Today on Blogcritics
Home » Common Sense Gun Laws

Common Sense Gun Laws

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

City Council Drives Freedom and NRA Out of Columbus

“Two months ago, I was pleased to announce that the National Rifle Association chose the great city of Columbus to host our 136th Annual Meetings and Exhibits in May of 2007,” said LaPierre. “The NRA is not coming to Columbus in 2007. The convention is canceled because last week your City Council unanimously voted to revoke the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens in Columbus by banning perfectly legal firearms.”

That’s right folks, the NRA has pulled it’s 2007 convention out of Columbus, Ohio. This will cost the Columbus area a projected $50 million dollars in revenue.

Council Passes Weapon Ban

“The definition of an assault weapon for the purposes of this ban is any semi-automatic rifle having a detachable magazine and other certain types of features. “

So here we are again, another example of banning weapons that “look” dangerous. It has nothing to do with the popularity among criminals or any kind of statistical information on the use of the weapon in actual crimes.

“If it looks dangerous, it must be dangerous, we need to ban it… ”

Assault weapons aren’t typically used in crimes. Despite their menancing look, their high capacity of rounds, and other features, they are just too large to be attractive to most criminals.

Criminals don’t want to be seen coming into a bank with an assault rifle, it gives the employees way too much time to set off the silent alarm. Criminals depend on the element of suprise. It’s hard to suprise anyone with an assult weapon in tow.

Assault weapons are also expensive. When you compare the $1,000 you will spend on an AR-15 (legal price) to the $150 to $300 you can spend on a pistol (legal price), the pistol makes more sense. Plus the pistol is a lot easier to hide.

Council Passes Weapon Ban

“There are some exemptions to the law. Police officers, sportsmen and current owners will still be allowed to have the weapons.”

So not only is it a stupid law based on cosmetics, it’s also a half-assed measure. If you own one, you get a pass. You just can’t buy any more. Even if it was based on something logical, it’s like closing the barn door when the horses have already escaped.

Reality Check…

Gee, this is really going to stop the criminals from getting the weapons. I mean, you can’t just go down to your local pawn shop and buy one legally. Oh, wait, if you’re a criminal you can’t get a gun legally to start with.

You mean, someone would get a gun illegally? Oh my! You mean criminals will continue to get guns illegally dispite our utterly useless and idiotic ban on the cosmetic features of a gun?!

So… lemme see if I understand the thinking here…

“Let’s pass a half-assed anti-gun measure that is sure to be in-effective at preventing crime, at the risk of pissing off the NRA and losing $50 million in projected revenue”

New laws are not the answers. Better enforcement of the current laws, and harsher sentences for offenders are the answers.

Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is not the answer either. All that banning guns does is take the right of self-defense away from your average Joe. In effect, it creates more victims.
Ed/Pub: LH

Powered by

About ELF

  • David

    This article is the most acurate common sense, least sensational, stance on the so-called assault weapons ban in a while. You used facts and got to the point. There was no made up stuff about high power, or rapid fire anything. No wonder blogs are dangerous. You have surpassed the major media in less than a week when they have had decades to get the gun issue correct. I would be pissy too. But then again I am a no BS kind of guy.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    A common sense gun law is one which protects the rights of citizens to own guns.

    Dave

  • Chris

    Word.

  • http://www.breakingwindows.com Matt Paprocki

    I’m still trying to figure out why anyone would need an assault weapon to begin with.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    The Second Amendment enumerates our right to keep and bear arms, which is as essential to our liberty as the other 9 of the Bill of Rights.

    It’s not about needing (or even wanting) assault weapons, it’s about our right to have them.

  • http://www.breakingwindows.com Matt Paprocki

    That doesn’t answer my comment. If you buy one, what purpose does it serve? What use would they have to general public?

  • Nancy

    They serve none whatsoever, except insofar as some people want every version of a toy – in this case, firearms – or as some want to stockpile heavy weaponry against some kind of perceived armageddon a la Waco or Ruby Ridge. Basically, the collectors & the nuts.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Right now, the general public has no real need of assault weapons. But that is not a logical justification for banning them.

    Since none of us has any ideas about what the future may hold for us in terms of our liberty, it is better to have one and not need one then it is to need one and not have one.

    This is why we have the Second Amendment.

  • http://elfrederick.blogspot.com E L Frederick

    They are a legal firearm, and they are used in competition shooting. They can also be used for hunting.

    The standard AR-15 is an ineffective deer rifle. The calibur is far too small to do enough damage to bring a deer down. They are banned from deer hunts becuase they don’t do enough damage a deer.

    This is true even if you are using the US Millitary surplus ammmo. 5.53 NATO vs .223 calibur. Which, by the way is almost the same ammo.

    However for varmits, such as skunk, bobcat, wolf, etc, they can be very effective.

    There are high capacity weapons that are not so called assault weapons, but are just as effective and retain most of the same features.

    The term “assault weapon” really has no meaning except it describes any semi-automatic weapon with a pistol grip.

    Which means that if my son’s .22 rimfire rifle had a pistol grip, it would be an “assault” weapon.

    Once again, they aren’t typically used in crimes due to cost, and size.

  • Brian

    Don’t ya love the argument “Who needs them anyway?” Do you NEED a Ferrari that goes 200 MPH? NO! Do you NEED a Hummer that can climb a mountain? NO! But as an American I have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as I so choose! If I want an “assault” rifle to shoot targets why can”t I? If I want to race down the desserted highway why can’t I?
    Besides that’s where the antigun nuts start. Something that everyone can get behind. (Or so they think) Then they get a toe hold and go after something else like ammo.
    I had to wait 4 stinking months to get a permit to purchase a firearm. Do you think that the average bank robber is going to do the same? The other argument is the cops are the only ones that should be allowed to have a gun. So, when your house is being burglarized at 2:00AM just tell your little girl “It’s alright honey the cops will be here in 3 minutes.” Look if you don’t want a gun, that’s fine, but STOP trying to take mine and my right to let it collect dust in the gun cabinet. That’s my $0.02

  • Nancy

    I don’t mind people having guns, but I do think they should have to apply, be investigated, and then have to pass a stringent training program/practical exam before being allowed to actually buy one. So, Brian, you had to wait 4 whole months to get your hands on your gun? What’s the matter, you can only exist on instant gratification? Are you that immature & your attention span that short? If so, you definitely shouldn’t have a gun. If it takes a few months for an application to be processed, and it ensures that mental patients, people w/criminal records, people under restraining orders, the retarded, or other unfit persons don’t have access, well & good. As pointed out by others, the biggest problem is that laws restricting sales to felons & other unsuitables are not enforced, nor are the gun dealers who violate them ever punished. Start slamming the gun dealers – especially those few bad apples that do this kind of thing – and I can guarantee felons & others will not be getting their hands on guns.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    A country in which only law enforcement has guns cannot be a free country.

    The people who would like to repeal our Second Amendment get traction with the public with emotional arguments that appeal to fear. There are no logical arguments to support the restriction of any civil right.

    I like the one about how our Founders could not have predicted the many advances made in firearms technology in the last 2 centuries when they wrote the Second Amendment.

    But the same people who make that assertion will become filled with righteous outrage — as will I, too — at the notion that our Founders could not have predicted that there would someday be such a thing as Internet pornography so the First Amendment does not apply to it.

  • Nancy

    The Founders didn’t know about a lot of things we have today, but that doesn’t mean we haven’t found a way to apply the law to them. Consider airplanes, trains, cars, non-sailing ships, 99% of medical & dental procedures & other modern technology including electricity, telephones, television, utilities, even ol’ Ben Franklin’s printing press – all would be unrecognizable to The Founders. Probably the only familiar items they’d see today would be the skanky politicians. Some things do never change, but most have.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Nancy wrote: “Start slamming the gun dealers”

    Now, there’s some common sense! The Second Amendment enumerates our right to keep and bear arms, but there is no right to sell them to the public, which should be a privilege requiring a revocable license.

    It is one thing to require a criminal background check before the purchase of a firearm can be completed, but it is quite another to require American citizens to apply for and obtain a license or permit before they are allowed to make that purchase.

    The first scenario ensures that convicted felons whose post-incarceration obligations have not been completed, people with outstanding arrest warrants or others whose right to keep and bear arms has been duly denied by a court of law cannot legally obtain firearms.

    However, the latter case makes an essential civil right into a privilege that can be arbitrarily curtailed or revoked without due process.

    It is not a matter of patience. If Brian had been able to apply for and obtain a permit to purchase a firearm in only 4 minutes, his Second Amendment rights would still have gone unrecognized.

  • Nancy

    I say the gun dealers, because it would seem from what I’ve read recently in the w. post & other publications that most dealers are honest; but there are a few out there that are responsible for something like 90% of the illegal gun sales out there. Make it not worth the cost, one way or another, & sources of illegal or ‘bad’ gun sales would dry up pretty fast, I’ll bet.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>I’m still trying to figure out why anyone would need an assault weapon to begin with.<<

    Then you don’t know what an assault weapon is, and as intended by the anti-gun folks, the term has successfully been used to scare you into fearing something relatively harmless.

    Many, many guns are legal which are far more dangerous and effective as combat weapons than most of the so-called ‘assault weapons’. I’d be far more afraid of someone with a good automatic hunting rifle than an assault weapon, because he would have an accurate weapon with a high rate of fire and a powerful cartridge which could kill me. All most ‘assault weapons’ have is a high rate of fire.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    .22s aren’t very big handguns, but they make an awful mess inside yer carcass.

  • http://www.breakingwindows.com Matt Paprocki

    I never said anything about banning them, I simply asked what purpose they served. I have my answer, which seems to be what I believed all along.

  • http://www.cnn.com MSG John

    As a military guy, I know the difference between an assault rifle (my duty weapon, an M-16 which is a full-auto firearm AKA a machinegun) and a so-called “assault weapon” (a redundant term which is really not well defined–a rock is an assault weapon) like a semi-auto only AR-15. (The Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 had nothing to do with machineguns)

    I own an AR-15. I shoot recreationally with my AR-15. I shoot competitions with my AR-15. I have hunted with my AR-15 (I have to use a special magazine limited to 5 rounds for hunting most things). My AR-15 makes a great ranch rifle.

    Here is a shocker for many people–my deer hunting rifle is 7 times as powerful as my AR-15. It shoots bigger, heavier bullets at the same velocity and can project the same power at 700 yards as the AR can at 100 yards.

    Licensing, registration, and training requirements solve very little and must be considered in the same light as requiring all those things to exercise your freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. Putting a precondition on a right is frowned upon by the courts and makes it a privilege, not a right.

    Gun dealers sell firearms in accordance with federal and state laws. If they violate those laws, they can be put in jail and have their licenses revoked and inventory siezed. No one is asking to change that. What is happening though is that dealers are being sued for making a legal sale with the express intent of putting the dealer out of business, just because the person who bought the firearm (or who bought it from that person) misused the firearm. Manufacturers, who rarely sell directly to dealers and even more rarely directly to individuals (requires different processes), are being sued because a dealer, who got a one of their firearms through a third party distributer, made a legal sale and the firearm was misused by someone. Again, the primary purpose of such a lawsuit is to put the manufacturer out of business.

    Here is a novel idea–let’s hold those who misuse the firearm responsible for misusing it.

    Further, the idea of protecting against frivolous lawsuits protects more than just the firearm industry and the firearm industry would still be able to be sued for truly defective products.

  • http://www.cnn.com MSG John

    Nancy,

    The ATF and FBI do slam dealers who violate the law. The ATF has a reputation for being more than a bit overzealous in doing so, resulting in at least two Congressional investigations into it over stepping its bounds (part of the Treasury Dept, the ATF is primarily responsible for making sure the books are correct, but it thought ofitself as a police organization and that is where a lot of problem started–now the law enforcement responsibilities have been firmly and clearly transferred to the FBI where they more correctly belong)

  • http://www.cnn.com MSG John

    NOTE: The first semi-auto hunting rifle first appeared in the US about 102 years ago. Semi-auto handguns–112 years ago. In 1907 you could get a high capacity magazine for your 9mm–32 rounds.

    As for the founding fathers not being able to forsee firearm developments, they had already seen a couple. The rifle was replacing smoothbores and used with great effectiveness against the British (who had smoothbores). Machinegun designs date back to Leonardo de Vinci. Several of our founding fathers had a knack for inventing and improving things. The obvious ways to improve a firearm are: better range, better accuracy, better loading rate, easier to transport, more effective ammo, etc. While they may not have forseen an M-16 per se, they could forsee the advances which have occured.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Here is a shocker for many people–my deer hunting rifle is 7 times as powerful as my AR-15. It shoots bigger, heavier bullets at the same velocity and can project the same power at 700 yards as the AR can at 100 yards.<<

    That’s the point I was making. I’d much rather have someone shooting at me with an AR-15 than with a 30-06 with a good hunting scope on it, assuming I was some distance away. And if I was close up I’d be more scared of a shotgun.

    Dave

  • http://www.cnn.com MSG John

    Felons and others get most of their firearms from sources other than dealers.

    A person should not have to wait 4 months to be able to purchase a firearm. They should be able to walk in and walk out. Any checks should not take 4 months to complete.

  • Kristen

    MSG John, I agree. There is no reason why background checks should take 4 months. Here in Oregon, the longest I have had to wait to purchase a firearm is 30 minutes. This included a full fingerprinting and background check.

    Imagine a situation where a woman is purchasing a gun in case she may need to defend herself and her home against an abusive ex-husband or boyfriend. How on earth is waiting 4 months to be able to purchase a firearm going to help her?

    I’m a moderate Democrat…but one issue where I have real trouble with the traditional party line is on gun control. Seems to me that the party supports a woman’s right to abortion, a woman’s right to equal pay, a woman’s right not to be sexually harassed in the workplace…but not a woman’s right to defend herself. A little bit hypocritical, perhaps?

  • http://www.breakingwindows.com Matt Paprocki

    And there’s no other way for a woman to defend herself?

  • http://www.cnn.com MSG John

    “And there’s no other way for a woman to defend herself?”

    It is the most effective way to defend. Far less likely for the victim to get hurt or to have a violent crime completed. Beats the heck out of pepper sprays, stun guns, impact weapons, bladed weapons etc.

  • Brian

    MEGA-Dittos MSG & Kristen! I guess you know which side of the aisle I’m on. A couple things I need to clarify. I reside in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey. As such, you can’t talk on the cell phone and drive. You soon won’t be able to smoke and drive. And lastly they don’t want anyone to have a gun. It took four months for a firearms ID card. With that, I can now go to a gun dealer in the state and buy a ‘long’ gun (shotgun; rifle) in about 40 minutes. I cannot buy ANYTHING out of state. It took me 3 months for my pistol permit. For that I had to submit my fingerprints to the FBI and the state. The FBI looks at my background and the state looks into the mental hospitals. Once that’s been returned if all goes well, it waits on the Chief of Police desk for him to sign it. If he is a believer in the second ammendment it is signed for my pick up ASAP. If he is not, it could languish on his desk for a LONG time. (Your kind of Chief huh Nancy?)
    That now gives you the right to purchase a pistol and take it to the range and back. Ironically, in the next state, Pennsylvania, once you pass all the above criteria you may then legally carry that same pistol on your person at all times. Also, I am hardly into instant gratification. I waited very patiently for the ‘proper paperwork’ to arrive for my rights.
    Kristen I couldn’t agree with you more about a woman’s right to carry. Can you imagine how violent crime against women would drop if just 30% were allowed to carry and not tell anyone? It would give potential rapist ALOT to think about!

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    >>MEGA-Dittos

    oh crap I was hoping that was parody.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Brian, how can they get away with all that. It massively exceeds the federal mandate and is in clear violation of the second amendment. The idea that you should have to ge the approval of local police to own a gun in America is outrageous.

    Dave

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    ok..full disclosure..my paternal grandfather was a gunsmith from Holland who came to the US in the mid ’30s because he knew what Germany was up to…i learned to shoot a firearm at age 8

    all that being said…let us have a look at the Second Amendment…

    *A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.*

    note the “well regulated militia” part…the NRA folks always seem to miss that when they quote the Amendment…

    personally, I go with Heinlein’s theory that “an armed Society is a polite Society”…we can see that today..check any urban gangbanger neighborhood where everyone has a firearm…

    but i digress…

    we will go with the Idea that everyone should be able to buy whatever firearm they like…there is NO reason why it shoudl not be mandatory for anyoen with a firearms liscense to NOT have a computer that can log into a federal database and screen out felons in seconds…

    advocates don’t want liscences for firearms…ok…even though i have to liscense my car so i can drive legally…there are good arguments to be made, due to the second Amendment, that we shoudl not need such docuentation to purchase or own a firearm

    fine

    simple answer really…to achieve the “well regulated” part , yet not require documentation of firearms there is an easy and efficient solution

    require a liscense and full documentation for purchasing ALL bullets, shell casings and gunpowder as well as reloading equipment

    now you can go out and purchase your .50 calibre machine gun for home defense…but you would need a liscense and be able to account for each and every bullet

    ta daaaaAAAAaaaaa

    damn, i’m good

    as for the AR-15 and it’s ilk…my suggestion is the .454 magnum Marlin carbine…level action , 7 shot, and with a good scope, i can hit the head of a silhouette twice before the target can hear the first shot

    and besides…it shoots through schools

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.cnn.com MSG John

    “note the “well regulated militia” part…the NRA folks always seem to miss that when they quote the Amendment…”

    Not at all. The “well regulated militia” is not the entity with the right to arms, “the people” are. Arms give “the people” the ability to form a “well regulated militia”. Without arms, they might as well be holding a knitting bee. The first thirteen words are a construct called an “absolute phrase”–an often misunderstood construction which many English teachers would mistakenly mark as bad grammar.

    “there is NO reason why it shoudl not be mandatory for anyoen with a firearms liscense to NOT have a computer that can log into a federal database and screen out felons in seconds…”

    I take it you actually mean an FFL, AKA a dealer license. Aside from the double negative (not mandatory to not have a computer), this is essentially what NICS and Insta Check does for us.

    “…even though i have to liscense my car so i can drive legally.”

    On public roads in a move to raise revenues to maintain the public roads. Think of it as a toll road. You can do what ever you want on private property.

    “to achieve the “well regulated” part , yet not require documentation of firearms there is an easy and efficient solution”

    Well regulated only refers to the proper functioning of state militias, not to firearm owners.

    “require a liscense and full documentation for purchasing ALL bullets, shell casings and gunpowder as well as reloading equipment”

    Which is simply a backdoor measure to do the same thing. Sorry, that won’t fly either.

    “now you can go out and purchase your .50 calibre machine gun for home defense”

    A .50 cal machinegun is strictly controlled by federal laws passed in 1934, 1968, and 1986. To own one you must be fingerprinted, photographed, get an affidavit from the authorities saying it is OK for you to have one, have a thorough background check similar to that required for a security clearence (not an instant check), send the whole thing off to the ATF along with $200 for a tax stamp, and if approved, the firearm must be registered to you–providing the firearm was already in the system prior to 1986 and that your state allows NFA Class III firearms (AKA machineguns).

    “my suggestion is the .454 magnum Marlin carbine…level action , 7 shot, and with a good scope, i can hit the head of a silhouette twice before the target can hear the first shot”

    Highly unlikely.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    first…i’ve got a word for MSG…

    satire

    if the absolute silliness of my mad peckings didn’t hit you the first time..try it again…it may come to you

    i am flattered that you spent the effort in an attempt to dissect schizoid rantings

    now..forming the bread of my little word sandwhich is a disclaimer…and my end …both are highly unlikely, perhaps…

    neither are satire

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.cnn.com MSG John

    The “absolute silliness of my mad peckings” are actually fairly common arguments put forth by gun controllers; therefore, any “satire” in your post is not as obvious as you imply.

    Or you might just be going for a “save”.

    Either way, no skin off my nose.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    /rolls eyes

    me?..going for a save…ok, can i get some of what ya are smoking?

    read…the..disclosure…again

    second clue..i live in Maine, a place where gun control is using two hands

    now, repeat after me..Professor Plum, in the Conservatory with the Candlestick

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.cnn.com MSG John

    “i live in Maine”

    I would guess you live someplace where communicating in a clear and concise manner is not taught. You express yourself poorly.

    “read…the..disclosure…again”

    The “disclosure” doesn’t make your post satire, nor does it add any veracity to any of your statements thus far.

    Belaboring this with you is not my intent and obviously is going to be like me trying to teach a pig to sing.

    That being said, have a nice night.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>as for the AR-15 and it’s ilk…my suggestion is the .454 magnum Marlin carbine…level action , 7 shot, and with a good scope, i can hit the head of a silhouette twice before the target can hear the first shot<<

    Well, my Springfield 45-70 carbine can shoot through the engine block of a truck, so there.

    As for the ‘unregulated militia’, if you read the writings of the authors of the Constitution you’ll find that this terminology was intended to represent the entire population who could be drafted into a militia at need.

    Dave

  • http://www.cnn.com MSG John

    “I’d much rather have someone shooting at me with an AR-15 than with a 30-06 with a good hunting scope on it, assuming I was some distance away. ”

    Which is why in 1969 the gun controllers tried to ban scopes. They ostensibly made a hunting rifle into a “sniper rifle”. Now days it is hard to imagine many hunting rifles with out scopes.

  • http://www.aljazeera.com Abu al-Salim

    The assault weapon bans do not make sense to me. I have never been able to figure out why people would see a rifle with a bayonet lug as being more dangerous than a rifle without one. How does a flash suppressor make a rifle more dangerous? Why ban grenade launching features if grenades are already illegal?

  • http://www.whitehouse.gov MSG John

    Abu,

    The assault weapon bans go after those features because they are easy and scare people, not because they make a firearm any more dangerous. The gun controllers are trying to get a wedge in the door so they can pry it open. The law doesn’t make sense, but the tactics behind the law do.

  • http://www.aljazeera.com Abu al-Salim

    You make sense John. Twenty five years ago I would have called you paranoid. Today that paranoia has been shown to be wisdom.

  • Greg

    The 2nd amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ” Seems to me I have the clear RIGHT to own an “arm” – in this case, a RIFLE, bought LEGALLY through a firearms dealer. Whats that? Some reference to a Militia? Oh yeah…you forgot…we ARE the Militia in the US and in Ohio..US CODE (Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Sec 311)

    Sec. 311. – Militia: composition and classes
    (a)
    The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b)
    The classes of the militia are –
    (1)
    the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2)
    the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
    (I and likely You too, fall in that last paragraph..)
    The Ohio Constitution
    [The 1851 Constitution with Amendments through 12/98]§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)
    The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
    Ohio Revised Code § 5923.01 Composition and organization of state militia; definitions; troop limitation.
    Text of Statute
    (A) The Ohio organized militia consist of all citizens of the state who are not permanently handicapped, as handicapped is defined in section 4112.01 of the Revised Code, who are more than seventeen years, and not more than sixty-seven years, of age unless exempted as provided in section 5923.02 of the Revised Code, and who are members of one of the following:

    (1) The Ohio national guard;
    (2) The Ohio naval militia;
    (3) The Ohio military reserve.

    (B) The Ohio national guard, including both the Ohio air national guard and the Ohio army national guard, the Ohio naval militia, and the Ohio military reserve are known collectively as the Ohio organized militia.
    (C) The Ohio naval militia and the Ohio military reserve are known collectively as the state defense forces.
    (D) The unorganized militia consists of those citizens of the state as described in division (A) of this section who are not members of the Ohio organized militia.
    (E) No troops shall be maintained in time of peace other than as authorized and prescribed under the “Act of August 10, 1956,” 70A Stat. 596, 32 U.S.C.A. 101 to 716. This limitation does not affect the right of the state to the use of its organized militia within its borders in time of peace as prescribed by the laws of this state. This section does not prevent the organization and maintenance of police.

    So – I am keeping my lawfully owned arms. Period. End of discussion.

  • GAN

    I think there should be licenses issued and background checks and extensive training and waiting periods for anyone wanting to excercise their 1st amendment rights of free speech; the exercise of religion; and all other rights listed under the Bill of Rights. You must admit fanatical religion and fanatical speech is responsible for far more deaths than from honest citizens owning firearms.

  • BrianC

    Gun Control means hitting the target you are aiming at. Nobody will take my guns. And I feel sorry for anybody that has the job to knock on my door to get them!