It is an individual right. The right is to be allowed to serve in a well regulated state militia. I don't see anything that specifically guarantees the right of any person not associated with a militia endorsed by the state to own, or possess a firearm. If the state says it's ok for you to have a firearm in your home because the state militia can't always protect you, then you have that right.

 

It sounds like you saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover any right to bear arms outside of being in a well-regulated state militia.

 

If you read the 2nd Amendment the way Justices Scalia and Thomas would read any OTHER constitutional amendment, very strictly and very narrowly, then that argument could certainly be made - i.e., while the 2nd Amendment in no way forbids/precludes your ability to own a gun, it only "grants a right" to do so in that limited circumstance and for that limited purpose yet the States can expand upon that "right" as they desire under their own laws.

 

Exactly, that's how I've always thought of it.  It gives you the right to bear arms as part of a militia, and doesn't mention anything else (for or against).  That is why I think it's strange the NRA and many outdoorsmen use it as their rallying cry.

 

Exactly, that's how I've always thought of it.  It gives you the right to bear arms as part of a militia, and doesn't mention anything else (for or against).  That is why I think it's strange the NRA and many outdoorsmen use it as their rallying cry.

 

I don't read it that way.  The comma separates the militia from the people.  If they only meant the militia, it would have read that way.

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

 

Exactly, that's how I've always thought of it.  It gives you the right to bear arms as part of a militia, and doesn't mention anything else (for or against).  That is why I think it's strange the NRA and many outdoorsmen use it as their rallying cry.

 

I don't read it that way.  The comma separates the militia from the people.  If they only meant the militia, it would have read that way.

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

 

One problem is that the text of the 2nd Amendment which was distributed to the States for ratification varied.  For instance, some states received text with a comma only between "State" and "the right".  Others recieved the text produced above.  Either way though, IMO, the meaning is the same.  In modern prose it would probably read more like - "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed."  If the purpose behind the Amendment was not limited to the desire to grant the right to maintain a well regulated militia, then it would have simply read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed."

 

But if it doesn't specifically limit the right of the people to bear arms, then the power to regulate it is left to the states, correct?

But if it doesn't specifically limit the right of the people to bear arms, then the power to regulate it is left to the states, correct?

 

I would say yes.

For historical context consider that Madison's rough draft of the Bill of Right included the phrase "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" at the end. While this version is of course not law, it does tell us that the intent of the amendment was military related, not just gun related.

But if it doesn't specifically limit the right of the people to bear arms, then the power to regulate it is left to the states, correct?

 

Right.... sort of.  Constitutions should never limit individual rights (cough... cough OHIO).  Constitutions secure and guarantee individual rights.  That said, the Feds can regulate the interstate commerce of firearms.

But if it doesn't specifically limit the right of the people to bear arms, then the power to regulate it is left to the states, correct?

 

Right.... sort of. Constitutions should never limit individual rights (cough... cough OHIO). Constitutions secure and guarantee individual rights. That said, the Feds can regulate the interstate commerce of firearms.

The Constitution protects our rights from government intrusion.  The states can do whatever so long as they don't abridge the Constitutional rights.

But if it doesn't specifically limit the right of the people to bear arms, then the power to regulate it is left to the states, correct?

 

Right.... sort of. Constitutions should never limit individual rights (cough... cough OHIO). Constitutions secure and guarantee individual rights. That said, the Feds can regulate the interstate commerce of firearms.

The Constitution protects our rights from government intrusion. The states can do whatever so long as they don't abridge the Constitutional rights.

 

Not so fast cowboy... you are forgetting about the Supremacy Clause.  Lawfully enacted Federal law trumps State law.  So, no... the States can not do whatever so long as they don't abridge the Constitutional rights.

But if it doesn't specifically limit the right of the people to bear arms, then the power to regulate it is left to the states, correct?

 

Right.... sort of.  Constitutions should never limit individual rights (cough... cough OHIO).  Constitutions secure and guarantee individual rights.  That said, the Feds can regulate the interstate commerce of firearms.

The Constitution protects our rights from government intrusion.  The states can do whatever so long as they don't abridge the Constitutional rights.

 

Not so fast cowboy... you are forgetting about the Supremacy Clause.  Lawfully enacted Federal law trumps State law.  So, no... the States can not do whatever so long as they don't abridge the Constitutional rights.

You know, you're really right but not because of the Supremacy Clause.  The 10th amendent shuts down that logic pretty well.  The 14th amendment's "Privileges and Immunities" clause is what really killed the original intent of the framers and federalism.

 

Among thinking 'conservatives' or libertarians, this is a hot topic of debate.  Most believe respecting the Constitution will restore the Republic to the little people but really the 14th Amendment killed any limit to federal authority.

 

Sad really.

There comes a point when "original intent" breaks down, as significant changes have occurred since that time.  The 13th-15th are chief among those changes.  There were a lot of people even at the time these original documents were drafted who wanted no federal power at all, who didn't want the confederation to end... and those people lost.  Then in the Civil War, that line of thinking lost again in actual combat. 

 

One big reason why:  States' rights are bad for business.  States' rights lead to a jungle of conflicting regulations and fiefdoms.  There is an argument to be made that in modern times, states as we know them are practically obsolete.  We really don't want the US to have higher internal transaction costs than the entire continent of Europe... yet that's the way things seem to be headed. 

But if it doesn't specifically limit the right of the people to bear arms, then the power to regulate it is left to the states, correct?

 

Right.... sort of.  Constitutions should never limit individual rights (cough... cough OHIO).  Constitutions secure and guarantee individual rights.  That said, the Feds can regulate the interstate commerce of firearms.

The Constitution protects our rights from government intrusion.  The states can do whatever so long as they don't abridge the Constitutional rights.

 

Not so fast cowboy... you are forgetting about the Supremacy Clause.  Lawfully enacted Federal law trumps State law.  So, no... the States can not do whatever so long as they don't abridge the Constitutional rights.

You know, you're really right but not because of the Supremacy Clause.  The 10th amendent shuts down that logic pretty well.  The 14th amendment's "Privileges and Immunities" clause is what really killed the original intent of the framers and federalism.

 

Among thinking 'conservatives' or libertarians, this is a hot topic of debate.  Most believe respecting the Constitution will restore the Republic to the little people but really the 14th Amendment killed any limit to federal authority.

 

Sad really.

 

The 14th Amendment was ratified by "thinking" Americans just as was the 13th and 15th Amendments and every Amendment to the Constitution which the Framers did not originally include.  You may realize one day that the Framers acknowledged they did not know everything and could not foresee all things that have yet to pass.  They left us (the people) the ability to amend the Constitution in our wisdom and judgment.  The 14th Amendment was ratified through the proper channels and has been effectively used to uphold most every civil rights law of the past half century.

 

And I wouldn't minimize the Supremacy Clause.  How can the 10th Amendment "shut down that logic."  It has a very real effect to make the properly enacted Federal law the supreme law of the land.  The clause is clear.  The debate your YAL buddies are harping on centers on the "properly enacted" component.

"The 14th Amendment was ratified by "thinking" Americans just as was the 13th and 15th Amendments and every Amendment to the Constitution which the Framers did not originally include." 

 

I guess these "thinking" Americans were sleeping when they ratified the 18th and 19th!  Its just a joke for the 19th!  Really!  Don't tell my wife!!

"The 14th Amendment was ratified by "thinking" Americans just as was the 13th and 15th Amendments and every Amendment to the Constitution which the Framers did not originally include."

 

I guess these "thinking" Americans were sleeping when they ratified the 18th and 19th! Its just a joke for the 19th! Really! Don't tell my wife!!

 

Yes they WERE... for the 18th at least ;)  It was a restriction on the rights of an individual and should never have been included in the Constitution. 

 

Luckily, another brilliant move by our Founders was to create a system where Amendments could be repealed.

semantics again...what constitutes an "assault rifle"?  An AK-47 and a remington .308 shoot nearly the same size round...which one is an assault rifle if they are both semi-auto?  Assault rifle is a widely used term to frighten people.  Semi auto is just that, as full auto (machine gun) would more fit the term assault rifle.  Is a Glock 9mm an assault pistol because it is semi auto?  Just food for thought...

Semantics, yes and no.  I think most of us can conjure up "assault rifle" in our heads pretty well, just as we can for the most part conjure up "sports car" or "winter coat".  Legally, yeah they have to put a specific definition on it, and that can get tricky as not all "assault rifles" are selective fire, or have bayonet lugs, or whatever, just as not all sports cars have manual transmissions or low profile tires.  It's a useful term though because it denotes that some specific types of rifles are meant primarily to kill human beings.  A bayonet lug, pistol grip, accessory rail, or selective 3 round burst fire isn't really helpful in deer hunting, but is very helpful in combat.

^So are you saying we should ban weapons that look scary to you? The old "I know it when I see it" argument.

No, I was talking about intended function.  Also, I didn't say they should or shouldn't be banned.  I just have heard the statement that assault rifle is undefinable many times before, and I think it is incorrect.

 

BTW, here's the US Army's definition of assault rifle, since I obviously am not competent to define it and only know "what looks scary to me": (via wikipedia)

 

"short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

I see two big undecided issues with the Second Amendment that need to be addressed:

 

1) Can the government restrict the types of "arms" the individual may "bear"?

 

2) Does the Second Amendment apply to the States?  In other words - does the Second Amendment limit the State (not Federal) Governments' ability to regulate "arms" within its boundaries?

 

The latter question is probably going to be addressed by the Supreme Court within the year and, in the process, may dispose of the first question.  The pro-gun crowd will argue that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the 14th Amendment and applies to the States.  It might be the first time in the history of the judicial process that conservatives are actually arguing FOR 14th Amendment incorporation.  The States will, of course, argue that they have sovereign powers within their borders and may "regulate" arms as they see fit.  Liberals will back this argument and it may be the first time in the history of the judicial process that group would actually argue AGAINT 14th Amendment incorporation.

 

Just goes to show you that nobody really stands by their self-proclaimed constitutional principals if such a stance does not fit within their party platform on any given issue. 

Both platforms are internally inconsistent.  On the liberal side it's pretty clear why this is, as union guys are really quite different from hippies, not to mention the various minority groups.  The conservative side is more demographically homogeneous, making its inconsistencies seem more philosophical in nature.  Total freedom regarding guns, but not speech?  Not drugs?  Not marriage?  Not abortion?  You can own all manner of weaponry but society owns your body?  That doesn't make a lick of sense.  If autonomy from government is the goal, OK then.  But then the same argument has to apply to all issues. 

I don't think conservatives or the Republican Party (which are two different things) are as homogeneous as they may appear from your vantage.  Economic conservatives may be more libertarian on social issues.  Social conservatives may be more libertarian on economic issues.  Political conservatives may be quite comfortable with states doing things when they'd oppose the federal government doing the exact same thing; some would also extend this notion to local governments over state governments.

Economic conservatives who are more libertarian on social issues are typically called RINOs.  There is no corresponding term DINO.  Social conservatives who are libertarian on economic issues would be standard Republicans, would they not? 

 

As for states over feds, that's a matter of constitutional law, and both sovereigns have defined powers.  For the most part, states cannot violate the Bill of Rights, nor can they mess with interstate commerce.  As for locals over states, local governments have no sovereignty at all.  Their ability to expand on state regulations and penalties is under constant debate, but in the end the state has 100% authority over locals.     

 

So on guns... I don't see any legal justification for states (and by extension locals) being able to regulate guns to any extent that the federal government could not.  At the same time, it makes sense to me that urban areas would need stricter controls.  If this were an easy issue, we'd have solved it already.

As for locals over states, local governments have no sovereignty at all. Their ability to expand on state regulations and penalties is under constant debate, but in the end the state has 100% authority over locals.

 

That is not true... in Ohio at least.  The Home Rule Amendment to the constitution grants local, chartered governments autonomy in the realm of local self government, such as qualifications of elected officials, number of members of council, legislative procedures, etc.  State laws are trumped by local charters on ALL issues of self government.  What constitutes local self government is the topic of litigation quite frequently.  On point here, we saw a case in Ohio just a year or two ago over whether the regulation of guns was a matter of local self-government.  The Ohio Supreme Court held that it was not, but many municipal law experts strongly disagreed with that ruling just as they disagreed with the ruling which held that residency requirements were not an issue of local self-government.   

Economic conservatives who are more libertarian on social issues are typically called RINOs.

 

Well, this is why I said that there's a difference between "conservatives" and the Republican Party.  There is a correlation between membership in the Republican Party and social, economic, and political conservatism, but the two are separable traits.

 

There is no corresponding term DINO.

 

Actually, I have heard this one used, particularly to describe Joe Lieberman before he became an independent, but also to describe a number of Blue Dog Democrats by Democrats and liberals (also two different concepts) who favor a smaller, more ideologically pure tent.

 

Social conservatives who are libertarian on economic issues would be standard Republicans, would they not?

 

Ack!  I meant to say social conservatives who are more liberal on economic issues (i.e., more friendly towards the welfare state, towards environmental regulation, etc.).  I know a number of Evangelicals who fall into this category.

Home Rule is fairly weak these days.  Local self-government extends primarily to traffic control and administrative matters, but not to the state's police power.  The opposite of "local self-government" is "statewide concern," so if you can show that it's a matter of statewide concern (not too hard), it can't fit under Home Rule. 

 

I had thought predatory lending was CERTAINLY a matter of local self-government... and boy was I wrong.  Supposedly the key is whether the local regulation will have "extraterritorial" effects, but in that case all that mattered was that the state legislature believed one uniform regulation would be for the best.  That belief apparently made it a matter of statewide concern, which made Home Rule inapplicable.   

Home Rule is fairly weak these days. Local self-government extends primarily to traffic control and administrative matters, but not to the state's police power. The opposite of "local self-government" is "statewide concern," so if you can show that it's a matter of statewide concern (not too hard), it can't fit under Home Rule.  

 

I had thought predatory lending was CERTAINLY a matter of local self-government... and boy was I wrong. Supposedly the key is whether the local regulation will have "extraterritorial" effects, but in that case all that mattered was that the state legislature believed one uniform regulation would be for the best. That belief apparently made it a matter of statewide concern, which made Home Rule inapplicable.

 

I don't want to take this too far off-topic, but your home rule analysis is a little off.  You are not apply the "Canton test" correctly.  Under a proper analysis, the local law is examined to determine if it is one of local self government or local police power.  If the law is one of local self government, the analysis stops and the local law prevails over conflicting state law.  If the local law is an exercise of the police power, then you conduct the "general law" test and bring in the statewide concern compenent.  Self rule is autonomous.  Police power is concurrent.

 

You were close though.  And you are right that the Ohio Supreme Court has probably weakened home rule beyond its intended limits.  I certainly disagreed with the gun possession ruling.  I think cities should be able to regulate the possession of guns in their parks, schools, etc.

My memory is a little hazy, but I think that the OSC in that case was concerned about the line-drawing exercise necessitated by the interconnectedness of modern communities.  In other words, if your town and two towns over permit guns, but the town in between does not, you'd be seriously limited in your exercise of your Second Amendment rights if you basically became a criminal for part of your trip from A to C.

 

That argument does make a certain amount of sense to me.  I'm guessing it makes a certain amount of sense to gun restrictionists, too, but they see it as a feature rather than a bug, since it would make owning and possessing a gun a more cumbersome proposition.

My memory is a little hazy, but I think that the OSC in that case was concerned about the line-drawing exercise necessitated by the interconnectedness of modern communities. In other words, if your town and two towns over permit guns, but the town in between does not, you'd be seriously limited in your exercise of your Second Amendment rights if you basically became a criminal for part of your trip from A to C.

 

That argument does make a certain amount of sense to me. I'm guessing it makes a certain amount of sense to gun restrictionists, too, but they see it as a feature rather than a bug, since it would make owning and possessing a gun a more cumbersome proposition.

 

IIRC, the issue I had with the ruling is that it nullified well-reasoned "regulations" on firearms.  It did not ban them in your own home, like DC tried to do.  It did not ban them in your car (so I don't get the travel argument).  IIRC, the issue involved a Cleveland law which banned guns in public parks.  My viewpoint is that guns should not be in public parks and if you feel the need to bring one, you probably shouldn't be in that park in the first place.

I don't want to take this too far off-topic, but your home rule analysis is a little off. You are not apply the "Canton test" correctly. Under a proper analysis, the local law is examined to determine if it is one of local self government or local police power. If the law is one of local self government, the analysis stops and the local law prevails over conflicting state law. If the local law is an exercise of the police power, then you conduct the "general law" test and bring in the statewide concern compenent. Self rule is autonomous. Police power is concurrent.

 

You were close though. And you are right that the Ohio Supreme Court has probably weakened home rule beyond its intended limits. I certainly disagreed with the gun possession ruling. I think cities should be able to regulate the possession of guns in their parks, schools, etc.

 

Technically, you are 100% correct about the home rule test.  In practice, the LSG category is itty bitty while the SWC category is vast.  That tilts the machine away from home rule, even though mechanics of the test seem favorable to it.  I don't have a horse in this race... I just don't like illusory standards and I think this is a prime example of one.

 

A public park gun-ban makes good sense to me.  But as noted, such laws could get troublesome with multiple communities in play.  Extraterritoriality.  Therefore not perfectly appropriate for local regulation.  This problem could be eased, if not solved, by the consolidation of said communities.  And even though the state can't make a law applying only to the 3C's by name, it could get around this restriction by creating gun laws that apply only to communities over 300k.  This approach is unavailable when we have places like East Cleveland, super urban but with low population.  Consolidation opens the door.

 

For discussion's sake I'm pretending there's no federal problem, which I believe there is.   

Gun Control Debate Continues Between State Law and Local Governments

 

Two Democrats in the Ohio Senate want to ensure local governments can regulate firearms. State law currently reserves such decisions for the General Assembly — although there has been some pushback in court. Still, given Republicans’ reticence to take any steps that could be seen as limiting access to guns, it seems unlikely the Democratic measure will advance.

 

Local control

 

About fifteen years ago, state lawmakers took control of gun policy with an act finding “the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state.”

 

That statute’s prohibitions for local governments are sweeping. The law barred cities from approving any ordinances limiting a person’s right to “own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/gun-control-debate-continues-between-state-law-and-local-governments-ocj1/

Ohio House Updates Pro-Gun Legislation to be Even More Pro-Gun

 

With little discussion Tuesday, an Ohio House committee approved a series of changes to a controversial gun measure. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act, would keep state and local law enforcement from carrying out federal firearm provisions.

 

Supporters claim the measure falls within the scope of anti-commandeering doctrine; essentially, federal officials can’t compel other agencies to enforce policy for them. But opponents argue it’s an attempt to nullify federal law, littered with unintended consequences.

 

A federal judge in Missouri struck down the legislation that served as a model for Ohio’s proposal. After a series of carve outs meant to address objections raised in that ruling by Republicans on the committee and by outside law enforcement groups, supporters believe they’ve got a path to the House floor.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-house-updates-pro-gun-legislation-to-be-even-more-pro-gun-ocj1/

 

38 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

opponents argue it’s an attempt to nullify federal law

Is that a bad thing?  I'm curious how those opponents feel about Issue 2, then?

59 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Is that a bad thing?  I'm curious how those opponents feel about Issue 2, then?

 

I'm all in favor of both, but the difference is Issue 2 does not forbid the feds from making any effort to enforce their prohibitions.   

Ohio GOP Pushing More Gun Rights in New Legislation

 

A pair of gun bills backed by Ohio Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, are quietly making their way through committees. Both proposals are prospective in nature — seeking not so much to change existing policy, but to anticipate and forestall potential changes in the future.

 

For nearly a decade in the state House and Senate, Johnson has been a consistent voice pushing for more expansive gun rights in Ohio. He was the driving force behind last year’s sweeping concealed carry changes allowing most adults to carry without a permit. Before that he sponsored several stand your ground measures.

 

His current bills are a bit more technical but respond to perceived threats among gun rights activists. The first prohibits local governments from requiring liability insurance for gun owners; the second relates to a new merchant code for gun and ammunition retailers.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-pushing-more-gun-rights-in-new-legislation-ocj1/

 

2 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Ohio GOP Pushing More Gun Rights in New Legislation

 

A pair of gun bills backed by Ohio Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, are quietly making their way through committees. Both proposals are prospective in nature — seeking not so much to change existing policy, but to anticipate and forestall potential changes in the future.

 

For nearly a decade in the state House and Senate, Johnson has been a consistent voice pushing for more expansive gun rights in Ohio. He was the driving force behind last year’s sweeping concealed carry changes allowing most adults to carry without a permit. Before that he sponsored several stand your ground measures.

 

His current bills are a bit more technical but respond to perceived threats among gun rights activists. The first prohibits local governments from requiring liability insurance for gun owners; the second relates to a new merchant code for gun and ammunition retailers.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-pushing-more-gun-rights-in-new-legislation-ocj1/

 

 

These are gun rights people doing the opposite of what legal abortion advocates did.   We could simply rely on Heller and Breun the way they relied on Roe v. Wade.   But they got burned when that got overturned, and a bunch of legislation they ignored as irrelevant when proposed suddenly became law.

Ohio Lawmakers Debate Tax Cuts for… Guns

 

Ohio lawmakers are considering two tax cuts related to firearms — one exempts safety devices like locks and safes, the other eliminates taxes on the weapons themselves. The former has the support of organizations on both sides of the gun policy debate. The latter faces stiff opposition from gun control groups.

 

Gun safety

 

The proposal cutting taxes for gun safety devices got its fourth committee hearing and an amendment on Tuesday. The changes remove a provision requiring retailers to post signage notifying customers about the exemption and to provide written notice of it when a customer gets a gun.

 

State Rep. Sean Brennan, D-Parma, explained he agreed to the amendment after a suggestion from Rep. Angie King, R-Celina.

 

“I wanted to be the one that presented the amendment to show in good faith that I’m willing to work with all of my colleagues,” he explained.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-lawmakers-debate-tax-cuts-for-guns-ocj1/

On 10/24/2023 at 2:13 PM, ColDayMan said:

Ohio Lawmakers Debate Tax Cuts for… Guns

 

Ohio lawmakers are considering two tax cuts related to firearms — one exempts safety devices like locks and safes, the other eliminates taxes on the weapons themselves. The former has the support of organizations on both sides of the gun policy debate. The latter faces stiff opposition from gun control groups.

 

Gun safety

 

The proposal cutting taxes for gun safety devices got its fourth committee hearing and an amendment on Tuesday. The changes remove a provision requiring retailers to post signage notifying customers about the exemption and to provide written notice of it when a customer gets a gun.

 

State Rep. Sean Brennan, D-Parma, explained he agreed to the amendment after a suggestion from Rep. Angie King, R-Celina.

 

“I wanted to be the one that presented the amendment to show in good faith that I’m willing to work with all of my colleagues,” he explained.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-lawmakers-debate-tax-cuts-for-guns-ocj1/

Maybe we should ask our fellow countrymen and women in ME whether tax cuts on firearms makes sense.

My heart goes out to them.  This is not a one solution problem.  There are issues with how accessible deadly weapons are in America and with how we treat people with mental health issues.

20+ of our fellow Americans lost their lives because of our inaction on both fronts.

Let's work together and finally start solving this epidemic of violence in America. 

Report: Gun Deaths Increased 52% in Ohio From 2012 to 2021

 

Last week’s mass shooting amid a Kansas City Super Bowl parade was another reminder that despite claims that more guns make us safer, actual experience shows the opposite to be the case.

...

The number of guns manufactured in the United States more than doubled from 5.5 million in 2010 to 11 million in 2020. Over the same period, gun deaths increased by 43%, according to statistics from the Pew Research Center that were part of a fact sheet compiled by The National Institute for Healthcare Management Foundation.

 

In Ohio, the trend has been even more stark. The number of gun deaths increased 52% between 2012 and 2021, according to the group Everytown for Gun Safety.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/report-gun-deaths-increased-52-in-ohio-from-2012-to-2021-ocj1/

City of Columbus, Dayton Settles Case with State Over Gun Background Check Rules

 

The cities of Dayton and Columbus as well as Everytown For Gun Safety settled a four years-long court battle this week with the state of Ohio over the criminal background check system. The program is a well-known protection to ensure people with a serious criminal convictions aren’t able to purchase a firearm, but it’s also used to ensure they aren’t hired to a position of trust, like a teacher or police officer.

 

But that database is only as useful as its data.

 

In court, the cities argued Ohio’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation was failing to meet its obligation to collect information and maintain the database. State law requires BCI to collect information for the system “from wherever procurable,” and designates the agency as the clearinghouse for Ohio’s criminal records.

 

The cities’ initial complaint allows that court clerks have a role, too. After all, who else knows better when a case has been adjudicated? But attorneys for the cities argued “many (clerks) complain that BCI rejects that information on technical grounds; and, for the clerks that simply do not report or fail to do so in a timely manner, they do so with apparent impunity from BCI.”

 

Under a settlement agreement approved in court this week, the parties, agreed to a series of steps meant to improve the background check system and make it easier for agencies to upload information.

 

“We all share a responsibility to do everything we can to make sure that those prohibited from purchasing guns are unable to walk out of a gun store with a firearm,” Everytown Executive Director Eric Tirschwell argued in a press release announcing the agreement.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/city-of-columbus-settles-case-with-state-over-gun-background-check-rules-ocj1/

10-Day Waiting Period Proposed for Ohio Gun Sales

 

Two Ohio Democrats want to impose a 10-day waiting period before for gun purchases. The provision would only apply to licensed dealers, but the bill’s sponsors argue that cooling off period will save lives.

 

Despite strong majority support for restrictions like background checks or a ban on high-capacity magazines, limits on gun ownership remain polarizing.

 

With Republicans holding firm control of the Ohio Statehouse, the waiting period measure, like nearly any gun control proposal, is a long shot.

 

What sponsors say

 

The bill’s sponsors, Cincinnati Democratic state Reps. Cecil Thomas and Rachel Baker, point to results in other states with waiting period laws. According to a 2017 study, mandatory waiting periods for handgun purchases reduce gun homicides by 17% and gun suicides by 7-11%.

 

“This brief cooling off period provides individuals with the time to reconsider their purchase,” Thomas argued, “especially in moments of emotional distress when impulsive decisions can have tragic consequences.”

 

Several states require waiting periods of various length. The longest is Hawaii with 14 days, and the shortest delay is three days or 72 hours, which Colorado, Illinois, Maine and Vermont require. Florida requires waiting three days or the time it takes to conduct a background check, whichever is longer.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/10-day-waiting-period-proposed-for-ohio-gun-sales-ocj1/