BUCKEYE FIREARMS: Stay up-to-date on gun laws, politics, and events. Plus get the Grassroots Action Guide FREE!
First Buckeye Firearms Foundation-funded training class for Ohio teachers is a success; It won't be the lastSubmitted by cbaus on Fri, 04/05/2013 - 07:00.
by Jim Irvine
The training class that Buckeye Firearms Foundation proposed at a town hall meeting following the mass murder of teachers and school children in Newtown, Connecticut, has been completed. The class of 24 teachers, administrators, and school employees attended a three day class at Tactical Defense Institute (TDI) in Adams County, Ohio on March 25-27. The weather was cold and at times difficult, but the teachers-turned-students all showed up ready and eager to learn.
The class started with a lecture from John Benner. He explained what we have learned from studying past events, complete with statistics, and addressed the mental preparation needed to end an event. Then students were instructed in proper stance, grip, and trigger management and practiced dry firing with roped guns. The class moved to a range where they continued to work on shooting fundamentals as they practiced live fire drills.
Afternoon training consisted of more work on the fundamentals and added drawing from a holster and from concealment. By the end of the day the newer shooters were all shooting well, and the long-time shooters had shrunk their groupings or increased the speed at which they could reliably make follow-up shots. Several experienced shooters commented that they had learned more about shooting on that first day than the rest of their life combined. Knowing TDI's instructors, that is likely an accurate assessment.
Day Two started with more shooting. Students worked on reloading magazines and refinement of the skills they learned on Day One. They were introduced to shooting while moving and moving past and around people while keeping their gun pointed in a safe direction.
[Last] week, Vice-President Joe Biden, and House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), showed us--once again--how thorough their contempt is for our Constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights.
According to a Washington Times article, on a Wednesday conference call organized by "Mayors Against Illegal Guns," Biden referred to current anti-gun legislation and told his anti-gun supporters, "Let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning."
As the article notes, recent surveys show increasing opposition to stricter gun control measures. But this fact matters not to Biden; nor to Pelosi, who also voiced a determination to continue pushing for gun bans, no matter what the American public says.
"I've been to a number of states since this Congress has gone in and many parts of different states and the public is so far ahead of the Congress on this subject. I believe whatever passes in the Congress now will not be the end of the day for this issue."
- United States Senator Rob Portman
by Chad D. Baus
As a candidate for the U.S. Senate, Republican Rob Portman was unabashed in his support for the Second Amendment. In September 2010 his campaign released a flyer which pointed out his strong history of support for Second Amendment-related issues, and grading resume from than National Rifle Association over his entire 12 years in Congress.
The Portman campaign flyer promises that "As Ohio's next Senator Rob will continue to protect our Constitutional freedoms and will be a strong advocate for preserving these rights and traditions for future generations."
A few weeks later, in an interview given prior to his address to the U.S. Sportsmen Alliance (USSA) Ohio Rally, Portman informed Outdoor Writers of Ohio members that pro-Second Amendment voters could feel comfortable supporting him, and stressed that "it is critical to have a Senator who will stand up for the Second Amendment."
In the wake of the re-election of President Obama, and the political fallout from a spree killer's attack on the "no-guns" victim zone in Connecticut, it is indeed critical to have a Senator who will stand up for the Second Amendment.
A newly-released statement by Sen. Portman proves that is exactly what we have.
In the days following the attack at Sandy Hook, the media and anti-gun politicians thought they had their chance to accomplish political goals they had long-been denied: the renewal and expansion of a Federal ban on modern semi-automatic rifles, and a "universal background check" gun registration scheme.
When the media questioned Portman about whether or not he would support attempts to renew the rifle ban, headlines across the nation screamed that he believed gun limits should be on the table. Behind the scenes, and with the knowledge that you can't always trust what you read in the media, representatives from Buckeye Firearms Association contacted Portman's office to inquire as to his actual position.
The response came in no uncertain terms: his representatives assured us Sen. Portman's comments had been taken out of context, and that he would not waver on his support for the Second Amendment. His office also released a media statement that said "[Portman] has emphasized that he is a supporter of Second Amendment rights and has yet to see data that points to new gun control laws as an effective way to making our communities safer."
So when news began circulating that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had decided to spend $12 million on television ads designed to influence Senators who are supposedly on the fence regarding their support for a so-called "universal background check" gun registration scheme, we naturally decided it was time to call the Senator again to verify whether or not media reports that he was undecided about the legislation were true. Once again the Senator has responded, and this time even more forcefully.
In fact, it could be said that Sen. Portman has just dropped the equivalent of a "MOAB" on Mayor Bloomberg's multi-million dollar efforts to sway his support for Americans' Second Amendment rights.
by Jim Shepherd
With yesterday's passage of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, the Obama administration added more fuel to the fire of critics who refer to the "imperial presidency" rather than the "current administration." Reversing previous national policy to endorse a gun control treaty that would essentially allow the United Nations to have the final say on any firearms exports, the administration put its full weight behind the measure.
It's brought more than a few blasts from unhappy members of the firearms industry in the past few days, but it's also gotten the attention of the United States Congress. And Congress says that while the president might well sign the treaty, it will be dead on arrival at the Senate. If the Senate doesn't approve the treaty, Mr. Obama's signature will, essentially, be meaningless from a legal standpoint.
That hasn't kept anti-gun groups from crowing about the "setback for the pro-gun bloc, especially the NRA". And it only points out the growing division over gun rights between the administration and the Congress and the administration and the people.
The following op-ed by Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair Ken Hanson was originally published by The Columbus Dispatch. Republished with permission.
by Ken Hanson
We, the people, have the constitutional right to own semiautomatic rifles and the standard-capacity magazines designed for those rifles. The plain words in the U.S. and Ohio constitutions establish this, so long as those words are given their ordinary, everyday meanings.
This is why proponents of gun control engage in sophistry at every opportunity. For example: "You don't need an AR-15 to hunt." Fortunately, hunting has nothing to do with the question. Government could ban all hunting tomorrow. Or: "If an AR-15 is an 'arm' for constitutional purposes, then the people also have the right own rocket launchers." It is far easier to argue that a gun is not an "arm" than to justify why the citizen's right to own that arm should be abolished.
The proper question to ask is whether the government has the enumerated power to regulate or abolish the means of exercising this constitutional right.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet staked a position on the right to own a rifle that happens to look scary to a certain segment of society, nor the magazines for those rifles. The 1939 U.S. Supreme Court case United States vs. Miller was the darling of gun-banners for 70 years. This case, in which only the federal government filed a brief and appeared at oral argument, established, at most, that the only right to own a firearm was the right to own a firearm relevant to military service. (Careful what you wish for.)
The 2008 case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, established an individual right to own firearms for self-defense — nothing more, nothing less. The Heller decision also held that Washington, D.C., must issue Dick Heller a license to own a firearm without demonstration of any need. In 2010, the McDonald vs. Chicago ruling extended the Heller decision to the states.
Where, then, is the Supreme Court's ruling that semiautomatic rifles, and the standard-capacity magazines for those rifles, are outside the protection of the Constitution?
NSSF objects to U.S. government abandoning position that U.N. treaty must be based on international "consensus"Submitted by cbaus on Tue, 04/02/2013 - 15:00.
NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation today strongly objected to the last-minute reversal of the U.S. government position regarding the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. In the closing hours of negotiations on Thursday, March 28, the government abandoned its previous insistence that the treaty be approved only through achieving "consensus" of all the member states. Requiring consensus had been the United States position going back to earlier administrations.
At the end of the session, a U.S. government spokesperson told reporters "It's important to the United States and the defense of our interests to insist on consensus. But every state in this process has always been conscious of the fact that if consensus is not reached in this process, that there are other ways to adopt this treaty, including via a vote of the General Assembly." The spokesperson went on to say that the United States would vote "yes" on the treaty in the General Assembly, regardless of the positions of other member states. By abandoning the requirement for consensus the United States is assuring passage of the treaty by the United Nations.
"This abrupt about-face on the long-standing United States requirement for 'consensus' illustrates that the Obama Administration wants a sweeping U.N. arms control treaty," said Lawrence Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. "We are troubled by the timing of the Obama Administration’s decision to abandon consensus on the eve of the Senate debate on pending gun control measures. The United Nations treaty would have a broad impact on the U.S. firearms industry and its base of consumers in the U.S."
by Chad D. Baus
Yet another murder occurred over the weekend in a so-called "gun free" zone in Ohio, and church officials are thankful the death toll wasn't higher.
From The Star Beacon:
Children screamed in terror and hid under the pews at Hiawatha Church of God in Christ on Sunday, witnesses said, as an Ashtabula man was shot and killed by his son just after the Easter service.
Richard Riddle, 52, was leaving the church on Hiawatha Street with his wife at about 1 p.m. when his son, 25-year-old Reshad Riddle, approached him and fired a single round from a handgun, instantly killing Richard, church associate pastor Sean Adams said.
About 150 parishioners were leaving the church in recessional. They ducked down at the sound of the gunshot, pushing their children and grandchildren under the pews as Reshad Riddle entered the church, still carrying the gun and yelling that the shooting was "the will of Allah. This is the will of God," Adams said.
"It was terrifying," Adams said. "The children were screaming, and people were dialing 911. We were afraid to breathe."
...Ashtabula police Chief Robert Stell said dispatchers received multiple calls from inside the church and immediately called law enforcement mutual aid from every available agency to the scene.
"The initial call we received was more along the lines of a mass shooting," he said. "We knew that shots were fired in the church, and we thought there were multiple people down. We called other agencies to assist because it was described as a mass shooting and we weren't sure if there were multiple shooters or multiple people wounded."
As was reported by the Associated Press, witnesses feared the worst:
"Tragic as it is, it could have been so much worse," Rev. Steve Sargent, associate pastor of the Hiawatha Church of God in Christ in Ashtabula, said Monday as he pointed out where the gunman moved through the sanctuary.
Michael Wofford, 59, a worshipper who attended Sunday's service with his wife and two grandchildren, said he feared a shooting rampage after the gunman finished his spiel from the pulpit area.
"Is he going to just walk out of the church or is he going to start shooting people at random," Wofford asked in the church vestibule. "Sooner or later he's going to run out of words. It could have been much worse."
In Ohio, if a church member with a concealed handgun license brings their firearm to church as a means of protection against such an attack, the law calls for him to be arrested and charged with a felony of the fourth degree, and a conviction would earn him up to $5000 in fines and 18 months in prison.
How did it get this bad in the Buckeye State, where, once upon a time, state law encouraged citizens to bear arms at church services? Will it take a church massacre (or massacres) in Ohio before the Republicans controlling the General Assembly do anything about it?
by Ken Hanson, Esq.
COLUMBUS, OHIO - The Newton, CT school shootings were a tragedy. Nationwide, the debate has ignited over what to do in response to these shootings. In response, big-city school districts have dismissed arming teachers in favor of more anti-bullying programs, locked doors, door buzzers, security cameras, "no guns" signs, gun bans, candle-light vigils and a supply of sacrificial animals as an offering to appease angry spirits.
"School safety is not cheap, but what cost do you put on a child's life?" asked Columbus Superintendent Gene Harris. "When will the Ohio General Assembly finally establish an equitable system of school funding, a system that will allow Columbus schools to have as many "no guns" signs and door buzzers as New Albany?"
When asked about arming teachers, a security provision that is budget neutral, Harris dismissed the idea. "More guns are not the answer. We need more "no guns" signs and anti-bullying programs, and we need them now."
by Ken Hanson, Esq.
WASHINGTON, D.C. Faced with political and legal threats to existing, and proposed, gun-control laws, activists have borrowed a page from those who blazed the trail before them – the American civil rights movement.
"It really crystalized, for me, when people laughed when I suggested homeowners randomly fire guns in the air to deter crime," said Vice President Joe Biden. "It simply motivated me to recommit my efforts towards advancing this agenda." The Vice-President then explained that there is a clear parallel between our current debate over banning guns and the American civil rights movement.
The Obama administration declared March 28, 2013, a national Day of Action in support of gun-control. The plan, per a press release from the administration, is to motivate literally dozens of activists in all 50 states to put Sharpie markers to drugstore poster board and stand on random street corners for around an hour in support of gun-control. In larger cities across America, the plan is for the activists to at least walk in circles, so that it qualifies as a "march."
Dear Ohio NRA Member:
The U.S. Senate is currently scheduled to vote on several anti-gun bills during the week of April 8. One, the so-called "universal background check" bill being pushed by Senator Chuck Schumer, would criminalize the private transfer of firearms between law-abiding citizens. This legislation would make it illegal for a family member to transfer a firearm to another family member without the federal government's approval. According to a recent Department of Justice memo, the effectiveness of a universal background check system "depends on gun registration" -- which is illegal under federal law. In addition, no background check system will ever be truly "universal", as criminals do not submit to background checks.
Please contact Senator Portman and encourage him to oppose this anti-freedom legislation. Ask him to support real solutions that will reduce violent crime and keep our children safe -- fixing our broken mental health system; securing our schools; and prosecuting violent criminals.