GUNS&AMMO on Ohio Carry Case

——————————————————————————–
GUNS&AMMO August2002

Page 40

Arguing In Ohio

Chuck Klein

Another case of how the government is twisting the true

meaning of pre-determined constitutional rights.

We all know why many decent law-abiding citizens want or

need to carry a concealed firearm. However, because this

article is not about the reason why, suffice it to say, we

want/need to be able to carry a concealed firearm because:

All the rules, statutes, restraining orders, 911 calls,

hand-to-hand combat techniques, aerosol spray Mace or other

pseudo-protective measures will never equal the

effectiveness of a firearm under unwarranted and deadly

criminal attack

The evidence, or rather the lack thereof, why some of our

fellow citizens are so strongly against inalienable,

God-given, constitutionally recognized rights is startling.

Recently, the successful challenge to the constitutionality

of Ohio’s 80-year-old concealed firearms (CCF) statutes was

tried in Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio. During the

trial the plaintiffs testified of their reasons, needs and

rights to CCF. The defendants (all the police agencies in

the county) failed to offer any evidence to show that the

carrying of concealed firearms by law-abiding citizens

presented any risk to them or to society in general.

One would think, in such an important and high-profile

case, anti-gun groups and individuals would have been lining

up to testify. Sara Brady, Barbara Boxer, Handgun Control

Inc., Violence Policy Center, Ted Kennedy and the like, were

all no-shows–obviously, because they have no proof!

The power of the press to distort truth with misleading

headlines to resent their smoke and mirrors was evident in a

January 18, 2002, column by Cincinnati Enquirer associate

editor David Wells. (“Armed and dangerous, The right to be

irresponsible”)

Though Wells admitted that the law “…violates the

presumption of innocence,” nowhere in his column did he show

how armed, law-abiding citizens are dangerous, or that when

law-abiding citizens carry concealed that it is somehow

related to being irresponsible. His bottom line: “[he

hopes he doesn't] inadvertently bump into somebody packing a

little personal security.” So, who, Mr. Wells, would you

rather back into, a law-abiding citizen with a gun or some

thug with knife?

In hopes that an elected official could shed a little light

on why CCF is so objectionable, I wrote to Governor Bob

Taft. His response, from his legal counsel, Deputy Chief,

Carrie Glaeden, stated in no uncertain terms “the Governor

is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He believes

that lawabiding citizens should…have the opportunity to

hunt, target shoot…”

Nowhere in this letter was any reference to Ohio’s

Constitution–something the Governor is sworn to uphold. The

Ohio Constitution, as decided by the above mentioned

Hamilton County case, is clear that Ohio citizens have the

inalienable but very restricted right “…to bear arms for

their defense and security.” There is no right to hunt or

target shoot–only to bear arms for self protection. Glaeden

also said Governor Taft “will allow a permissive concealed

carry bill…[if it] is acceptable to Ohio’s law enforcement

groups.”

Excuse me? He is delegating citizens’ constitutional rights

for their own safety to the subjective power of some unnamed

and autonomous “police groups”?

Just in case I missed something in the Governor’s letter

from his legal counsel, I called Senator Mark Mallory for an

interview. The Senator said, “…it’s an issue of

safety–more guns on the street are a danger to society.”

However, he was unable to substantiate this contention,

other than to say everything was a “matter of perspective.”

He said Ohioans have the right to have the perspective that

it’s dangerous for citizens to have concealed guns. When

asked, “What about my perspective of the need to carry a gun

for my safety and security, which is backed up by the

Constitution,” Senator Mallory replied: “everyone has the

right to go to court to prove his affirmative defens.”

The expense, risk and trauma of being arrested to face

felony charges for exercising a constitutional right was

lost on him. Well, Senator, you might feel safe without a

gun and no one is demanding that you should carry one, but

from my perspective, I feel I need one, and you, just like

the Governor, are sworn to put your perspectives aside and

support my constitutional rights.

And that is the crux of America’s woes today–government

agents and employees twisting, ignoring, seeking loopholes

and ways to usurp individual citizen’s rights instead of

working to support them.

Finally, there comes a Columbus, Ohio, attorney, Jack

Mahota, who garners the George Orwell Doublespeak award for

his views on the subject (Columbus Dispatch,

“Opinions/lefters, ‘February 2002). This supposedly learned

attorney states: “I believe that people have the right to

own and bear arms. There is simply no God-given or

constitutional right to own or bear arms.”

If he acknowledges the right to bear arms but denies that

this right comes from neither God nor a constitution, where

then does the right come from?

All that smoke and mirrors, doubletalk and touchy-feely

perspective stuff might be okay in a perfect world. But, in

the real world, if you are ever in a situation where another

person is about to murder you, at that moment you’d trade

all your worldly possessions for a firearm. And if that

threat was to kill your children, you’d sell your soul for a

gun.

I defy anyone, including governors or senators, to refute

this truth.

We live as a republic–not as a democracy. In a democracy

the majority votes directly to make and define the laws and

then elects officials to carry out the wishes of the voters.

In other words, if the majority of the people in a democracy

wanted to vote to ban guns (or free-speech, jury trials,

Catholics, etc.) they could. And their elected officials

would have to carry out their wishes.

In a republic the voters can only vote for representatives,

who must then operate the country strictly according to the

rule of law–a pre-established constitution.

EDITOR’S NOTE: in an upcoming issue, Chuck Klein intends to

“load the other barrel” and report on this subject from the

opposite view.