LTEs: State lawmakers are doing right by all Ohioans

December 16, 2006
Cleveland Plain Dealer

I disagree with The Plain Dealer editorial board's view that local governments should be able to impose gun-control ordinances.

Section 1.04 of the Ohio Constitution guarantees Ohioans' right to bear arms. Why should the residents of big cities like Cleveland and Columbus enjoy this right any less than other Ohioans? Do we expect them to be less law abiding? If so, that's clearly prejudiced and another example of the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

I realize that many of these ordinances are well-intentioned. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Cities don't have rights, per se; citizens have rights. The purpose of a written constitution is to guarantee these rights. Ohio's legislators are merely doing their duty: seeing to it that all law-abiding Ohioans can freely exercise the rights guaranteed by Ohio's Constitution. For that, they should be commended.

Raymond J. Mangini
Strongsville

Click on 'Read More' for nother pro-HB347 letters to editors.

December 17, 2006
Cincinnati Enquirer

GUN BAN DIDN'T REDUCE CRIME

The Cincinnati mayor expressed his concern that the Ohio Legislature's override of the governor's veto on concealed-carry is not good news for Cincinnati, as they try to get a handle on violence in the city.

I would ask: What have the bans in Cincinnati done to reduce crime? Common sense tells me that the only people who will abide by the bans are law-abiding citizens, who are no threat to the city in the first place.

It's already illegal to commit acts of violent crime with a firearm, without any bans in place.

Why don't you try imposing maximum sentences for laws already in place, with no chance for early parole? Stop infringing on the rights of the law-abiding who are no threat to society for the criminal acts of others. As far as personal protection, with no bans in place, criminals will have to guess which victims may be armed. Think about it.

Nicholas Burleson
Morrow

December 16, 2006
Columbus Dispatch

Regarding the recent passage of the new statewide concealed-carry law and general firearms regulations, Cleveland Law Director Robert Triozzi said, "This legislature, from predatory lending, to residency, to red-light cameras and now concealed weapons, is continuing an assault on the rights of our people."

State Sen. Eric Fingerhut, a Shaker Heights Democrat, said, "The epitaph of the Ohio 126 th General Assembly has to be the death of home rule," as if individual freedoms have been eroded.

The statements by these gentlemen are oxymoronic. What gall these two have claiming their interpretation of home rule has something to do with individual rights, when the general laws they are complaining about, passed by the General Assembly, give individuals more freedom. These two despots lose power, not rights, when our government fulfills its role as a republic.

Ohioans do not want the Statehouse to have a majority of these two kinds of politicians, who want to usurp our republic by establishing a City-State system and they vote accordingly. Ohioans want to retain their rights. They do not want to be spied upon and ticketed without driver identification. They do not want to be forced to live in the city they work for. They do not want to be arrested because they were not aware of all the firearms laws of every city through which they drive.

Home rule has been abused for a decade. It is no longer about local freedom. It is about more power for local politicians who want to rule, not govern. Since liberal Democrats from metropolitan areas have not had control of the state government for the past several years, they try to regain power by usurping the state government with a broadening of the intent of home rule.

County commissioners, city councils and mayors need to focus on improving and managing infrastructure and not on empowering themselves through home rule at the expense of individual freedom.

Ohioans need jobs, and it is because of the morass of complicated and negative bureaucracies, and a plethora of myopic laws and fees created by our city governments, due largely to Ohio being a home-rule state, that businesses and individuals are leaving in droves. Jobs and more individual freedoms are in states that do not have home rule, because, simply put, home rule has become a disguise for more rule.

Brent Greer
Columbus

December 20, 2006
Columbus Dispatch

Kudos to the Ohio House of Representatives and Senate for overriding Gov. Bob Taft’s veto of the gun bill ("Local gun laws fall as veto is rejected," Dispatch article, last Wednesday).

It’s about time we stood up to the people who are trying to destroy our Second Amendment rights by passing strict gun laws that are useless in preventing crime.

Despite what the media and the liberals will lead you to believe, these gun laws are only effective at keeping firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who wish to use them for hunting, competitive shooting, self-defense or heading to the range on a sunny afternoon and putting a few rounds down range.

Pass all the gun bans you want, and it will not do a single thing to keep the common criminal from obtaining a weapon and using it in a crime.

There are already thousands of laws on the books that, if they were strictly enforced, would do more to lower crime than these gun bans that were passed by the big cities.

As for the poll that The Dispatch is reporting that shows that Ohioans disagree with the override, nobody asked me.

The media need to stop pushing their opinions onto the public and scaring them into believing that guns are bad.

As a law-abiding resident of this state, I do not appreciate The Dispatch — or any other media outlet, for that matter — speaking for me.

Every story that involves a firearm is reported in such a way that makes the average person believe that the gun was the cause of the crime, despite the fact that such incidents involve drugs, gangs or felons.

Thanks again to the 71 members of the House and the 21 members of the Senate who voted to override Taft’s veto.

Marc Hale
Kenton