Posted on 06/17/2008 3:54:12 AM PDT by marktwain
One of these days I expect the Toledo Blade to change its name to something softer, like maybe the Toledo Spoon or Toledo Safety Scissors. Referencing the blade of a knife or sword is just too aggressive sounding for such a liberal, feel-good paper who apparently all believe if we'd just ban all weapons that crime would magically stop and we'd live in a rosy tinted Mr. Roger's neighborhood for the rest of time. Unless I'm missing the point, and they're referring to a lawnmower blade. Well, that still won't work since Karl Childers used one to kill Doyle Hargraves. Seems most anything can be used as a weapon. Could be they mean a blade of grass. I suppose they fancy it means they're on the "cutting edge", but even that seems too violent a reference for them. But, I digress.
This past Saturday, they ran an editorial tearing into Governor Strickland and the Ohio legislature for what they apparently feel was ramming through HB 184 and endangering the safety of the entire state, to hear them tell it.
Of course, the story is so full of lies and half-truths anyone not familiar with the reality of the bill could easily be lead astray.
The bill doesn't "weaken" CCW laws, it doesn't "declare open season on intruders", and it doesn't steal all the rights away from landlords. What it does do is bring Ohio mor ein line with the laws of the surrounding states (we're still the most restrictive, by the way), return the presumption of innocence to someone attacked in their home or vehicle, and protect the constitutional rights of tenants. I'm sorry they think those are bad things.
The Blade claims the bill "[encourages] victims to shoot first and ask questions later." I've read the legislation several times, and I see nothing in there that condones such an action. In the next sentence, they spit that "it shifts the burden to prosecutors to prove a shooting was not self-defense". Oh, no! You mean people are now going to be innocent until proven guilty? The State has to prove that you didn't act in self defense? Prosecutors have to do their job? The horror! Here I thought the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" was the foundation upon which our legal system was built. Apparently, I was mistaken.
While they were on the subject, they wailed that this provision extends to a person's car as well. Again, I'm not seeing how this is a bad thing. I'd argue that it should extend to anywhere you have a legal right to be, like it does in many states. It doesn't give "homeowners and motorists the right to blow away anyone who enters their home or vehicle without permission." It simply says that if you are attacked and forced to defend yourself, the prosecution has to prove you didn't. The same thing they do every day for every other type of crime you are charged with. They can't just decide on their own whether you are guilty or not, they have to have evidence to back it up. Sounds more reasonable to me.
Moving on. The next paragraph is a lot of fun.
More troubling, however, are changes the law makes to previous rules governing weapons in motor vehicles. Current state law requires motorists to transport their unloaded guns in a locked trunk or a case. The new law allows legal gun owners with a concealed-carry permit to transport their unloaded weapons in an unlocked glove box or center console, with ammunition close by. The only possible purpose for this change is to make lethal force more readily available to drivers.
Hey, guess what? You're right! Ok, tell me if this makes any sense. Under current Ohio law, if you have a concealed handgun license you are permitted to have a loaded handgun in a holster on your person; however, you are not allowed to have an unloaded handgun in an unlocked glove compartment with ammunition "close by". Oh, by the way, it is also legal to have a loaded firearm in an unlocked glove box for a CHL holder. All this does is to make sure CHL holders who are on their way to the shooting range don't inadvertently break the law by having ammunition too close to an unloaded gun. I'd argue that anyone, CHL or not, should be able to have a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle just like they can in their home. Many states consider a motor vehicle to be an extension of your home.
One argument against this is that criminals who are pulled over by police will quickly unload their guns so they can't be arrested. How they reconcile that with their other argument that law-abiding citizens who have a CHL will take advantage of the law to shoot police is beyond me, but I don't want to get side tracked again. Let's put this argument to bed. The criminal isn't allowed to have a gun in the first place! Loaded or unloaded (even if my previous wish were true and having a loaded firearm without a CHL was legal), criminals with a felony record can't have a firearm with them whether it is loaded or unloaded. Dropping the cartridges out onto the floor isn't going to save them. It would make the stop safer for a policeman and might give probable cause for a search based on loose cartridges all over the floor, but it isn't a magical loophole that will let the bad guys get away.
The Blades final complaint is about the provision that will no longer allow landlords to ban their tenants from owning firearms. They try to compare it to owning pets or hanging a picture on the wall. Last time I checked, neither of those actions are protected constitutional rights. I'd more readily compare it to the fact that landlords also aren't allowed to regulate what newspaper you subscribe to, what church you go to, or discriminate on the basis of your skin color.
Yes, landlords do have some rights over their property. Stripping you of the right to properly defend yourself isn't one of them.
These changes are good for Ohio, and good for gun owners. They aren't going to lead to blood in the streets (remember, newspapers like this predicted exactly that when concealed carry passed in Ohio in the first place... of course, those dire predictions never did come true). Ohio's gun laws are still among the most restrictive in the nation, but this bill makes them a little better. And Ohioans are safer for it, despite the lies the Blade try to propagate.
Newspaper types in Ohio’s smaller Rust Belt cities - Dayton, Canton, Akron, Toledo - watch their cities become ‘donuts’ with all commerce and residences outside a void yet they still think that Democrat governments and liberal policies/viewpoints are the way forward.
Shoot! You can add Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati to your list of “donut” metro areas in Ohio.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.