|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Saturday, 08 December 2007 |
The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition
By Jeff Knox
The Supreme Court will review the D.C. gun ban case. The case, originally known as Parker v. D.C. is now known as D.C. v. Heller. The name change is a source of confusion, which we’ll explain momentarily. Another matter of confusion is who’s behind the case. It is often reported that this case is a project of the libertarian Cato Institute; that’s not true. While several key players in the case are closely associated with Cato, the organization itself did not fund or sponsor the action. It is true however that NRA was not happy about this case going forward but has filed a supporting amicus brief and recently began using it as a fundraising issue.
The story so far: Last March the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in Parker v. D.C. that the District’s rigid gun control laws violated D.C. citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment. The court declared that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right, but left plenty of wriggle room by suggesting that “reasonable restrictions” do not constitute “infringement.”
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Michael J. Makuch
|
|
Tuesday, 04 December 2007 |
On Sunday October 28th I attended an NRA Approved Basic Handgun
Course/Concealed Carry Course. My boss suggested it would be a good story. Why? Because I'd never fired a handgun before, silly! What better way to
demonstrate such a course than by a newbie? The fact of the matter is that
most of the people taking the course are already familiar with handguns and
shooting in general and are taking the course in order to be able to carry a
concealed handgun. So, what would it be like to take a course to learn
something completely new? I was intrigued.
A little background might be in order. Other than shooting BB guns,
literally decades ago, I have never fired a live and real handgun before.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with guns, it's just that I've never
had an interest in owning any before. I say 'before' because I'm a little
interested now. More on this later. It's easy to settle into a nice state of
complacency, but the result is a lack of interest in trying something new
sometimes. Basically you can get into a rut and so, I welcomed the
opportunity to try something new and alien. And so begins the journey of a
man who takes a conceal carry course just for the sheer adventure of it...
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Saturday, 24 November 2007 |
Anyone that has volunteered at an OFCC gun show booth in Dayton can attest to the fact that I like to talk... a lot. I enjoy debating. I enjoy researching my arguments. I enjoy trying to persuade others. This is especially true when I am passionate about a topic. Baseball statistics, fast motorcycles, and our Second Amendment rights are conversations that you do not want to initiate with me unless you have an evening to kill. If you gave me a megaphone, I would wear out the batteries in one afternoon. Luckily, there is something much more effective than a megaphone and a corner soapbox available to each and every one of us: our local newspapers.
Letters to the editor are an effective means of furthering concealed carry issues. They allow us to inform the general public of concerns that they may not think about very often and provide a means for correcting false information that runs rampant in the media when firearms are discussed. This could be particularly relevant for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment. One lone voice can educate a large audience on the history and necessity of our right to keep and bear arms.
I have had good luck and almost everything I submit to newspapers around the state gets published somewhere. I humbly submit some suggestions for your consideration when writing your own letters:
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Saturday, 24 November 2007 |
The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition
By Jeff Knox
(November 13, 2007) Several weeks ago I wrote a piece titled “The Color of Gun Control” in which I described some of the racist motivations which historically underlie gun control laws. When that article was published in Shotgun News a month later and I re-read it, I was surprised to note a rather glaring error. While I stand by the core premise of the article, that gun control is intrinsically racist, I think some corrections and clarifications are is in order.
What immediately caught my attention was reading my description of the Illinois Firearm Owner ID system as a local jurisdiction, permit to purchase style program. The FOID is no such thing. It is a non-discretionary program operated by the State Police under which any person wishing to own a gun in the state must apply through the State Police and pass a background check. If their record is clear, they get the FOID with no further say-so from law enforcement.
I have to admit that I am at a loss to explain this mistake since I was quite familiar with the basics of the FOID program long before I wrote the article. I can only attribute the error to brain-fade as I focused on the destination rather than the route. My brother and editor Chris also failed to catch my obvious misstatement. He too knows better.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Dave Milthaler
|
|
Wednesday, 21 November 2007 |
What follows is an editorial that appeared in the Springfield News-Sun some time ago as well as a well-written letter to the editor that was published by long-time OFCC member and supporter John Bailey.
We need to remember that letters to the editor are an excellent way for us to spread the pro-gun-rights message and counter anti-gun-rights position we see constantly in the mainstream media.
Editorial View: Conceal and Carry Permits
Courts don't exist to cover for chickens
By Cox News Service
When issues are put off for a day — or a year — eventually the clock
runs out.
So it is with the business of how much information sheriffs can keep
secret about who has permits to carry concealed weapons. A new law — a
dumb, patently unconstitutional law — takes effect Sept. 29.
Its history is thus: Last year the Legislature decided to put even more
limits on what the public can know about permit-holders. The current law
says only journalists can learn the names of those who can hide a gun in
their car or under their coat. And they only are told names, ages and
what county a person lives in. Reporters, for instance, can't learn home
addresses or information about the kinds of guns a holder has.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 |
It's official. Everyone in the pro-gun rights community as well as the anti-gun rights community were confident that the U.S. Supreme Court would review the Heller (formerly Parker) appellate case.
While nothing is guaranteed, the current court may be the best environment possible for firearm owners to finally have a Supreme Court verdict for what sensible people have known for 230 years, that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed.
Supreme Court Will Decide Challenge to DC Handgun Ban
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Monday, 19 November 2007 |
A recent letter to the editor of The Dayton Daily News decided to regurgitate a frequent "argument" used by the anti-gun right zealots that want to continue to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights a bite at a time. One class of firearms that they think society will tolerate placing further un-Constitutional restrictions is the misleading named class of "assault weapons." As we know, "assault weapons", or "utility rifles" as they should be called, are semi-automatic firearms that function exactly the same as average hunting rifles used all over the country. Utility rifles merely have certain cosmetic features that do not affect their deadliness, range, or speed of fire in any way.
This initial letter reads:
Constitution does not protect AK-47s
A close friend's son was recently shot to death — an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time. The weapon: an AK-47.
The argument of National Rifle Association and other right-to-bear-arms proponents is simply antiquated. The Constitution was written more than 200 years ago. It hardly has the same interpretation today. Let's give everybody a single-shot muzzle loader if we want to hide behind the Constitution.
...
It's time to attack crime and protect our citizens in this country with the same vigor and monetary effort we do in other countries.
Today's Dayton Daily News published my rebuttal. Hopefully, we can all stand up to these inane arguments and remind people what the Second Amendment truly stands for:
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Sunday, 28 October 2007 |
The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition
Appleseed: Purpose Driven Riflery
By Chris Knox
(October 22, 2007) The Appleseed Project came to Phoenix this October. It was my privilege to strap into a hard-kicking .30-’06 bolt gun, lay down on a concrete floor, and, fire well over 200 rounds into the teeth of an Arizona sandstorm. It was among the most intense educational experiences of my life. By the end of the day, despite the tough conditions, I knew that my shooting had improved, but more important, I had a new perspective on what it means to shoot a rifle.
The Appleseed Project, a grassroots idea that seemingly came out of nowhere, has quietly grown nationwide and yet has stayed beneath the radar of the established shooting world. Behind it is a club with the unlikely title Revolutionary War Veterans Association. An Appleseed shoot is part history class, part rifle theory, and a whole lot of shooting. Last year a thousand people participated in Appleseed shoots around the country. This year’s goal is 2,000. For 2008, it’s 4,000. The longer term goal is to double the number of attendees every year.
Nonetheless, Appleseed is not about shooting.
That may seem a strange thing to say about a weekend rifle clinic where you can easily burn a couple hundred dollars worth of ammunition and where you’ll be force-fed the distilled essence of 200 years of rifle-shooting knowledge. By itself, shooting is a sport – a game. At an Appleseed you’ll learn to look past the game and to see the craft of riflery in a historical and philosophical context. The context is everything.
The historical context is that America owes its independence, its very existence, to riflemen. America was once a nation of riflemen. The ambitious goal of Appleseed is to make us riflemen once more. At an Appleseed a fair portion of the between-shooting time is spent on discussion of events around Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775. The history lectures put basic marksmanship in a new light. Appleseed is not about shooting. It’s about liberty. Freedom. Individual rights. And most certainly, it’s about the right to keep and bear arms.
That isn’t to say an Appleseed shoot isn’t fun. It is! But it’s serious fun.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Thursday, 18 October 2007 |
The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition
GRPC 2007
By Jeff Knox
(October 16, 2007) The 22 annual Gun Rights Policy Conference sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens’ Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), was held just outside of Cincinnati, Ohio on October 5 through 7 and I was pleased to once again be invited as one of the presenters. I was further pleased and honored to be named “Grass Roots Activist of the Year” during the Awards Luncheon on Saturday
The Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) is an annual opportunity for gun rights activists to get together and share knowledge and ideas, make connections, and find out what’s going on in other parts of the country or other areas of the fight. GRPC is an excellent opportunity for local grassroots activists to meet and get to know some of the most recognizable leaders of the fight. This year’s conference surpassed all previous records with close to 500 attendees.
Another first for this year’s conference was the participation of Presidential Candidate, Representative Ron Paul who delivered a well-received speech to the attendees plus about two hundred supporters who showed up just for the occasion. The most newsworthy aspect of the appearance was not Dr. Paul’s presence or presentation, nor the size of the crowd, but the fact that probably two hundred or more of those present were carrying loaded sidearms. At least a dozen were carrying openly in accordance with Kentucky law.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Wednesday, 17 October 2007 |
Ohioans For Concealed Carry will be staffing a booth at this coming weekend's (October 20-21) Bill Goodman Gun & Knife Show in Hara Arena at Dayton, OH.
OFCC volunteers will be answering questions regarding Ohio firearm issues and how each of us can have a positive impact on the current political climate regarding our cause.
Please stop by and say hello! We look forward to seeing many of our members! |
|
