2008 Woodie Awards
Vote Absentee
Right to bear arms, or right to forbid them
By: Shelby Schroeder
Issue date: 11/28/07 Section: State
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Amid new legislation and a Supreme Court challenge, it seems Ohioans have more to say about their Second Amendment rights than in recent years.
The right to bear arms is again in question, after the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear a case where state and city carrying laws are in conflict.
The laws in Clyde, a city in the neighboring county of Sandusky, prohibit concealed guns in city parks. In 2004, with the passage of House Bill 12, the list of prohibited areas included schools, government property and venues serving alcohol, but not parks. The confusion arose when Bill 347, which was vetoed by former Gov. Bob Taft and later overridden by legislatures last year, held that local laws be no more restrictive than state laws.
After originally filing suit against the city of Clyde, the Ohioans for Concealed Carry, a gun rights lobbyist organization, lost their case. They appealed and won, leading Clyde to further appeal the case to the highest state court. OCC President Jeff Garvas said he supports the city's appeal.
"Our motivation for being on board is that if we win, the precedent is state wide," said Garvas, who hopes the case will resolve the problems other cities have with the law.
Speaking from his cellular phone at work, Garvas comes across as an upbeat and law- savvy man. He switches from legalese to the specific controversy at hand: guns in parks. Garvas said just mentioning a park brings to mind the thought of kids on swing sets, but he quickly noted that the parks can still be ideal grounds to commit crimes.
"Vast, wooded areas, where you're isolated from society are some of the most dangerous places you can be," he said. "The chances of being in a violent crime in a park are significantly high."
Toby Hoover's opinion of parks is a bit different. Hoover is the executive director of Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and she said whether a person is walking in a park alone or after dark makes a difference in the occurrence of violent crimes.
The right to bear arms is again in question, after the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear a case where state and city carrying laws are in conflict.
The laws in Clyde, a city in the neighboring county of Sandusky, prohibit concealed guns in city parks. In 2004, with the passage of House Bill 12, the list of prohibited areas included schools, government property and venues serving alcohol, but not parks. The confusion arose when Bill 347, which was vetoed by former Gov. Bob Taft and later overridden by legislatures last year, held that local laws be no more restrictive than state laws.
After originally filing suit against the city of Clyde, the Ohioans for Concealed Carry, a gun rights lobbyist organization, lost their case. They appealed and won, leading Clyde to further appeal the case to the highest state court. OCC President Jeff Garvas said he supports the city's appeal.
"Our motivation for being on board is that if we win, the precedent is state wide," said Garvas, who hopes the case will resolve the problems other cities have with the law.
Speaking from his cellular phone at work, Garvas comes across as an upbeat and law- savvy man. He switches from legalese to the specific controversy at hand: guns in parks. Garvas said just mentioning a park brings to mind the thought of kids on swing sets, but he quickly noted that the parks can still be ideal grounds to commit crimes.
"Vast, wooded areas, where you're isolated from society are some of the most dangerous places you can be," he said. "The chances of being in a violent crime in a park are significantly high."
Toby Hoover's opinion of parks is a bit different. Hoover is the executive director of Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and she said whether a person is walking in a park alone or after dark makes a difference in the occurrence of violent crimes.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 6
Mitchell Kirby
posted 11/28/07 @ 8:12 AM EST
This lady just doesn't get it. All this talk about everybody is born a good guy and she turns around and says she wouldn't walk through the park late at night. (Continued…)
Charley Gairing
posted 11/28/07 @ 8:45 AM EST
Local laws should not take precedence over state laws.
North Carolina has a reciprocity with Ohio and if I visit Ohio, I would have to check the laws of each city that I travel in and through. (Continued…)
james johns
posted 11/28/07 @ 10:40 AM EST
the second admendment rights is the only granty of the constution. it there because we can`t expect the army to stand up if the goverment is the one going agenst the constution. (Continued…)
AMH
posted 11/28/07 @ 5:35 PM EST
The second ammendment is there because the founding fathers believed that if you had to rely on someone else for your protection, you would never truly be free. (Continued…)
Jeff Imel
posted 11/28/07 @ 11:55 PM EST
The second Amendment says it all and "We The People" otherwise known as The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and any law or regulation that purports to take away these rights garrenteed by The Constitution are as if they were never enacted or passed ( and several cases in the archives of the Supreme Court say so )Research this fact and learn your rights. (Continued…)
Post a Comment