18 October 2007

Ohio Media Focuses Lenses On House Bill To Ban Persons Under 21 From Carrying Firearms

Well, yesterday was an interesting day at the Ohio General Assembly. I was up in northern Ohio on business and could not attend, but media attention in the Buckeye State was not on a Senate bill that would finally legislate that lawful people have no duty to retreat from an attack on the street or in their home. The TV media, and to a lesser degree some print outlets, focused their lenses on a bill introduced with great fanfare and urgency in the Ohio House of Representatives that would prohibit a person under the age of 21 from carrying a firearm except for hunting. I received a call from WBNS-TV (CBS) in Columbus yesterday. Mistakenly, I assumed they wanted to discuss the "castle doctrine/no duty to retreat" bill testimony that was heard in the morning. They knew nothing about it. They only wanted to talk about the House bill. A bill that, as I analyze it, appears to do nothing more than that which is already covered under existing state and federal laws. Unfortunately, I was unable to get back in touch with WBNS, being out in the field on business and unable to obtain a cell signal for 3 hours due to my location. Fortunately, Ken Hanson of Buckeye Firearms Association gave virtually the same rebuttal I would have. Nicely done, Ken!

Well, where to begin. I'll let others comment, and let you see what has been written. The Columbus Dispatch and Cincinnati papers did not cover it, nor did the Plain Dealer in Cleveland. The PD, however, runs a blog called "Wide Open," and one of the blog writers (not affiliated with the paper) who bills himself as "Ohio's premier political blogger," wrote about the bill. Several comments posted to his blog have gone unanswered. I think you'll see why, but as a hint . . . there are several of questions he probably doesn't have an answer for, or does not want to answer. Electronic media in Ohio did stories on this bill. Here is an example of some of the coverage.

I'll have more on this in the coming days. My initial thinking is that this will go no where in the Ohio legislature, since thinking people will realize that the legislation, as stated before, is redundant. The bills backers told reporters that they think it has a less than 50 percent chance of passage. Moreover, I don't believe Gov. Ted Strickland, a democrat who campaigned on a pro-gun platform, would sign such a bill. I've been wrong before, but Mr. Strickland is a rational individual whom I believe will see through the blatant politics of this proposal. Time will tell.

No comments: