Dispatch: City asks judge to throw out challenge to gun ban

The Columbus Dispatch is reported recently that Columbus city attorneys have asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging Columbus’ assault-weapons ban.

From the story:

Assistant city attorneys Joshua T. Cox and Daniel W. Drake filed a motion yesterday to dismiss the suit because they said Franklin County Probate Court doesn’t have jurisdiction.

The motion also says Phil Harmon, a lawyer running for City Council, doesn’t have standing to file the suit.

Harmon practices estate law. He is one of six candidates for three seats on the council.

He said he’d file a response to the motion next Wednesday.

He said he’ll argue in his response that he does have standing to file the suit, and that the ban conflicts with the state’s concealed-weapons law.

Harmon told the newspaper he filed the suit in probate court because he was concerned that Columbus' new ban the doesn’t exempt people who inherit the banned weapons.

"It’s a big, gaping loophole that needs to be corrected," Harmon said.

He urged the city’s attorneys to ask the City Council to resolve the issue with an amendment.

Harmon said the ban poses a significant problem for his estate-law practice. Last year, he sold 20 guns he inherited from a deceased client so he could pay that client’s debtors. If he inherits weapons when the ban takes effect Aug. 11, Harmon said he could be prosecuted.

Harmon was due to file a response to the motion yesterday, and then the city will file further arguments Aug. 2.

Legislation is set to be proposed by Rep. Jim Aslanides is which would preempt the many municipal gun control laws across Ohio, and bring Ohio laws into uniformity when it comes to gun rights.

Click on the "Read More..." link below to read some recent letters to the Dispatch editor addressing Columbus' new law, and Aslanides' proposed legislation.

Gun bans do nothing to stop violent crime
Tuesday, July 26, 2005

I have some suggestions for our poorly educated public officials in Columbus, about the July 10 Dispatch article "Gun ban called inconsistent."

If lawmakers would do some research, they would see that gun bans do not work. Gun bans cannot be studied with accuracy anyway because of the overwhelming number of guns in America.

Gun bans have been used in Europe and Australia, where crime rates have soared. Why do these bans not work? Because criminals don’t care about laws. If they did, there would be no crimes. Right from wrong — we all learned that at age 2, right?

We should punish criminals, not smack them on the hand for violent crimes and send them back into society after three or five years of socalled rehabilitation in our prison system. Guns don’t kill people; criminals kill people. All guns, cars, knives, baseball bats, swords, pencils, chain saws, lawnmowers and hedge trimmers are deadly in a criminal’s hands, not just certain types or brands.

Make penalties for violent crime more harsh, and stop taking away my rights.

Tim Hackworth
Hilliard

Trust police, not NRA, on assault-weapon ban
Sunday, July 24, 2005

The recent flurry of letters by National Rifle Association supporters praising the NRA and bashing City Council for implementing an assault-weapons ban is unfortunate.

I’m a gun owner. I’ve owned a lot of weapons over the years, but I don’t swoon over every NRA position. Make no mistake: The NRA is a business, not just some grand defender of rights. City Council showed courage by making a statement on public safety, knowing it would release the dogs of hell from the NRA. Politicians risking convention money is pretty unheard of and refreshing, as well.

Police like the idea of a ban, and I don’t think the average person thinks trying to reduce the number of assault weapons on the street is a terrible thing. If you think about it, the whole train of thought that says, "If assault weapons are banned, only criminals will have assault weapons," is pretty far off the tracks.

I don’t know many people packing an AK-47 or M-16 rifle down the street for personal protection, do you? These aren’t handguns, you know. These are big-time, masskilling military weapons. A little discretion is warranted here.

Kent Dusthimer
Reynoldsburg

Lawmaker would turn Ohio into Wild West
Tuesday, July 26, 2005

I respond to the article in the July 18 Dispatch, "Lawmaker aims to stop cities from restricting gun ownership." If Rep. James Aslanides, R-Coshocton, wants to allow Ohioans to carry assault weapons and concealed weapons freely on public streets and in public parks, the first thing his bill should do is allow Ohioans to carry assault weapons and concealed weapons into the Statehouse and into legislative chambers.

If that makes him feel safer while at work, then good, perhaps his bill should pass. But if it makes him and other lawmakers feel less safe, then that is how many of us feel now with his concealed-weapons law, and it will be even worse if this law does pass.

There are not many, if any, real-life Rambos out there who would even know how to respond if some bad guy pulled a gun in public. Yet, Aslanides believes that will make us safer? Please tell me who I sue if I or someone in my family gets shot or killed, either by a bad guy or some misguided fool trying to protect himself with a legal firearm when a shootout begins.

I hunt, or at least I used to, and I own firearms: several shotguns, two muzzleloaders, a .30-30 and a .30-06. I also own a .22-caliber target pistol. I am not anti-gun, but I am anti-stupidity. It should be legal to own guns that are used for legal hunting and sport shooting; it should not be legal to carry guns that are used to shoot and kill people, unless you are the police or have some other compelling reason to do so.

It is no wonder that college-educated Ohioans are leaving this state in droves. Not only can they find jobs with better pay elsewhere, they also can feel safer in a state that thinks it is better to protect its residents instead of just arming them to the hilt. If Aslanides wants to live in a Wild West environment, I suggest he take Horace Greeley’s advice and move west.

Ed Wilkinson
Bremen

Commentary:
It is a new tactic of gun ban extremists to hide their intentions behind claims of being gun owners, shooters, etc. Consider the following two examples, which follow the advice of billionaire anti-gunner Andrew McKelvey by trying to disguise who they really are: