# Advocates seek showdown over gun rights



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

*Advocates seek showdown over gun rights*
By Justin R. Kalmes
Toledo Free Press Metro Reporter
[email protected]

Bruce Beatty isn't shy when it comes to showing off the Colt .45 semi-automatic pistol he keeps strapped to his side. He's just as adamant when explaining why he has the right to do so.

What really sets off the avid Second Amendment advocate is local governments trying to impose gun laws that conflict with Ohio's constitution. Such bodies, Beatty said, have no right to enforce restrictions greater than those signed into law at the state level.

And with the Legislature's override last month of former Gov. Bob Taft's veto of House Bill 347, municipalities trying to challenge the law of the state under the constitution's "home rule" clause had better comply when pre-emption of about 80 gun laws in Toledo and other cities takes effect in March or prepare to face a fight with Beatty and other concealed-carry supporters, he said.

"I will be satisfied when these people, under their oath of office, do their duty in strict compliance with the constitution of the state," Beatty said. "I'll quit when that happens or I die."

It looks as though Beatty will get the showdown he's seeking.

Several Ohio cities have vowed to take the state to court on the basis the state law violates their constitutional right to home rule. Because the new law does not go into effect until March 14, the City of Toledo is in the process of weighing its options and deciding which course it will pursue, said Brian Schwartz, spokesman for Mayor Carty Finkbeiner.

"It's not only our assault-weapon ban that would be impacted," said Maureen Harper, a spokeswoman for Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson. "We have a law that prohibits minors from possessing firearms. We have a law that holds adults accountable if a child is in possession of a firearm. Those are three that would definitely be affected by this."

The Ohio Municipal League, which represents cities and backed Taft's veto, said the new law even strips cities of the rights that private-property owners would have to, say, regulate gun activity at parks and playgrounds.

"This double standard just does not make good sense and certainly is not fair," executive director Susan Cave wrote in her protest of the bill.

*Home rule*

But those like Ohioans for Concealed Carry representative Jeff Garvas say local gun laws do nothing to prevent criminals from using firearms in a violent manner.

"If you're going to put someone in jail for acting violently with a firearm, you want it to be a felony," Garvas said, noting less than three convictions have taken place statewide from all of the collective assault weapons bans in local communities.

Garvas said those municipalities looking to challenge the new gun law are misunderstanding what home rule means. Because the concealed-carry law will fit the description of a general law, he said, home rule will not and should not apply.

"There's very little ground to challenge this on," he said.

Toby Hoover, executive director for the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, said the Legislature's override of Taft's veto neglects to weigh into consideration situations unique to large cities. She said those municipalities should be able to determine how they want to approach crime prevention.

"Our government should not be telling other forms of government in the communities that they can't govern themselves," Hoover said. "This body of legislators has decided that they think they know better than everybody," she said.

Toledo City Council President Rob Ludeman said he favors home rule, but does not mind throwing out Toledo's stricter gun ordinances because he did not support them when they were passed.

"Someone who plans to commit a felony with a handgun can find a gun on the street through their connections, which are never going to be licensed with the city, so you're not prohibiting people from committing that type of criminal activity," Ludeman said. "In doing so, you're hurting the law-abiding citizen more than you're hurting the criminal."

Beatty agrees. He said the country does not have a firearms problem, but rather a social problem that is not being addressed by the proper people in the correct fashion.

"You can legislate several things," Beatty said. "But you cannot legislate morality and you cannot legislate common sense."

Laws allowing responsible possession and use of firearms, he said, are responsible for more preventable homicides than any gun control laws have been or could be.

"When you disarm the public, you're throwing lambs to the wolves," Beatty said.

Though he's carried a firearm for several years, Beatty said he has only drawn it once in self-defense. He said he hopes he never has to again.

"I don't like the way it feels," he said. "Would I do it again if I had to? Hell yes."


----------



## falshman70 (Jul 13, 2006)

So if I understand correctly the Ohio cities are going to go to court to argue that their right to "home rule" trumps the just-passed law that assures all Ohioans of their 2nd amendment rights under the US constitution.

This is like Michigan universities ignoring the recently passed ballot initiative outlawing quotas.

It will be interesting to see how this ends up. The anti-gun crowd will never take the voice of the majority as the final word. They always have hope of pushing their agenda through in the courts.


----------

