I've never understood the concept of restricting the freedoms of law-abiding people in an effort make us safer from criminals.

The segment that reads "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security" clearly illustrates the rights of Ohioans to own and carry firearms. Furthermore, I've often referred to the Ohio constitution in debate over the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's second amendment as I feel that certain state constitutions, such as Ohio's, are demonstrative of what our U.S. Constitution is designed to establish.

Yes, I would have signed that bill into law. However, I would have pushed for a bill that was more reasonable in its stipulations on gun owners. I feel that the current legislation is designed to deter gun owners from acquiring licenses to carry yet it was an important first step in recognizing and allowing the exercise of the rights of gun owners in Ohio.

Standardized laws in statewide fashion are better for all those who elect to carry a weapon in Ohio. Community laws cause confusion and unnecessary complications for any citizen that is exercising their right to carry a concealed weapon. Furthermore, It would concern me that certain communities might try to impose unfair restrictions on gun owners for the sake of promoting their own political agenda while causing complications with legislative overview in cases where infringement of rights might be the case.

I feel that it is an unnecessary restriction. This argument fails to take into account that people who are obtaining licensing for carrying concealed weapons are law-abiding citizens and are not the ones that we should fear. It is the unlicensed, armed criminals that are a danger to police officers and society in general.

I do not believe that such legislation deters crime. Again, only the law-abiding among us follow these rules. It is the criminals that we must worry about and no legislation or restriction is going to keep criminals from being criminals.

I've never understood the concept of restricting the freedoms of law-abiding people in an effort make us safer from criminals.

I would absolutely support such legislation. It seems to me that one may expose themselves to a greater risk by trying to retreat in a life threatening situation where it involves an aggressor. If a criminal decides to put his life in jeopardy by threatening my life then he must assume the risk of me taking his life as well. There should be no need for me to further his aggression by trying to flee.

As you may recall, I worked as a bail bondsman for some years and have arrested approximately 700 felons and was shot once in the line of duty, nearly losing my life. I understand full well what someone must do in a confrontation and how an attempt to flee an aggressor can cause increased aggression and danger to the one trying to retreat.

It is about time that legislators are beginning to learn that lesson.

Absolutely not. In the situation of New Orleans, as an example, I cannot think of a time when citizens needed to be armed more than then. Again, when you strip good people of their right to bear arms, you empower the criminals.

I would adamantly support education on guns in school but when you tell me that this program uses no pictures of actual guns it strikes me as catering to knee-jerk anti-gun reactionaries. I feel that the best way to inform is exposure and that children who get into trouble with guns have not spent time learning about them properly. Often it is the things that are taboo that attract the interest of children the most and with negative consequences.

It is a public record and perhaps it should remain as such. However, the behavior by the media is what troubles me. I would support legislation that kept the media or any group from using public records as a means to intimidate people, which is what I feel they are attempting to do. It would be no different if the media decided to publish every divorce in the paper in an attempt to shame people. The wholesale exposure of these types of public records serves no public good.

As I have already stated repeatedly, I see no usefulness in the restriction of the rights of law-abiding citizens. I see no more danger in a licensed handgun owner carrying a weapon in a public place than I do a police officer.

I would uphold the restriction where it concerns establishments whose sole purpose is the service of alcohol. However, if the service of alcohol is secondary such as in a restaurant, the restriction should not stand.

I would not restrict the owner or manager of a bar from carrying a concealed weapon.

In this case I feel that the influence of alcohol and the problems it creates could cause unreasonable risk in a bar, even to someone who is not under the influence of alcohol.

I do not support the allowance of non-citizens to own and/or carry firearms in Ohio.

I have owned and used guns all of my life. My father was an avid hunter and taught me to shoot and how to do so responsibly and safely. I too have taught my children how to safely and responsibly handle and use firearms. My wife has even spent time shooting with me and learning about firearm use and safety.

I was shot in 1992, while working as a bail bondsman, while attempting to apprehend a fugitive and nearly lost my life. I understand, with great depth, the importance of proper firearm use and safety.

Those who feel that even the sight of a gun is a dangerous thing are, in my opinion, a bigger risk to safety than any law-abiding gun owner. Passiveness and complacency are two of the greatest detriments to the well-being of society today.

I also firmly believe that an armed populace is the best defense against the advance of crime and violence. Unarmed citizens are the easy prey of armed criminals but when those same criminals are in the presence of armed citizens, they no longer hold the upper hand.

I am terribly sorry that I took so long to answer your new questionnaire. I've just been so busy lately and I wanted to answer these questions personally. I know my opponents have staffers that can answer questions for them but I do not believe in doing that. I want people to know exactly who I am and where I stand.