Urban editorial boards argue 2nd Amendment should be applied differently depending on where one lives, so what about the 1st?

by Gerard Valentino & Ken Hanson

On December 29, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court once again upheld statewide preemption of gun laws, in essence knocking Ohio's cities out of the gun control business. The Ohio establishment media is attacking this ruling, not because of the substance of the ruling, but because it is a win for gun owners. In an attempt to disguise these editorials as something other than another anti-gun rant, the newspapers once again purport to be champions of "home rule" authority.

In the case of The Cleveland Plain Dealer, they cannot even decide if they are for home rule or against home rule, but they are sure they are against guns.

From a 2007 Plain Dealer editorial: "This page continues to look skeptically on concealed carry, but consistency in the form of statewide, uniform standards makes more sense than a confusing patchwork of local contradictions." Then, less than four months later, The Plain Dealer pulls a 180, stating, "By taking away local governments' ability to regulate the sale and possession of guns, the legislature tramples the principle of home rule more egregiously than ever."

Got that?

We expect the state's editorial boards to always take the anti-gun side of any argument – it is far easier to have a default personal opinion than to critically analyze issues on a case-by-case basis. As far as anyone can remember, no editorial board has ever supported a pro-gun bill or pro-gun
reform.

The Plain Dealer's John Kerry-esque "we were for home rule before we were against it" is a testament to how far the editors will go to pursue their anti-gun bias. This is particularly worrisome given all the "soul searching" they have been going through in the aftermath of one of the largest government corruption scandals in history. Despite the editors' pledge to stop turning a blind eye and empowering the nonsense coming out of Cleveland's government, this reaffirmation of journalistic ethics apparently does not extend to gun rights.

Meanwhile, in its editorial coverage, The Toledo Blade claims "one size" gun laws lack any semblance of common sense because what works in rural southeast Ohio will not work in urban Cleveland or Toledo. There are two problems with their argument, however.

First of all, urban areas in Ohio had more stringent gun laws for years without any effect on gun crime, and The Blade has not engaged in even the most cursory of investigation to determine "what works" in large urban centers. (Here's a hint: Taking criminals, not guns, off the street works, as does the danger posed to criminals by an armed victim.)

Come on Blade editors, use the vaunted public records laws to find out how many prosecutions of "criminals" versus "status offenders" occur. Toledo "barely used their ban in inexpensive firearms, demonized by the media as "Saturday Night Specials." Columbus failed to prosecute under their assault weapons ban. Cleveland chose to only punish someone that had to use a gun in jury-approved self-defense, yet at the same time let common criminals go free instead of enforcing their "home rule" gun control ordinances.

Buckeye Firearms challenges The Toledo Blade, Cleveland Plain Dealer and other editorial boards to put their arguments to the test and prove that stringent local gun laws deter crime. We can do so because we already know that gun laws don't impact crime. If these top-notch reporters cannot make a convincing case that these local ordinances are a valid crime fighting tool, then all we are left with is personal opinion, anti-gun ravings posing as reasoned editorial.

The second flaw in the argument made collectively by Ohio's establishment media is that the Second Amendment affirms an individual right to bear arms without regard to where one is standing within the state. The First Amendment affirms freedom of speech which the media claims has no bounds. Your constitutional right to publish idiotic editorials is the same in Toledo as it is in McConnelsville, despite the two cities being as different as two cities can be.

Their editorial argument to have different standards for gun rights based upon geography and demographics is the same as arguing that different standards for freedom of speech should exist, depending upon where one lives. After all, rural areas have a different way of speaking than Ohio's urban centers.

Try getting The Cleveland Plain Dealer or Toledo Blade to extend to gun rights to the same scope of protection enjoyed by freedom of speech and they will surely object. Also point out that public record and sunshine laws are clear violations of home rule authority, and watch the heads begin to explode.

Such an obvious double standard doesn't reflect positively on those who editorialize on which rights common Ohioans should enjoy.

In the end, Ohio's establishment media is a "hive mind" when it comes to guns and deciding how the unwashed masses should exercise their rights. That is what this is really about; the editorial boards keeping their self-appointed position as arbiter of societal norms.

It is just this sort of elitist behavior that has cost Ohio's mainstream media the populist support they used to enjoy. There was a day when newspaper editorial boards held an important role in the marketplace of ideas. That day is over, courtesy of editors substituting unreasoned personal opinion in place of investigative journalism. The editorial reaction to the Supreme Court ruling upholding preemption of gun laws shows is an excellent example of baseless opinion journalism.

The Plain Dealer went into an editorial tizzy when BFA's Ken Hanson, without even reading the appellate decision in favor of Cleveland, told a Plain Dealer reporter that the Ohio Supreme Court would rule in favor of gun owners and uphold preemption. This prediction was possible
not because the "evil gun lobby" has the Ohio Supreme Court in a hammerlock, but because the law and facts were clearly on the side of gun owners. That did not stop The Plain Dealer's editors from calling upon the Supreme Court to ignore all law and precedent and instead uphold their personal editorial opinions.

The latest editorials show that they will not hesitate to throw away any semblance of journalistic standards in order to maintain a unified anti-gun editorial voice. Some rights are more equal than others.

Gerard Valentino is a member of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Board of Directors and the author of "The Valentino Chronicles – Observations of a Middle Class Conservative," available through the Buckeye Firearms Association store.

Ken Hanson is a gun rights attorney in Ohio. He serves as the Legislative Chair for Buckeye Firearms Association, and is the attorney of record for Buckeye Firearms Foundation, which filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court cases. The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has awarded him with its 2008 Defender of Justice Award and 2009 Jay M. Littlefield Volunteer of the Year Award. He is the author of The Ohio Guide to Firearm Laws, a certified firearms instructor and holds a Type 01 Federal Firearms License.