Wave of legislation would expand gun rights in Ohio

cleveland.com ^ | 22 June, 2013 | Brandon Blackwell

[marktwain]

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Republican lawmakers have introduced a new wave of legislation that would continue to expand gun rights in Ohio.

Among the proposed changes are measures that would allow public officials to carry firearms in the Statehouse and other "non-secured" public buildings, ban law enforcement from melting down confiscated guns and loosen the state's definition of "automatic firearm."

The fresh legislation piggybacks on years of significant changes to Ohio's gun laws, which began in 2004 when Republican Gov. Bob Taft signed a law legalizing concealed handguns.

The proposals have gun advocates rejoicing and opponents reeling.

House Bill 191, introduced by Republican Rep. John Becker, of Southwest Ohio, would strip a clause from Ohio's definition of "automatic firearm" that classifies a semi-automatic weapon that fires more than 31 rounds without reloading as "automatic." The legislation would keep language that defines "automatic firearm" as a gun that fires multiple rounds with a single trigger pull -- a more traditional definition.

Doug Deeken, director of Ohioans for Concealed Carry, said the move is "just good house cleaning legislation."

"A firearm is either automatic, or it isn't," Deeken said. "This keeps Ohio from calling something a machine gun that the federal government wouldn't even call a machine gun. It's an arbitrary limit that needs to go."

Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, said housekeeping is not the rationale behind HB 191.

"I think the motive there is to make sure Ohio is not limiting the number of rounds that can be in a magazine," Hoover said. "I think the motive is to make sure the number of rounds you can have is unlimited."

Becker's House Bill 210 would stop the state's law enforcement agencies from destroying legal, confiscated firearms and ammunition.

[marktwain]

The article almost warrants a "barf alert". It is clear whose side the author is on. From the comments:

VulcanVirgo wrote:

"The first illogical thing I noticed in reading this article is that, according to the author, HB 191 seeks to remove a clause that classifies a "semi-automatic" firearm as "automatic". Hmmm....that makes sense to me. Why would one classify something as something it isn't? The second thing I noticed is that the author repeatedly uses the phrase "lawmakers continue to expand gun rights" to describe wht is actually a removal of unconstitutional restrcitions that had previously been placed on Americans' unalienable right to arm themselves. The choice of words is disingenuous and unflattering to the art of journalism."

[Whenifhow]

Ohio Ping

[from occupied ga]

"lawmakers continue to expand gun rights"

First thing that hit me when I read the title too. Rights don't come from government. You have rights inherent with your existence - granted by God. The government isn't some sacred thing that we all should worship. It is merely a collection of individuals making their living by forcibly extorting a fraction of the fruits of the labors of the rest of us. The government has no more right to tell me what guns (if any) I can own or to spy on me than I have to tell my neighbor what possessions he can own and look in his bedroom window.

[xzins]

There is a difference between a single shot, a semi-automatic and an automatic. It makes as much sense to classify a spear as a bow. The distinctions are real, so let’s deal with reality in any law.

[zeugma]

Among the proposed changes are measures that would allow public officials to carry firearms in the Statehouse and other "non-secured" public buildings

Because some animals are more equal than others.