee members riled:

Op-Ed: Mayor Bloomberg’s Arizona Gun Show P.R. Stunt

Posted on by Buckeye Firearms Association

by John Lott

New York City’s murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault rates rose last year according to preliminary FBI data, with murders alone increasing by more than 12 percent. But instead of concentrating on crime in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg just spent $100,000 of the NYPD’s budget sending police to Arizona to buy guns at a gun show.

The “sting” was a waste of money that misleads Americans and did nothing to reduce crime. Talk about an aggressive publicity stunt. Arizona officials had not been informed of the operation, which meant that any potential crimes uncovered by the New York City officers could not be prosecuted.

But, instead of spending $100,000, Bloomberg could have learned what he did for the price of a phone call or an Internet search. Arizonans, like residents in 31 other states, can buy guns from private individuals without a criminal background check, just an Arizona driver’s license to demonstrate residency. However, if they sell a gun to someone who they suspect will use it to commit a crime, they risk becoming liable for that crime.

John Feinblatt, a Bloomberg adviser, asserted: “The background check system failed in Arizona, it failed in Virginia and it fails in states around the country. If we don’t fix it now, the question is not whether another massacre will occur, but when.”

Nevertheless, background checks on the private sales of guns would have failed to stop the Tucson, Arizona shooting because the killer, Jared Loughner, passed his background check at a gun store. He had never been convicted of a crime, never been adjudicated as being a danger to himself or others, and he had not been involuntarily committed for mental illness. Thus, he would have been able to get a gun in any state, including New York, where he had been a resident.

Background checks do not stop bad guys from getting guns. Instead, the Brady Act background checks for gun purchases, in place since 1994, are a problem for law-abiding citizens. Hardly ever do background checks deny guns to criminals. Over 99.9 percent of purchases initially flagged as being illegal under the law were later determined to be misidentified.

Criminals commit 87% of Chicagoland murders; Mayor still has it out for law-abiding gun owners

Posted on by Buckeye Firearms Association

by Gerard Valentino

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley announced months ago that he would not seek reelection but that hasn’t stopped him from continuing to attack gun rights whenever possible. Daley used the Arizona tragedy that left Representative Gabby Giffords fighting for her life and the Fort Hood massacre as a reason to call for more gun control.

Nothing seems to get in the way of Daley’s anti-gun crusade – not even the fact that gun control has failed in Chicago and everywhere else.

With Daley moving on, there is now a slim chance that Illinois will become the 49th state to allow legal concealed carry. It remains unlikely because the Chicago Democratic machine is rabidly anti-gun and carries an inordinate amount of clout in the state legislature.

The more rural areas of Illinois have broken with the Chicago machine and many sheriffs and police administrators are on record as fully supporting legal concealed carry. Due to the huge shadow Daley casts on politics in Illinois, he single-handedly made sure the citizens of Illinois remained disarmed while the criminal population in Chicago is armed to the teeth.

Maybe the best we can hope for is, with Daley leaving office, a rational debate on concealed carry can finally take place in Illinois that can begin by looking at Chicago’s crime statistics.

Based on the Chicago Police Department’s own numbers, nearly 60% of murders in 2010 were gang- related. But, more startling is that 87% of murderers had prior criminal records, and 80% of murder victims had prior convictions as well. These numbers back up the fact that most murders are criminals shooting each other and that lifestyle choices have a huge effect on whether someone becomes a victim of violent crime.

The fact remains that criminals are going to kill each other and there is very little anyone can do about it.

Changing Gun Privileges Back into Gun Rights: The first step in holding back the Leftist Tide

Posted on by Buckeye Firearms Association

Editor’s Note: This commentary was also published recently at TheLandoftheFree.net.

by Gerard Valentino

The pro-gun movement is proud that 48 states have some sort of mechanism that allows concealed carry by law abiding citizens. Most of the 48 states have “shall issue” laws which means that if a citizen meets the legal requirements established by the legislature, the issuing authority has no choice but to approve the application to carry.

But, shall-issue laws still require a citizen to ask the government for permission, and often force permit holders to follow restrictions on when and how they can carry a gun. In many states, concealed carry permits can be revoked on a whim. There are even some states that allow law enforcement officers to take possession of a permit holder’s gun without an arrest.

If the government tried to put the same restrictions on free speech that are readily accepted for the right to bear arms the mainstream media would revolt. A similar backlash would take place if the government required a permit for anyone who wanted to join a church, mosque or synagogue.

When gun rights are treated like privileges and are unjustly infringed, the same groups that defend the freedom of speech, freedom of religion and other constitutional rights look the other way. And that is a sad commentary on the willingness of liberty- minded Americans to stand up for the most fundamental right affirmed in the Bill of Rights.

© 2002-2024 Buckeye Firearms Association