On June 26, 2008, by a vote of 5-4, The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a fundamental, INDIVIDUAL right to own a…
U.S. Supreme Court set to announce decision for D.C. v Heller
UPDATE: Victory in The United States Supreme Court!
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled to release their decision on the Washington D.C. gun ban case on Thursday, June 26, 2008.
This will be a historic decision which will shape gun policy in America for decades.
Buckeye Firearms Association will post information as soon as possible, including a complete analysis of the decision and how each Justice voted.
Visit BuckeyeFirearms.org on Thursday and keep checking back for continuing updates as this story develops.
The following is an update on these developments posted today by author and Supreme Court-watcher Alan Korwin.
Pro-Gun Punditry: Wednesday’s Buckeye State Roundabout
By Chris Chumita
There are more stories pertaining to our gun rights in Ohio then we can possibly draw attention to with individual daily commentary. But they are all worthy of mention.
What follows is our review of headlines from around the state though a pro-gun rights lens.
From citizens protecting an injuried cop to a bum attacking a woman, these articles should be a part of your required reading!
What follows is several days of headlines accompanied by short, concise pro-gun analysis.
What SB184 means to you: Part III – Official Stops
By Jim Irvine
SB184 is 75 pages. It will go into effect on September 09, 2008. This is part of a series of articles looking at specific sections of the bill and how it will affect you. Keep in mind that I am not an attorney and this does not constitute legal advice. Concealed carry license holders are required to read the Attorney General guide. I highly recommend “The Ohio Guide to Firearms Laws” by Ken Hanson, Esq. (NOW AVAILABLE: Update for SB184).
It has been said by law enforcement spokesmen and printed in many papers that this bill will eliminate the requirement of a CHL to notify police that they are armed during an official stop such as a traffic stop. That is not correct. CHL’s are still required to notify all law enforcement officers that they are armed during any official stop.
ORC Sec 2923.16(E) (3) (a)
If the person is the driver or an occupant of a motor vehicle stopped as a result of a traffic stop or a stop for another law enforcement purpose, fail to promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the vehicle while stopped that the person has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the person then possesses or has a loaded handgun in the motor vehicle:
Nothing has changed with regard to your duties during a law enforcement encounter.
Op-Ed: The Two Reasons We Must Stop Clinton And Obama
Gun rights advocates considering skipping this November’s presidential election should keep two things in mind–the Supreme Court and the United Nations.
By Wayne R. LaPierre
NRA Executive Vice President
Recently, I’ve encountered some friends who are disillusioned over the political scene. As one recently put it, “The country would be better off with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the White House, because after four years, the American people would have their fill of ‘progressives’ and demand a true political revolution.”
What I have said to them one-on-one must also be said to any of our number who might have that same “sit-this-one-out” mentality. Two things I mentioned to the cynics changed their minds–the Supreme Court and the United Nations.
Consider this: In November, we will not just be electing a president for four years. In essence, we will be electing a U.S. Supreme Court majority for a lifetime. And we will be electing scores of lower court judges to lifetime posts.
What SB184 means to you: Part II – Seizure and Return of Firearm
By Jim Irvine
SB184 is 75 pages. It will go into effect on September 09, 2008. This is part of a series of articles looking at specific sections of the bill and how it will affect you. Keep in mind that I am not an attorney and this does not constitute legal advice. Concealed carry license holders are required to read the Attorney General guide. I highly recommend “The Ohio Guide to Firearms Laws” by Ken Hanson, Esq. (NOW AVAILABLE: Update for SB184).
SB184 introduced a new section to the Ohio Revised Code.
Sec 2923.163 requires that when a firearm is seized or surrendered to law enforcement, it shall be identified and stored in a manor that it can be returned to the person in the same condition as when it was seized. It further specifies that the court “shall award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to the person who sought the order to return the firearm” if law enforcement fails to return a firearm when ordered.
In practical terms, this means that you no longer have to spend $2,000 in legal fees in hopes of recovering your $500 gun. If law enforcement has seized your firearm, and you have demanded that they return the firearm and they refuse to do so, you may sue them to obtain recovery of the firearm. If the court orders the police to return the firearm, you will be awarded your attorney fees for obtaining the court order.
Guns On Campus: Virginia Tech Settlement Still Stubborn and Indecent, Part II.
A Pattern and Practice of denying Civil Rights is emerging, and the license to do it has just been extended thru next time.
By John Longenecker
This is Part II of my April 11th, 2008 piece critiquing this settlement.
In a June 17th, 2008 report from Associated Press, a Virginia Judge approved an $11 Million settlement won by some of the surviving parents of the Virginia Tech shootings. Not all survivors filed.
The reason for the finding is wrong. The liability seems to be found on the idea that the Trustees have a duty to protect the students and that they failed with a ‘watered down’ warning from the campus to students. Some experts would say that the Trustees have no such duty, and that it is up to the individual. After all, Police have no duty to protect individuals, an all too often understated factor in deaths.
It’s time to take back California for gun rights
By John Salyers
On the verge of what looks to be a solid kick in the gut for Paul Helmke and the Brady Bunch with the upcoming SCOTUS decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, Helmke and his minions are certainly not holding back in their celebrations of the ongoing trampling of rights in California.
In a June 18th alert pointing people to video of Brady VP of Law and Policy, Dennis Henigan, crying about the “right wing activist judges” in the federal judiciary and what the implications of a pro rights, pro Second Amendment decision in the Heller case will create for their organization, they have included a blurb claiming “VICTORY IN CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY!” and touting the latest bills moving through that legislature as “life-saving gun measures”.
This is of course just the latest “victory” dance. Back in October of 2007 Helmke threw out a blog post titled “A Victory For Law Enforcement in California”, describing California’s new Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007, signed into law by Governor Arnold (I made millions shooting guns on TV) Schwarzenegger.
These are just a few examples of legislatures listening to the likes of Helmke and out of touch bureaucrats sitting at the top of various law enforcement organizations. The end result is bad laws effecting good people and doing little to stop crime.
California is on a journey down a dark path where criminals will still be criminals and law-abiding people will continue to be caught in the cross fire. And as we all know, what begins in California is then used as a blue-print by the gun ban lobby for the rest of the nation.
What will the next round of “gun control” bring?
The Uninvited Ombudsman Report – No. 48
Taken from the most recent “Page Nine” Alan Korwin’s “The Uninvited Ombudsman Report”
STARTERS:
President Romney in 2012?: What Mitt Should Be Doing Now
By Chad D. Baus
I’ve always been skeptical of election year conversions.
When Auditor of State Betty Montgomery phoned to ask my support for a 2006 bid to regain the office of State Attorney General (she had held the office previously), I reminded her of the day she told Buckeye Firearms Association Chair Jim Irvine that she would “never be the candidate of the NRA,”[1] and of the evening she told me that she was personally opposed to concealed carry.
She countered by saying that Ohio’s concealed carry law had been so successful that she had changed her mind. Remembering Ronald Reagan’s motto, “trust but verify”, I replied by saying “That’s great! But gun owners are traditionally dubious about election year conversions, so what you need to do is to shout that from the mountaintops. Not only do you need to get out there on the stump and repeat what you told me, but you also need to get vocal about the improvements you believe need to be made to the law. After that, come back and we can talk again about my supporting your campaign for another term as Attorney General.”
Betty ignored my advice. And that November, she was defeated by a pro-gun Democrat whom she dwarfed in name recognition as well as with her hefty campaign treasury.[2]
Candidate Betty has frequently come to mind throughout the year-long 2008 Presidential primary season, as candidates from both major parties asked pro-Second Amendment Americans to look past their anti-gun records and give blind faith to their claims of a newfound love for gun rights.