Public, Private, Whatever

Ohio court strikes down ban on guns in parks

The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a city law that banned people from carrying concealed guns in public parks, saying it conflicts with a state law that established a uniform policy on firearms.

In a 4-3 decision, the court said the city of Clyde’s home-rule powers don’t allow it to override the 2004 state law that allowed people to get a permit to carry concealed weapons in public, except in public buildings such as schools, courthouses and stadiums. No exceptions were made for parks.

Seems pretty cut-and-dried to Murdoc. Though I don’t know many details, I’m not sure how this ended up 4-3.


In a dissenting opinion, Justice Paul Pfeifer said there is no rational basis to distinguish between the legal rights of private and public property on this issue.

“Clyde owns its municipal park. Is there any reason why the owner of this property, where families gather and children play, should be forced to allow people with guns to enter, while the private owner of a public space such as a shopping mall can bar from entry any gun-carrying citizens?” Pfeifer wrote.

Ah, public vs. private ownership doesn’t matter if you don’t like the distinction. Got it.

Besides, he points out that he’s ignoring the difference for “families” and “children.” What a nice guy.

‘Fair to shoot first and ask questions later’

Ohio elitists react to Castle Doctrine: “Innocent until proven guilty”, OH MY!

When is “innocent until proven guilty” a controversial concept? When is an Ohio law designed to protect a homeowner protecting themselves from an intruder interpreted a license for drug dealers to murder one another? And when are self-defense advocates and rank-and-file cops described as saying it’s ok to shoot first and ask questions later?

When you are a reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer or a bureaucrat with the Ohio Prosecutors’ Association or Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association.

Much more on this new concept and links to even more at the Buckeye Firearms Association

Called his Bluff

Franklinton, Ohio:

An 18-year-old man armed with a BB gun was fatally shot while trying to rob the residents of a Franklinton home yesterday afternoon, police said.

Police arrested his two alleged accomplices, one of whom was his brother, and charged them with murder for taking part in a crime that resulted in his death.

The new Ohio castle doctrine law doesn’t take effect until September. The dead intruder apparently held the BB gun to the head of the homeowner’s girlfriend.

Don’t commit crimes. If you do, don’t do it with BB guns.

Castles in Ohio

Castle Doctrine

Amended SB184 (Castle Doctrine) Passes Ohio House with a 73-23 vote

Buckeye Firearms Association applauds the Ohio House of Representatives’ 73-23 vote to pass the amended SB184.

SB184 passed the Ohio Senate in April with a 31-0 vote and has now passed the Ohio House in an amended form to include technical corrections and improve laws for law-abiding gun owners in Ohio.

The bill is headed back to the Ohio Senate to work out final details due to the amendments made during it’s time in the House.

See the Buckeye Firearms Association page for all the details.

Gun cabinets are the most dangerous places in the world?

Sebatian: I haven’t seen Pant Shitting Hysterics like this from the media for at least several days:

Yes, bad guys can carry guns into parks, but that doesn’t mean we’ll all be safer if everyone carries a gun in a park. The more guns per square foot anywhere, the chances are someone innocent will be hurt or killed.

Never mind the grammar. I think they meant “greater the chances that someone innocent will be hurt or killed.”

The editors of the Cleveland Morning Journal then claim:

  1. It’s hard to imagine anyone needing a “90-shot machine gun for self-protection”
  2. Machine guns’ semi-automatic cousins are nearly as deadly
  3. Semi-auto rifles are “weapons of mass destruction”

A lot of commenters point out some of the ignorant statements in the editorial as proof that the editor’s don’t know much about guns. The grammar makes me wonder how much they know about writing.

Castles in Ohio

Castle Doctrine

Attorneys Say ‘Castle Bill’ Would Create Loophole For Trespassers

On Ohio’s Senate Bill 184:

“There is no necessity for the person to show that the trespasser was a real threat to them,” said John Murphy, with the Ohio Prosecuting Attorney Association. “It doesn’t matter whether it was a burglar or a child.”

Well, it doesn’t allow homeowners to just shoot up the place. It simply shifts the burden of proof to the state.

Even after watching the video at the link, I don’t quite understand what the “loophole” is. Here is what the article says:

Murphy said the bill could also provide criminals with a loophole.

“What this bill really does is protect criminals who might be able to raise this kind of defense and get away with murder,” Murphy said.

Is the fear that someone would invite someone into their home and then, after shooting them, claim the entry was uninvited?

Also at stake is the fact that this legislation would made someone’s home away from home their “castle” as well. The situation pointed out is a college dorm room. Of course, they interview two students who don’t think it’s needed and that “having a gun there would probably kill people.”

Here’s a crazy idea: Why not look at states with similar caslte doctrine laws and see just how deep that blood running in the street is?

Teacher shot at Ohio elementary school

Suspect in the school shooting was the husband of the teacher, police say

A teacher’s husband came to her Ohio elementary school Thursday and shot her, but no children were injured, police said.

The condition of the woman was not immediately known, and the shooter escaped. Authorities said they were in the process of trying to apprehend the man, but did not elaborate.

The shooting happened at Notre Dame Elementary in Portsmouth, a community in southern Ohio near the Kentucky border.

Obviously, someone shooting their wife is a messed up and crazy situation to begin with. But I have to wonder about a couple of things. This is based on the very limited info currently available, of course.

First, the decision by the shooter to go to school and shoot her is a bizarre one, considering that they are married. From his perspective, wouldn’t there be better places to do this? Like, just about anywhere?

Second, it seems that it must have been a cool decision on the part of the shooter. Not a “heat of the moment” act. He apparently thought this out and decided that going into school with a gun and shooting her made the most sense.

Finally, could points one and two have anything to do with the fact that that the shooter could be 100% certain that neither his target nor anyone else around her would be armed? It’s certainly possible, maybe even likely.

Rather, we’re probably going to be hearing about how he “just snapped all of a sudden” instead of how he picked a gun-free location to do this where he could be virtually certain of succeeding.

As more info becomes available, we’ll probably learn more about the situation. Perhaps they were separated and the school was the only place he could be sure of finding her. Perhaps there was a long history of trouble and restraining orders. Perhaps he went there, illegally carrying a gun onto school grounds, with no intention of shooting her but an argument broke out and he did, in fact, “just snap.”

Then again, perhaps the teacher feared for her life and carried a concealed weapon everywhere she legally could.

We’ll see.