Posted on 05/19/2006 8:25:33 AM PDT by neverdem
Columbus Mayor Says City Leaders Should Make Gun Laws
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A potential change to Ohio's concealed-carry law is raising concerns for the mayor of Columbus.
When it became possible for Ohioans to carry a concealed weapon with a permit, Columbus Mayor Mike Coleman made a move to keep the weapons out of city parks. Some new changes being considered at the statehouse would call for statewide gun laws only, and no city gun laws.
"I think the citizens have a lot to be worried about," Coleman said.
Coleman said he believes that city leaders should be able to make decisions about how firearms can be used within their city boundaries.
"We need to have the ability and use . . . the ability to protect our citizens, and have the ability to do so. And the state legislature's taking that ability and that right away from cities," Coleman said.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Jim Aslanides of Coshocton, said that if gun laws are made only at the state level, gun owners will be better able to be aware of them and comply.
"Because you have a modge-podge of different ordinances that vary from place to place, it becomes confusing and almost impossible to adhere to," Aslanides said.
The much-debated Columbus assault weapons ban would no longer apply if the state legislation passes.
Aslanides said needed laws can be implemented at the state level.
"We're talking about a general law throughout the state that everyone can live with," Aslanides said.
Several proposed changes to the concealed-carry law were in front of a Senate committee this week. The earliest the committee would vote on it is next week.
Watch NBC 4 and refresh nbc4i.com for additional information. Copyright 2006 by nbc4i.com
disarm the good guys=arming the bad guys.
are you a f'n idiot?
Oddly enough, the ultimate "pre-emption" is the "Supreme law of the Land" says "shall not be infringed".
Should have been the end of it right there...
What are you smoking?
Yeah, if you are the best they can do for a mayor, they do have a lot to be worried about.
As long as people like him are allowed to hold office, they sure do.
on the plus side (for gun grabbing, hoplophobic, rats), having city by city restrictions, the cops will get to make LOTS of firearm arrests to pad their statistics. they would be able to say "we made 100 gun arrests" and not mention that 99 of them were honest, law-abiding citizens that couldn't keep up with laws that changed every 5 miles.
+1! Pre-emption way cool.. Make mine a large, please.
His statement is worthy of accommodation, however the directive he places on it is worthy of concern.
The mayor is behaving very rationally, as are many violently-anti-gun big city mayors
In Columbus, the CCW good guys will mostly be from the suburbs.
The thugs (and their relatives) will be the people who elected the mayor
It won't be the "end of it" until we get a US Attorney General who files charges for 2A civil rights violations.
Don't hold your breath.
Could be why Jorge Arbusto replaced him with firmly anti-Gun Alberto.
On the other hand, since the Ohio state constitution itself guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, general gun control restrictions and pretty much any law in the state or any municipalities therein restricting ownership of pretty much any type of firearm by law abiding citizens should be unconstitutional in Ohio under the state constitution.
To make things a bit more complicated, the state constitution explicitly states that the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to concealed carry - meaning that it is only with respect to concealed carry that laws can be passed in the state either restricting or facilitating - at least if we care about the state constitution to begin with, which, of course, no Democrat and darn few Republicans in Ohio do...
Can't say for other States, but preemption is working quite well in Virginia, although we have to shove the preemption law down the throats of a few localities on the point of a lawsuit.
Can't say for other States, but preemption is working quite well in Virginia, although we have to shove the preemption law down the throats of a few localities on the point of a lawsuit.
The "Supreme law of the Land" says "Shall not be infringed." That should be the end of it right there. Should. No Federal agency, no State legislature, no County government, no city council, no home owners association, should be able to infringe on the individual Right to keep and bear arms.
Period. End of story.
The constitution strictly limited the federal govt, not the states. The writers of the constitution did not intend it to be the controlling law for state governments - it was the controlling - and limiting - law of the federal govt.
The application of the US constitution to state and local matters expanded the jurisdiction of the federal govt...especially the jurisdiction of unelected federal justices... at the expense of state and local elected officials.
The practical result of extending the US constitution to supercede state constitutions has been a loss of freedom.
Period
So while slavery was outlawed Federally, the States would be within thier power to bring it back?
Keep reading. You've got a LONG way to go before you have enough facts to even come close to making this discussion interesting.
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.