Buckeye Firearms Association

FLASH: AG Cordray files motion for stay pending appeal of 8th Circuit ruling on Cleveland preemption challenge

cbaus — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:44:28 -0500

Attorney General Richard Cordray has asked for the Cleveland Appellate Court to stay their order finding R.C. 9.68 unconstitutional.

A stay means that the Appellate Court's decision will not be in force while the Supreme Court considers the case and issues their decision.

AG Cordray is representing the state of Ohio in this case against the City of Cleveland. A stay, which should be granted, will protect gun owners until a final decision is reached.

It is our expectation that the OSC will reverse the Cleveland Appellate Court's decision.

Click here to download the motion. (.pdf)

Will Ted Strickland chose Buckeye Firearms Assoc. endorsee as 2010 running mate?

cbaus — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:10:00 -0500

By Chad D. Baus

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting on a list of potential running mates for Governor Ted Strickland in his 2010 re-election bid.

While Strickland has lived up to his billing as a staunch pro-gun Democrat during his first term in office, the same could never have been said of Lt. Gov Lee Fisher, who is running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

Strickland's choice of Fisher, a former Handgun Control Inc. board member who lost a bid for Attorney General in 1994 after saying "I never met a gun control bill I didn't like," caused alot of concern among pro-gun voters in 2006. Fortunately for the former Congressman, however, losses among wary gun voters weren't enough to overcome a wave of disappointment with more than a decade and a half of Republican rule in the Buckeye State.

If early polling is to be believed, however, Strickland may not be able to cede the number of votes another anti-gun pick would cost him.

From the story:

While political observers say the importance of the lieutenant governor nominee shouldn't be overstated, voter unease is complicating an election that once looked solid for the Democratic governor. A recent poll showed Strickland in a virtual tie with Republican challenger John Kasich.

...The names of potential Strickland picks circulating around Columbus in recent weeks would each add a benefit-some more tangible than others-for the governor.

The story goes on to name some of the potential picks rumored to be in consideration by the Strickland campaign.

Among those who are reportedly being considered are two men with anti-gun records: Youngstown Mayor Jay Williams (member of Mayor Bloomberg's gun control front group Mayors Against Illegal Guns) and Board of Regents Chancellor Eric Fingerhut, a former Ohio Senator who led the fight against concealed carry reform, predicting that "it's going to lead to tragedies and accidents of all kinds."

Also among those who are reportedly being considered are two men with pro-gun records: State Rep. Matt Szollosi (D-49), a 2008 endorsee of Buckeye Firearms Association who currently serves as speaker pro tempore (second-ranking member of the House), and Rep. Jay Goyal (D-73), also a 2008 Firearms Association endorsee who currently serves in the House as majority whip (fifth-ranking member).

With polls indicating a major upswing toward the GOP among Ohio voters, and on the heels of the defeat of two Democrat gubernatorial incumbents in Virginia and New Jersey, Ted Strickland can ill-afford to choose another anti-gun running mate.

Around the Buckeye state, gun control is a sure loser in statewide elections. The Ohio General Assembly is chock full of pro-gun voters. Gun owners are among the most consistent voting blocks, and the most active grassroots activists. While they understand it is the Governor who sets policy and signs legislation into law, there are still many Ohio gun voters who will refuse to vote for a ticket that puts a gun hater within a heart-beat of the Governor's office, and positions him for a future run at the top spot.

Chad Baus is the Vice Chairman of Buckeye Firearms Association, and a member of the Fulton County Republican Central Committee.

No-guns signs not working: Columbus city bus passengers now asked to submit to "voluntary" searches

cbaus — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:05:00 -0500

By Gerard Valentino

10TV in Columbus reported recently that the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA), which illegally posts its buses with "no-guns signs", is still finding it necessary to increase security on city busses (see "Argument on COTA bus leads to teen's shooting" for an example of why).

Their latest plan includes asking people to submit to searches of their bags and person. In other words, under the guise of security and safety, the city is asking people to succumb to searches like common criminals.

From the story:

The Central Ohio Transit Authority is now using police dogs to increase security, 10TV's Angela An reported Wednesday.

While assaults against passengers and drivers are down compared to last year, police made 35 percent more arrests this year on buses and bus stops. There have been 158 arrests to date in 2009, An reported.

"The reason we started with bomb dogs is to make sure people aren't bringing suspicious packages on the buses and leaving them behind," said COTA's security director Stan Alverson.

The dogs are joining undercover officers in searching for anything illegal, from explosives to drugs.

Although it's easy to applaud programs that claim to deter crime and make public transportation safer, in this case the end does not justify the means.

Whenever someone in a position of authority, like a law enforcement officer, asks citizens to submit to a search without legitimate cause, it makes an unacceptable act seem acceptable. Regardless of whether the search is deemed to be voluntary, people in a position of authority convey a veiled threat of consequence to turning down any request they make. To put it in perspective, those on the left consider it sexual harassment for a boss to ask a subordinate on a date, even if there is no threat attached to the request. (Well, that is unless you're Bill Clinton, but that's another article.)

When the police or other law enforcement officials ask for consent to search, that request carries the full weight of law enforcement, even if it is a benign request - adding a trained police dog to the equation ratchets up emotion even more.

The intention of the vast majority of law enforcement officers is to treat honest law-abiding people with the utmost respect. Most law enforcement officers want to do everything to protect the rights of the "good guys" while destroying the ability of the criminal element to do their job.

Unfortunately, the mere presence of a badge, gun and police dog does a great job of projecting authority, which is why they are part of the uniform in the first place. Most honest Americans want to make sure they are doing everything possible to cooperate with law enforcement making a request by law enforcement equal to a demand in the eyes of many honest people.

Unfortunately, there are the law enforcement officers and prosecutors who are hell-bent on getting consent to search, and will trot out the argument that being searched is only a problem if you "have something to hide." To that end, most honest people will comply with a request for consent to search by any law enforcement officer.

After all, most honest people think if they didn't do anything wrong, everything will work out in the end.

As a liberty-minded American your blood should boil when a prosecutor or law enforcement official uses the "nothing to hide" argument to break down your aversion to waiving your constitutional rights.

When properly translated, the statement that "people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" implies the threat of some type of unwanted action if you refuse to give consent to search. That gives further credence to the argument that when someone of authority makes a request - it ceases to be a request the moment there are consequences to refusing to cooperate.

Such an ignorant position on the issue of illegal searches also side steps one of the biggest issues in America today – wrongful convictions.

The stories of honest people wrongfully convicted after talking to police because "they were innocent and had nothing to hide" reads like something out of Soviet Russia. One case, in particular, is a textbook reason why Americans should always retain counsel before talking to police and should be extremely careful in giving consent to otherwise unlawful searches.

Gary Gauger was an honest citizen who was wrongfully convicted of murdering his parents because he felt, as an innocent man, he could just tell the truth and that would set him free. After an all night interrogation, the police claimed Mr. Gauger confessed to the murders, and despite a lack of physical evidence, he was subsequently tried for killing his parents.

The police in this case where well trained and told Mr. Gauger that he failed a lie detector test, and that they found his clothes in the house covered in his parent's blood – both statements, however, were untrue.

In what comes as a shock to most Americans, the police can lie to trick people into confessing to a murder and can use just about any type of non-physical coercion as well.

As it turned out due to being unsophisticated in the subject of police interrogations, "having nothing to hide" got Mr. Gauger convicted of brutally killing his parents and he ended up on death row.

The police did their job and got a confession from someone they believed was guilty so this isn't an indictment of all law enforcement or prosecutors. If my parents were murdered I would want the police to do everything within their power to find the perpetrators. On the flip side, however, is my firm belief that had Mr. Gauger retained a lawyer his case would have turned out differently.

Defense attorneys are skilled in dealing with police interrogation techniques and unlike criminals, the average law abiding person is not. So, using the experience of a good lawyer is a must for anyone thrust unexpectedly into the criminal justice system. Retaining a lawyer to help you through such a traumatic situation is like having a fire extinguisher in your kitchen, or wearing a seat belt, or even carrying a gun for self-defense.

They are all sound safety precautions designed to help in an emergency.

The Founding Fathers knew a constructive distrust of government was required if the American experiment was going to succeed. To that end, they created strict limits on the government's ability to search our person and our things.

The next time you hear a prosecutor, law enforcement officer, or a reporter imply that innocent people should have nothing to hide, remind them of Gary Gauger, or the thousands of other Americans wrongfully convicted that had "nothing to hide."

Cooperating with law enforcement is the act of an honest, law-abiding citizen, and as citizens we should do everything to help those tasked with serving and protecting the community. That cooperation is not impeded by retaining counsel if you find yourself on the wrong end of a police interrogation.

While there are cases that turn out badly, more than likely the truth will set you free, but what is almost sure to set you free is the truth coming out in the presence of a trained attorney.

Gerard Valentino is the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Treasurer, and his new book The Valentino Chronicles is now available in the Buckeye Firearms Store, A portion of the proceeds from each sale helps fund our current lawsuits against Cleveland and the City of Chicago.

It's time to eradicate VD (Victim Disarmament) on miltary bases

cbaus — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:10:00 -0500

By Jeff Knox

There has been a close association between sexually transmitted diseases and the military for as long as the two have existed, but the focus of this article is not Venereal Disease, but a different kind of VD that has shocked the military community and the nation. The VD which currently plagues the military and puts our soldiers at grave risk is the policy of Victim Disarmament which has been increasingly prevalent even as laws in the civilian world have been moving in the opposite direction

While some have pointed to regulation changes during the Clinton administration as the turning point, VD on military bases has been the trend since at least the 1960's and to a lesser extent even before that. In military society, so heavily steeped in discipline and control, it is only natural that those in power would be inclined to drift in the direction of micro-management and centralized control. Commanders in the modern military seem to have gravitated toward a paternalistic role and that paternalism runs all through the chain of command and seems to apply to all subordinates regardless of their age, rank, or experience.

When a Muslim major decided he was on the wrong side in the War on Terrorism and began shooting soldiers and civilian workers in a premeditated attack at a Ft. Hood processing center, we were all shocked. Shocked that anyone in the U.S. military could turn on his brothers- and sisters-in-arms with such viciousness. Shocked that a commissioned officer could hold such radical religious views and not be recognized as a threat.

But we were especially shocked that anyone could go on a killing spree in the middle of a busy Army base and not run into any armed resistance for over 10 minutes.

The public was dumbfounded to learn that virtually everyone on all military bases outside of war zones is required to disarm while on base. Even officers and senior NCOs who are licensed to carry concealed in the state where the base is located are forbidden to have a readily accessible firearm virtually anywhere on base. Only MPs and contract security guards may legally go about a military installation armed and even they are generally forbidden to carry when not on duty.

But who could have imagined that anyone would ever dare to attack soldiers on an Army base? Well, just as the "unimaginable
idea of using commercial aircraft as guided weapons had been widely publicized in popular novels and was officially included in national threat assessments as a likely scenario, the idea of attacking personnel on a military installation was not novel or new. A group of home-grown wannabe Muslim terrorists made elaborate plans to do just that back in 2007. After their plot was uncovered, many in the rights community pointed out the huge vulnerability created by the Army's Victim Disarmament policies and called for changes, at least to allow qualified officers and senior NCOs to keep weapons handy. Those calls went unheeded. Some commands went in the opposite direction with commanding officers tightening restrictions on weapons in base housing units and even forbidding soldiers from legally carrying when off-base and out of uniform.

In the wake of the atrocity at Ft. Hood the Army says it – along with the other branches – will be reviewing security policies and procedures. I don't expect to see them give up their VD policies. It is much more likely that they will conclude that they need to hire more civilian security guards and perhaps implement some sort of alert system similar to those implemented by universities, based around text messages sent to cell phones.

After all, what if the Army allowed soldiers to be armed and they used them to commit crime, or to shoot each other over traffic disputes? What about the danger of police mistaking an armed defender for the active murderer or an armed defender accidentally shooting innocent bystanders?

We've heard all of the "what if" arguments in every state that has ever debated concealed carry legislation or talked about extending the right to carry to college campuses. For some reason the fact that none of the dire "what ifs" have ever materialized and that armed defense is consistently demonstrated to be safe and effective, just carries no weight with paternalistic authoritarians who don't fully trust their charges.

More than two years after the Army received a dramatic warning about the vulnerability created by their VD policies, that vulnerability has been horrifically exploited. And in the face of that experience, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines remain helpless in the face of threats of armed attack.

Unlike Venereal Disease, Victim Disarmament can be easily eradicated, particularly in the military. All it takes is the will and a little bit of trust.

Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

Ohio's Popular Deer-Gun Season Opens November 30

cbaus — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:05:00 -0500

Donation of extra venison - at no cost to the hunter - is encouraged for Ohioans in need

Ohio's popular deer-gun season opens statewide on Monday, November 30, offering hunters a full week to harvest a whitetail. The upcoming season will again include an extra weekend of gun hunting on December 19-20, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife.

Deer can be hunted with a legal muzzleloader, handgun or shotgun from one half-hour before sunrise to sunset through December 6 and December 19-20. With a pre-hunting season population estimate of 650,000 white-tailed deer, the ODNR Division of Wildlife anticipates 115,000 to 125,000 deer will be killed during the nine-day season. Approximately 420,000 hunters are expected to participate in this year's season, including many out-of-state hunters.

The white-tailed deer is the most popular game animal in Ohio, frequently pursued by generations of hunters. Ohio ranks 8th nationally in annual hunting-related sales and 10th in the number of jobs associated with the hunting-related industry. Each year, hunting has a $859 million economic impact in Ohio through the sale of equipment, fuel, food, lodging and more.

Ohio is divided into three deer hunting zones. Beginning on the opening day of gun season and continuing through December 6 a limit of one deer may be taken in Zone A (20 counties) and two deer in Zone B (30 counties). A total of six deer may be harvested in eastern and southeastern Ohio's Zone C (38 counties) through the week long gun season. The antlerless deer permit will be valid for deer-gun week only in Zone C.

Beginning on December 7, the bag limit is three deer in Zone C and antlerless deer permits are no longer valid. Any time a hunter is allowed to take more than one deer, they must purchase an additional permit.

Those hunting in urban units and at Division of Wildlife-authorized controlled hunts will have a six-deer bag limit, and those deer will not count against the hunter's zone bag limit. Antlerless deer permits can be used for the entire season in urban deer units or Division of Wildlife-authorized controlled hunts. Antlerless deer permits must be purchased by November 29.

Hunters may take only one antlered deer, regardless of zone, hunting method or season. A deer permit is required in addition to a valid Ohio hunting license.

Hunters are encouraged to kill more does this season using the reduced-priced antlerless deer permit and donate any extra venison to organizations assisting Ohioans in need. The Division is collaborating with Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry to help pay for the processing of donated venison. Hunters who donate their deer are not required to pay the processing cost as long as the deer are taken to a participating processor. Counties being served by this program can be found online at fhfh.org.

Additional hunting regulations and maps of the state's deer zones are contained in the 2009-2010 Ohio Hunting & Trapping Regulations. This free publication is available wherever hunting licenses are sold, online at wildohio.com or by calling 1-800-WILDLIFE.

The 2009-2010 licenses will not be printed on weatherproof paper. Sportsmen and women should protect their licenses and permits from the elements by carrying them in a protective pouch or wallet.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources ensures a balance between wise use and protection of our natural resources for the benefit of all. Visit the ODNR web site at www.ohiodnr.com.

The Bloomberg Media Follies

cbaus — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:10:00 -0500

By Tim Inwood

Recently in the Cincinnatus Standard I wrote about "teachable moments with the media."

Sadly the lesson must continue as we talk about how the media looks at issues with bias and distortion. One must conclude they are quite lazy, as they don't do their homework and seem quite willing to accept anything spoon-fed to them that fits their liberal mental template without critical thought. In the process they miss the facts, pass on the fabricated material, and thus do the public a great general disservice.

October was a hot month of media activity and there is much I can comment on, however I will focus on the publicity stunt pulled by Mayor Bloomberg of New York and his so-called undercover gun show stings, as this is an article unto itself. The issue of guns is
poorly handled by the press, and frequently they don't let the facts get in the way of their bias.

So it was on that cool October morning we awoke to lurid hidden camera video of so-called illegal gun sales taking place at gun shows in Nevada, Tennessee and Ohio, the bulk of the video coming from three locations in Ohio.

Those three locations in Ohio were Columbus, Dayton and Sharonville, a suburb of Cincinnati.

The videos can be viewed here, and suggest all sorts of illegal activity and outrage that such things go on. Other than one fool who jokes that he could probably not pass a background check either, there is really nothing to get worked up about. If he could not pass a background check, then he should not be there. However, he was one person at a show with 280 tables and over 225 dealers that weekend. With such numbers, the odds are you are going to have one goof ball there. Nevertheless, the point is Bloomberg hyped up something which is much ado about nothing.

Criminals by in large do not attend gun shows unless they are fools, and if you go to gun shows you know this. Gun shows are heavily attended by law enforcement officers, whether for security purposes or for their own needs. You see, law enforcement officers of all stripes are frequently gun enthusiasts as well. When you deal with the criminal element day in and day out and the only thing protecting you is your wits and your guns, then you want to be good with both. I know this as fact, as I often attend the shows, and I see many police officers I know whenever I attend a gun show within a sixty-mile radius of my home.

Criminals know the police attend the show and they also know the police are frequently familiar with their faces. Those pesky mug shot books seem to be something the officers are very familiar with. Hence those who have chosen a life of crime don't attend the gun shows, as it is illegal for a felon to even enter a building where a gun show is taking place. Funny how that did not make the cut in any of Bloomberg or the television news media's commentary on this subject, but there again many facts did not.

The press in general parroted the Bloomberg line with out looking into the facts or the law. Bloomberg claims he wants the gun show loophole closed, and in the same breath called what went on in the videos illegal sales. Let's address that. If the sales made at the gun show were illegal then the law covers it, and there is no loophole.

An ATF agent once told me that in a private party sale, if you ask three questions and get the correct answers you have obeyed the law. The first question is, if the purchaser is from the state where the sale is taking place. So the seller in this case would have to be shown proof of residency in Ohio, such as a drivers license as we saw requested on the tapes. Next question is, are you over the age of 18 (for a long gun sale) or 21 (for a handgun). The third question, "Is there any legal reason you can not own a gun?"

In one case in particular, I knew the seller videotaped by Bloomberg's investigators in Sharonville. In that situation, I know there was some chicanery afoot as they told him they were from Tennessee and asked if they could buy a gun. The seller (my friend) said yes. What you don't see on the tape is the full answer. He said "Yes, but I have to transfer the firearm to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder in Ohio who would have to ship it to a FFL holder in Tennessee where you can complete the transaction." With that in mind I can tell you selective editing of these tapes were definitely done. They can't be taken at face value with the selective editing.

Was I bothered by anything I saw on the tapes? Yes, but having talked to my friend I would really like to see the unedited material involved in all the cases shown before I could make a judgment call.

When the investigator on the tape said, "I probably could not pass a background check" that is cause for concern, but it is not a definitive statement. He said "probably," not can't, and since the passage of the Lautenberg amendment many Americans who would assume they would have no trouble buying a gun find out they often are prohibited. Go through a divorce and you might learn your ex-wife/husband put a restraining order on you and suddenly you are disqualified from owning a gun. If you were in the service and in a bar where a fight broke out and the Military Police rounded up everyone, including you, though you were not part of the fight, pity that but you are disqualified. Silly I know, but that is the law.

It truly galls me how a constitutionally-protected right (affirmed by the Heller decision in 2008) is denied for things that are not felonies. It also galls me how the press treats the issue. For example, if a state wants to restrict abortion, which is not in the Constitution but a right created by judicial fiat, the press gets bent out of shape about the possible denial of rights. However make that the Second Amendment, which is enumerated and spelled out in the Constitution, and they favor that any state or city can make their gun laws are restrictive as they like. In fact the bulk of the media will cheerlead that effort.

What Bloomberg is referring to as illegal is not. But to those unaware of the law there is confusion. What you largely saw are the collectors who come to shows, but are not licensed dealers in the business, who buy sell and trade to enhance their private collections. In that whole series of videos, he came up with one old man who they filmed at three shows in Ohio. Again, remember there are over 280 tables and 225 dealers at the smallest show, which was Sharonville, Ohio. One example of a unlicensed dealer at multiple shows... And if he is not selling that many but just buying to enhance his collection, that is perfectly legal. It may surprise Mayor Bloomberg to learn that private sales of firearms between private American citizens is perfectly legal and has been since prior to the American Revolution.

The sad fact is that only with the rise of efforts to control guns, has gun crime risen in this country. Prior to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, only Marxists who wanted to over throw our government and liberal loonies like Senator Thomas Dodd (Father of Senator Chris Dodd) wanted to ban or heavily regulate guns in the United States. Believe me, when you read up on the subject they have been talking gun bans for a long time in this country. There were liberals wringing their hands about all the souvenir handguns being brought back to the U.S. by returning GIs from World War II. For some odd reason liberals have never liked the idea of arms in private hands. I guess they don't trust the citizens.

From the Nation's founding up to 1968, the sale of firearms in this country was largely unregulated. If you run by your library you can likely find a copy of a Sears and Roebuck Catalogue from the early Twentieth century and you will be surprised to see they sold guns mail order. In fact that was the norm up until 1968. The ad you see here would have been in a gun magazine in 1968 right after sales were restricted to dealers, but prior to that anyone could have ordered a gun from the ad.

In those days you would have written down what you wanted, even order the ammo, send in the check and your mailman (as they were called in the pre-politically correct good old days) would have delivered it to the door. Guess what, there were very few crimes committed with such gun sales. You may ask why... Because my friends then, like today, criminals largely use stolen guns. Criminals often are not in the habit of paying for things, why would guns be any different?

What Mayor Bloomberg and the press ignore is the obvious and logical question. If Ohio is such an open arms bazaar where guns are so easily available and he assumes easy access to guns leads to crime, then why is it that gun crime in Ohio is so much less than in the liberal citadels of Washington D.C., Chicago and oh yes, New York City where gun ownership is largely illegal? I would love to hear the mayor answer that question.

Facts are sticky things. Statistics show where gun ownership is heaviest, the crime is lower. Criminals prefer unarmed prey and it has always been that way. So they flock to locations where the state or city has made it difficult or outright illegal to have a gun. The criminal's life is so much easier when he does not have to worry about the victim having a gun. This is why a citizen of Chicago sued the city and the U.S. Supreme Court will be looking at the validity of the Chicago handgun ban in the coming year.

The other question is not for Mayor Bloomberg but is to the Press. When will you pay attention to detail and facts? Take for example your passing on the Bloomberg lie that the BATFE says 30 percent of crime guns come from gun shows. That is total balderdash. In 2007 I wrote an article for Buckeye Firearms Association after Channel 5 in Cincinnati had tried to pull a fast one about guns shows. I addressed the facts, but reporter Eric Flack preferred to use the Brady Center lies and ignore government studies on the issue.

The number 30 percent is something Bloomberg pulled from thin air, just as the Obama administration did when they claimed 90 percent of crime guns in Mexico came from the U.S.A. The stats I used in 2007 are still valid today:

We sat for 30 minutes discussing the issue. He opened the interview by asking what I wanted to get across to the audience. I told him the major point I wanted the audience to understand was this was a non-issue. I said the Bureau of Justice had done two studies showing that gun shows were not how criminals got their firearms. The BJ study of 1991 found 0.6% of criminals got their guns from gun shows. A larger sample in 1997 said 0.7% got their guns at gun shows. 39% got them from a fence, stole the guns themselves or through some other illegal source. 40% got weapons from family or friends. He asked if there were other studies; I told him the National Institute of Justice did a study finding much the same result, coming in under 2%.

Mr. Bloomberg, like Sarah Brady, likes to inflate numbers. She is fond of saying the background check stops 50,000 sales a year. What she does not tell you is that most of those are contested and overturned.

Now my next question is to the Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder. Mr. Holder, when are you going to prosecute Mayor Bloomberg for conspiracy to purchase firearms across state lines and strawman purchases? Both are felonies under Federal law and this is the second time the Mayor has pulled this stunt. He was warned last time, I think prosecution is warranted now.

Tim Inwood is the current Legislative Liaison and Past President of the Clinton County Farmers and Sportsmen Association, an Endowment Member of the NRA and Life Member of the OGCA, Republican Central Committeeman for Chester Township A, in Clinton County, Ohio, and a volunteer for Buckeye Firearms Association.

Sometimes Criminals Walk Among Us: Self-Enforcement is Key at Gun Shows

Columbus Dispatch: Status quo at Westland gun show

New Video from NSSF: 'Lock, Stock and Barrel: Understanding the Firearms Industry'

cbaus — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:05:00 -0500

NEWTOWN, Conn -- "For more than 200 years a unique industry in America has made products that have been part of our country's great tradition of freedom, self-reliance and enjoyment of the outdoors." So begins a new video produced by the National Shooting Sports Foundation called "Lock, Stock and Barrel: Understanding the Firearms Industry" and that is now available as a DVD free of charge or to view online at www.nssf.org.

Designed to educate anyone who wants to know more about the history, operation and regulation of the firearms industry, the video is particularly helpful to those who hold misconceptions about the industry. By illustrating how the manufacture and sale of firearms are regulated by the federal government and how a mandatory FBI background check must be conducted for each retail purchaser of a firearm, "Lock, Stock and Barrel" corrects common misconceptions about the industry.

In addition, the video places the firearms industry in historical context: "Companies large and small across the United States employ hundreds of thousands of workers with a wide variety of skills to make these products. These firms share a common heritage as members of one of America's oldest and most storied industries . . . an industry that played a prominent role in America's westward expansion . . . in pioneering modern manufacturing techniques . . . in equipping our soldiers to achieve victory in wars fought to defend our freedoms . . . in supporting the conservation of America's wildlife and wild places . . . and in cooperatively working with federal agencies to ensure that its products are lawfully sold and safely used."

The video features comments from NSSF President Steve Sanetti. "It's important that an industry that produces a product -- firearms -- that is at times a contentious subject in modern society should be understood and appreciated for the many positive contributions it has made for centuries," said Sanetti. "I believe that people who watch this video, perhaps at the local Rotary Club meeting or library, whether they own firearms or not, will come away with a new-found appreciation of our great industry."

Potential audiences for the video are the general public, elected officials, teachers and students, local service groups and the media. Members of NSSF are encouraged to show the video to their employees and in their communities to promote a better understanding of the firearms industry.

"Lock, Stock and Barrel: Understanding the Firearms Industry" is approximately 15 minutes long. Individual or multiple copies of the DVD are available at www.nssf.org/industryvideo.

Part 1

Part 2

Get the Facts About AR-15-style Rifles, Today's Modern Sporting Rifles: They're NOT 'Assault Rifles'

cbaus — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:10:00 -0500

Whether you're a hunter, target shooter, own a firearm for self protection or don't own a firearm at all, the National Shooting Sports Foundation asks you to be informed about AR-15-style rifles.

These rifles are often mislabeled "assault rifles" or "assault weapons." They are neither.

Nevertheless, many hunters and shooters and the general public confuse AR-15-style rifles, which are civilian sporting rifles, with military rifles because they look similar to each other.

"Groups wanting to ban AR-15-style rifles have for years purposely spread misinformation about these firearms to aid their cause," said Steve Sanetti, president of NSSF. "We must work harder to help protect the right of hunters and sports shooters to own the firearms of their choice, including semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, for lawful purposes. Gun owners everywhere can help correct the misinformed, whether it's a friend, fellow hunter, elected official or the media. NSSF is assisting this nationwide campaign by issuing the Modern Sporting Rifle Fact Card as a resource."

Use the fact card for your own reference, pass it on to individuals or groups, or post the information on blogs and Web and social media sites.

The pocket-size fact card is available to read or download as a pdf at www.nssf.org/msr.

Here are the facts:

—AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.

—The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for Armalite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

—AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

—If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.

—AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.

—Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.

—Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.

—These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.

—Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.

—These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.

—AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

—The AR-15 platform is modular. Owners like being able to affix different "uppers" (the barrel and chamber) to the "lower" (the grip, stock).

—And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!

Ohio Sportsman's Bequest Expands Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Opportunities

cbaus — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:05:00 -0500

(Columbus) In 2007, Wallace "Wally" O'Dowd of Powell left a bequest to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife to acquire land for the purpose of wildlife conservation, propagation, and habitat management. The bequest was the single largest donation in the history of the Division of Wildlife.

In September of 2009, O'Dowd's dream became a reality when the Division closed on property along the Athens-Hocking County line. The newly purchased 3,600-acre parcel, which is contiguous to the existing Trimble Wildlife Area, will be combined to create one 6,694-acre site to be known as the Wallace H. O'Dowd Wildlife Area. The newly formed wildlife area will be the sixth largest in the state.

Mr. O'Dowd's bequest of more than $4.5 million was combined with an additional $560,326 from the ODNR Division of Wildlife to cover a few extra acres and other costs associated with the acquisition. The land was purchased from the Sunday Creek Coal Company.

As stipulated in the O'Dowd will, the newly purchased land will be open to public hunting, fishing and trapping. Wally had requested that the property acquisition be a contiguous block of land in southeastern Ohio.

"I am sure Wally would be pleased that not only were we able to identify and purchase a sizeable portion of land, but that it is adjacent to an existing land holding that will result in more habitat and therefore greater opportunities for enjoyment by the state’s sportsmen and women," said David M. Graham, chief of the Division of Wildlife. "We believe this is a fantastic legacy and an outstanding example of generosity to and for all Ohioans."

Wallace "Wally" O'Dowd was an avid sportsman who traveled the world following his passion for hunting and fishing. A veteran of the Korean War, Wally was also an entrepreneur who had established his own manufacturing business. A dedication ceremony for the new Wallace H. O'Dowd Wildlife Area will be held in the spring of 2010.

Wildlife conservation is an interest and love for many individuals. Persons who might like to consider a bequest for wildlife conservation or make a donation in memory of a loved one can contact the Division of Wildlife at 1-800-WILDLIFE (1-800-945-3543).

Local media outlets offer objective coverage of surge in numbers of people obtaining concealed carry licenses

cbaus — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:10:00 -0500

By Chad D. Baus

Two Ohio area television affiiates have recently aired informative, unbiased stories on carrying concealed weapons for self-defense, and related issues.

On November 5, WCPO, Cincinnati's ABC affiliate, published a report entitled "Some Women Turning To Guns For Peace Of Mind", which documents a former robbery victim's progress from defenseless victim to becoming a trained gun owner and Ohio concealed handgun license-holder.

Meanwhile, across the border in Parkersburg, WV, NBC affiliate, WTAP is running a three-part series on Castle Doctrine laws and related issues. Following is Part 1, which focuses on Castle Doctrine laws in Ohio and West Virginia:

Click here to access Part 2 of the WTAP series, which focuses on concealed carry.

A link for Part 3 will be added here after it is broadcast.