Home Guns and Training News Ohio - Buckeye Firearms Association

Latest News

News Feeds

Buckeye Firearms Association
Defending Your Firearm Rights

  • 2014 "Bulletproofing the Mind" seminar is a success, but too many educators stay away
    by Jim Irvine

    On Saturday, October 11, over 350 people gathered to hear Lt. Col. Dave Grossman present his “Bulletproof Your Mind” lecture. There were concealed carry license-holders, police, military and many educators (though not nearly enough of them).

    We talked to many FASTER (Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response) graduates. Some told us about progress their school has made regarding safety and security, or that they have only been carrying a gun in school a couple months and are looking forward to taking the Level Two FASTER class next year. Some had brought administrators or board members to hear Lt. Col. Grossman talk. I commend those that took the time to learn.

    Frustratingly, we also talked to FASTER graduates who have not been authorized to carry. When asked if they brought a board member or their superintendent, the answer was the same. “They wouldn’t come.”

    How horrible that someone in charge of children’s lives does not take the time to learn the truth about violence and mass killings. They don’t read the books that are available or learn from the topic experts we have right here in Ohio. They are more concerned with protecting their fractured ideals than learning the truth and protecting your children. That is sad indeed.

    Buckeye Firearms Foundation and John Benner will be presenting at the Ohio School Board Association (OSBA) Capital Conference next month. If your superintendent is still opposed to real security in your school, have him or her stop by our booth and talk to us. We will be presenting “Protecting our Children at School” on Tuesday, November 11th at 3:45 p.m. This is something that every district needs to understand.

    One thing that stood out this year was how many couples there were. This is a great thing. We have long encouraged people to attend with a spouse, fiancée or partner. The talk is not just about “guns” but about life. It’s about our society and how to prepare yourself mentally for the reality of the world we live in.

    Many people have told me, “My husband/wife is not interested.” I tell them to bring them anyway. Grossman is not just for those who carry guns, but also for the adults in their lives. With only one exception, every spouse who has reluctantly attended has told us they were glad they came. Many other people tell us, “You were right. My husband/wife/friend would have loved this. If you have Grossman back next year, I’m going to bring him/her.”

    One point that Lt. Col. Grossman emphasized more this year was the roll of victim zones (what the anti-self-defense people call “gun free zones”). They are where active killers carry out their slaughter of innocent people, often children. Ironically these laws are often passed “for the safety of the children.” That misunderstanding might have been understandable 20 years ago, but not today.

    We are fighting a war with Al Qaeda/ISIS/ISIL and radical Islam. There have been beheadings not only in Afghanistan, but on American soil. The violence of the Mexican drug lords is often more extreme than the terrorists, and we are inviting them across our southern border. Doctors with advances in medical treatment save many lives that would have been lost a few decades ago. That may keep the murder rate in check, but it gives a false understatement of the increasing violence of our world.

    Maybe the best endorsement of Grossman is that close to half of the audience had seen him before, and wanted to hear him again. Many people enjoy hearing him every year. Grossman began the day by presenting John Farquahar of Mad Duck Training a jacket. This was the tenth time Farquahar has attended a Lt. Col. Grossman event.

    It was an enjoyable day shared by those who want to understand violence, that they may never have their lives shattered by it. We are not paranoid, we are prepared. That preparation makes us less likely to be attacked. If we are attacked, we are better able to fight and defend ourselves. And if we are injured, we are able to heal, especially emotionally faster and more complete than those who fail to grasp the concepts presented by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. No wonder this is such a popular event.

    Jim Irvine is the Buckeye Firearms Foundation President, BFA PAC Chairman and recipient of the NRA-ILA's 2011 "Jay M. Littlefield Volunteer of the Year Award" and the CCRKBA's 2012 "Gun Rights Defender of the Year Award."



  • Assault victim: “Mr. Bloomberg, you do not have the right to tell me how to defend myself.“

    Kimberly Weeks, a survivor of violent crime, is standing up to anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg and his gun control efforts. Listen to her call Michael Bloomberg out on his hypocrisy and say, “Mr. Bloomberg you do not have the right to tell me how to defend myself.“



  • Latest school shooting has Ohio superintendent fuming: "We have the answer, but they don’t want to listen.”
    by Jim Irvine

    “When the hell will people wake up!? Police can’t and won’t get there in time. We have the answer, but they don’t want to listen.”

    A school superintendent was hurt and angry at the breaking news and was calling me to vent. His school authorized him to carry after the Sandy Hook massacre. He attended FASTER (Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response) training and they have expanded their program with additional volunteers. He is personally hurt that any adult in charge of children have not yet learned the lessons and enacted changes to active killer procedures. They are failing in their basic duty to protect children from foreseeable danger.

    Another child killed at school. More with life threatening injuries. Many more with life-long emotional scars. Another multi-jurisdictional police response. Impressive footage on TV screens, but it was too late to save anyone. As is typical, the school staff and students lived and died based on events in the school, not outside response.

    Jayden Eugenio, a 17 year-old student at Marysville Pilchuck high school in Washington is quoted as saying, “I was shaking. You would never believe this would happen in your school.”

    This is a simple comment. Maybe it’s the voice of innocence. Or maybe it’s a damnation of school preparedness.

    Has the school run active killer drills this year? Did they involve police, fire, and medical personal? Do they have a single point of contact for students, staff and parents to voice security concerns? Do they have locked doors and single point entry? Have they implemented ALICE (Alert Lockdown Inform Counter Evacuate) training?

    Did they have a school resource officer in the building? Are local police trained in solo entry or are they still using the outdated quad/diamond/wedge procedures? Did the school employ any armed security? Do they authorize staff to carry?

    Did the school board and superintendent adequately prepare for reasonably foreseeable dangers? Or did they “believe this would never happen” at their school? Have they followed the advice of leading experts on school violence like John Benner and Dave Grossman? Or are they in denial?

    The media is unlikely to find answers to these basic questions, but every parent should be asking those questions to their school leaders. We all have busy lives, but we need to be asking tough questions of our school board members.

    No one ever expects a person contemplating murder to come to their school, church, workplace or community. Yet we are no longer shocked that it happened somewhere again.

    Like a seat belt in a car accident, we don’t “expect” to need it, but we know we might. Defensive driving is not paranoia, its common sense. Preparing for violence should be no different and those who mock being properly prepared for the thing most likely to kill children in school should not be in charge of their defense.

    Another school superintendent told me, “I was a principal when Columbine happened. It was very emotional for me. I remember feeling totally unprepared should an event like that happen at our school.”

    He and staff from each of his district’s schools have attended FASTER training. Some attended the Level II class a few months ago. Commenting on his perspective of news of the latest school killing he calmly said, “I know no one is completely prepared for one of these events, and I pray we never have one. We now have people with training and tools in place. I know we can quickly stop a killer and deal with the situation and our children are safer because we are as prepared as we can be.”

    What is the attitude of your school? Do they prepare for the worst, or just hope “it would never happen?” If your school leaders have not taken the time to attend a Dave Grossman seminar, encourage them to attend the “Protecting our children in school” session at the OSBA Capital Conference* next month.

    Jim Irvine is the Buckeye Firearms Foundation President, BFA PAC Chairman and recipient of the NRA-ILA's 2011 "Jay M. Littlefield Volunteer of the Year Award" and the CCRKBA's 2012 "Gun Rights Defender of the Year Award."

    *Buckeye Firearms Foundation and John Benner will be presenting at the Ohio School Board Association (OSBA) Capital Conference in November. If your superintendent is still opposed to real security in your school, have him or her stop by our booth and talk to us. We will be presenting “Protecting our Children at School” on Tuesday, November 11th at 3:45 p.m.




  • Buckeye Firearms Association's Sean Maloney heads to Connecticut to help in election effort
    by Chad D. Baus

    Regular readers of BuckeyeFirearms.org are likely to recall Buckeye Firearms Association volunteers' involvement in last year's successful recall effort, resulting in the ouster of two anti-gun rights Colorado state Senators. We are pleased to report that one of our volunteers is at it again - this time in the state of Connecticut.

    Democrat governor Dannel Malloy signed a draconian gun control law into place in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre in that state, and while it has done nothing to curb crime and would not have prevented the incident at Newtown, the new law did disarm thousands upon thousands of law-abiding citizens and force jobs out of state, as gun manufacturers fled to more friendly states. The law bans modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines, and current owners of the popular rifles must either get rid of their lawfully-purchased possessions or submit to a gun registration system. Gun owners will likely recall the viral image of long lines of Connecticut residents waiting in line to submit to register their rifles.

    As was the case in Colorado, the anti-self-defense Malloy in the state are being bolstered financially by anti-gun rights billionaire bully Michael Bloomberg, and as usual, they enjoy the support of a sycophant media. BFA Region Leader Sean Maloney has been called to Connecticut to help in the fight to defeat Malloy in his reelection bid and send yet another message to the overbearing Bloomberg.

    Maloney arrived in Connecticut Monday, and although he hit the ground running, he took the time to send back this quick note:

    First day of travel then I worked phone banks and thanked all of the volunteers who dedicate themselves to the fight for freedom. Folks these people have no 2A rights.  The next time you ask yourself if its worth it or struggle to justify the time away from your family spend five minutes where they have lost what you fight for.

    To keep up with Sean's efforts, check out 2nd Shift 4 Liberty on Facebook.

    While Buckeye Firearms Association generally focuses on Ohio, this particular election involves unrelenting control freak Bloomberg and could have national repercussions. That's why BFA leader Sean Maloney has traveled to Connecticut to help lead the fight. And you can be part of the battle as well.

    >>> DONATE to our political action committee.

    Why this is important:

    It's only on very rare occasions that we venture out of the Buckeye State, and when we do, it's for very good reasons. Connecticut is over 600 miles away, but this special election will affect the gun rights of everyone in the country, including all of us here in Ohio.

    Why? Because Bloomberg's strategy is to reach out from his perch in New York City and establish anti-gun strongholds in key states by pumping in money, setting up paid political activists, and subverting the will of locals by changing the course of elections and stuffing legislatures with lackeys who will do his bidding.

    If Bloomberg is allowed to go unchallenged, he will repeat this formula to assert his will in state after state. To those who value liberty, he is the most dangerous man in America.

    To quote Mike Adams writing at InfoWars, "The ultimate dream of people like Bloomberg is to have a nation of obedient slave workers who are completely disarmed, silenced into submission, and completely stripped of all rights granted under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. All citizens are presumed to be guilty criminals while all government officials are presumed to be wise and all-powerful."

    We need to win this battle and send a message that gun owners will not lay down and allow tyrants like Bloomberg to roll over our rights and freedoms. We will all stand together and fight them head on.

    Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary, BFA PAC Vice Chairman, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website.

    Media Coverage:

    Hartford Courant Both Sides of the Gun Debate Ramp Up Their Activism in Connecticut

    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is bringing in two prominent 2nd Amendment activists--Timothy Knight, who led a successful movement in Colorado to recall pro-gun control legislators, and Sean Maloney, an attorney from Ohio--for a series of appearances in Connecticut, including a press conference Monday at the state Capitol.

    "Both Timothy and Sean will have an itinerary that includes guest radio spots, visits to firearms retailers and visits with gatherings of 2nd Amendment supporters in certain locations,'' the CCDL stated in a press release announcing the visit.

    Middletown Press - Connecticut gun rights activists urge vote for Tom Foley, not Joe Visconti

    Sean Maloney, an attorney and 2nd Amendment activist and leader of the Buckeye Firearms Association in Ohio, was also there at Wilson’s invitation.

    ...Maloney told the group to influence their friends to vote Malloy out. “This is you chance for a recall,” he said. “Our civil rights are borderless ... we need to protect each other ... get out the vote ... you are not powerless."

    New Haven Register -  Race for Connecticut governor fueled by $1M in ads over gun debate

    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League has invited Timothy Knight of Colorado and Sean Maloney, a Second Amendment activist and the leader of Buckeye Firearms Association, to come to the north steps of the state Capitol to rally behind Foley.

    WTNH (ABC New Haven, CT) - Leaders of gun advocacy group visit Connecticut

    “Get off the couch, get out, make phone calls to your friends, this is your opportunity, this is your chance for a recall,” said Sean Maloney of the Buckeye Firearms Association in Ohio who also came to help the effort.

    Yale Daily News - Pro-gun activists rally in Hartford

    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League hosted the conference, where Second Amendment activists — Timothy Knight from Colorado and Sean Maloney from Ohio — spoke in favor of gun rights. Although neither speaker disclosed their political affiliation, the CCDL, which is a non-partisan organization that works to protect Second Amendment rights, has endorsed Republican Tom Foley for governor.

    ...Knight led the recall of two Colorado state senators, John Morse and Angela Giron, after they supported more stringent gun control laws last year in response to the Aurora, Colorado, shooting. Maloney, a leader at the Buckeye Firearms Association, said that he got involved with the Colorado recall because he could not stand by and watch passively as constitutional rights were curtailed.

    ...Both Knight and Maloney stressed that they are in Connecticut simply to motivate people to exercise their right to vote, not to support a specific candidate.

    ...Both Knight and Maloney are also running to serve on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association.

    “Whether I’m on the board or not, I’m never going to stop my fight for freedom,” Maloney said.



  • Do you still believe in Mom and Dad?

    We're surrounded by a world where, for too many, being a parent no longer means being there. But we remember when being a parent meant being there when things went right, and when things went wrong. Those moms and dads are still here — they're the Good Guys.

    >>> CLICK HERE to join the NRA or renew your membership now.

    If you know some good guys and gals, get them a gift membership.



  • Fact-Checkers Appoint Themselves Arbiters of What Constitute “Gun Rights”

    In the past, NRA has detailed the tendency of mainstream media “fact checkers” to skew information to support a particular viewpoint or agenda.  This tradition continued this week as the Tampa Bay Times’ PolitiFact and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker both took issue with an NRA ad running against Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu.

    The ad correctly states that “Mary Landrieu voted to take away your gun rights,” following images of a mother at home with a child during a break-in.  The two fact-checking outfits seized on the statement and deemed it false, giving it their lowest ratings.

    In 2013, Landrieu voted for the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer amendment, which would have banned private firearm transfers initiated on websites or print publications or at gun shows (as defined).  The Post seemed skeptical that the amendment would have restricted gun rights at all, and took issue with the statement’s accuracy in relation to the ad’s vivid imagery.

    To the first point, it is incontestable that a vote for the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer bill constitutes a vote to take away gun rights.  Currently, gun owners in most states enjoy the right to privately transfer firearms.  They often do so by facilitating such transfers at gun shows and by advertising through online and print publications.  The private transfer restriction amendment would have outlawed this activity, making firearm transfers more difficult, and therefore less likely to occur. 

    Contrary to what many at the Post or PolitiFact might think, background checks can be a significant burden for gun owners.  Unlike the picture painted by gun control supporters, the background check regimes operated by the federal government and several states are not the picture of efficiency.  As of 2013, 28,000 firearms purchasers have been forced to resort to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System’s Voluntary Appeals File program to avoid lengthy delays.  These are lawful purchasers whose checks are initially flagged for additional scrutiny but eventually allowed to proceed after further investigation.  In 2013, about 8 percent of firearm transfers were “delayed for additional review,” affecting nearly 1.7 million transferees.  Some state background check systems have shut down for maintenance, or experienced significant delays.  Further, there are time and monetary burdens associated with finding and traveling to a location that can conduct a check, even if the background check system performs flawlessly.

    Additionally, there is a privacy burden imposed by the amendment.  Those knowledgeable of the history of confiscation in countries that have instituted recordkeeping requirements on firearms understand that the ability to transfer firearms without federal recordkeeping or interference is a vital part of their gun rights.  This is all the more so, given recent proposals in the U.S. to round up disfavored firearms that were originally purchased lawfully and used only for lawful purposes.  While the legislation would not have outlawed these transactions in all scenarios, it would have subjected major categories of transfers to this control by forcing firearms transferees to fill out federal paperwork that Federal Firearm Licensees are required to maintain. 

    Finally, Federal Firearm Licensees could have charged any fees they wished for conducting these checks or refused to do them altogether, potentially rendering them a practical impossibility in some cases.  A $50 transfer fee might be the difference between whether or not some people, especially low-income people living in high-crime neighborhoods, could afford to buy a defensive firearm.

    To the Post’s second point, it is undeniable that the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer amendment would have, at the very least, restricted the mother’s options for acquiring a firearm for self-defense, thus taking away a portion of her gun rights that she might have otherwise exercised.  The Post neglects to acknowledge that this restriction of options necessarily imposes an additional cost on acquiring firearms.  Gun control supporters in part advocate for further costs to be imposed on gun owners, knowing that the more burdensome it is to acquire a gun, the less people will be willing to become gun owners. Is it conceivable that a mother, many of whom face significant time and monetary burdens, could be discouraged from owning a firearm for self-defense by legislation that restricts her options for acquiring a firearm and imposes additional privacy, time and monetary costs?  Of course it is.  Suppression of gun ownership, whether broadly or at the margins, underlies nearly all gun control proposals. 

    The scenario depicted by the ad also serves to underscore more broadly the need for robust protection of the Second Amendment.  However it is originally obtained, having a firearm at the right moment could be a matter of life and death. This is exactly why those who support the Second Amendment consider attempts to limit the means by which persons obtain firearms for lawful purposes an infringement of their rights.  As the ad states, “How you defend yourself is up to you. It’s your choice.” The Manchin-Toomey Amendment inarguably would have limited the choices people had in obtaining firearms for self-defense. 

    It is ironic that these two media outlets would presume to decide what constitutes a gun right or its taking, considering that their editorial boards reacted with disbelief to the notion that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms at all.  In a 2002 editorial complaining about Attorney General John Ashcroft’s endorsement of the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment, titled, “Ashcroft becomes what we feared,” the Tampa Bay Times (then the St. Petersburg Times) lamented, “[f]or at least six decades, the Justice Department has interpreted the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as pertaining to a state-organized militia. Not anymore.” 

    Following the 2008 Heller Supreme Court decision recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Post ran an editorial with a title calling the ruling “misguided.”  Refusing to yield to reality, it groused that “Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, concluded that the amendment guarantees a right to bear arms for private use, such as self-defense, although nowhere is that explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.”  Statements like these show that PolitiFact’s and the Post’s definitions of gun rights, or what might be considered an infringement of them, exists against the backdrop of an established record of Second Amendment denial. 

    NRA’s ad takes to task a politician for a vote to restrict the right to privately transfer firearms.  Any reasonable analysis of the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer amendment would concede that the legislation would have taken away gun rights currently enjoyed by gun owners.  This includes the rights of the mother depicted in the ad.  She, as well as other law-abiding Americans, would have found herself deprived of avenues for obtaining affordable firearms for lawful purposes they might have otherwise used.



  • Coattails reversed? Make sure you vote!
    by Jim Irvine

    Most people are familiar with the term “riding someone's coattails.” One dictionary describes it this way:

    To use your connection with someone successful to achieve success yourself.

    e.g. "I don't think she would get promoted without riding her boss's coattails." or "My opponent is riding the coattails of the popular governor of Massachusetts."

    In a Presidential election year, those in the same party as the winning president can expect a few close races because people voting for the President are likely to vote for the same party down ticket. In the absence of a Presidential race, a Governor being the top ticket can have a similar effect.

    But can it work in reverse?

    This year in Ohio, Governor John Kasich (R) is expected to win by a huge margin. Democrats have given up on his opponent, Cuyahoga County's Ed Fitzgerald, and are spending all their money on down-ticket races. Kasich is so far ahead, he probably could not lose this race if he tried.

    So will down-ticket races have the traditional benefit from a strong gubernatorial candidate, or could Kasich's huge lead backfire?

    Many pro-gun rights people we talk to are voicing valid concerns about low voter turnout. If your candidate is going to win by double-digit margins, and there is no U.S. Senate race, you may find yourself asking, "why bother voting?"

    Because the down-ticket races are critical!

    The entire Ohio House, half the Ohio Senate and a host of local judges and county races are on the ballot for Ohio voters this year. The offices of Auditor, Treasurer, Secretary of State and Attorney General are all in play, and they matter.

    In addition, Ohio Supreme Court Justices Sharon Kennedy and Judi French are up for election. Two years ago, we lost a pro-gun justice. With the looming court battles and Governor Kasich's expected run-away victory, these Supreme Court races are at the top of anti-gun groups' wish list for races they can steal. Ohio's Supreme Court Justices are elected to six year terms. So if an anti-gun rights candidate wins next month, we are stuck with that person for at least six years, long enough to issue multiple damaging rulings. These are critical races for all Ohio gun owners.

    Many pro-gun rights voters might think they can stay home because they know Governor Kasich will win, but to do so could have the result of handing some of these other important races to anti-self-defense candidates who are looking to upset a few races due to the laziness of the electorate. In 2012, Republicans stayed home in large numbers, and President Obama was re-elected. So who is to blame that Obamacare was allowed to take effect? The president or those apathetic Republicans?

    Every year there are multiple elections decided by less than 1% of the vote, often by very small number of total votes cast. Will those tight races go to a pro-Second Amendment or an anti-freedom candidate? It is up to gun owners - many of whom didn’t vote in 2012.

    All gun owners and those who respect personal freedom must get to the polls this November to support all the other candidates on the ballot.

    Jim Irvine is the Buckeye Firearms Association Chairman, and recipient of the NRA-ILA's 2011 "Jay M. Littlefield Volunteer of the Year Award" and the CCRKBA's 2012 "Gun Rights Defender of the Year Award."


     

    Here are some resources for the upcoming election:

    Sharon Kennedy's website
    Judi French's website
    Access our candidate grades and endorsements
    Download our Pro-Gun Voter Guide
    Create a Custom Voter Guide for your district


Hosts & Domains NOW!
ER Hosting Freedom - Click Below Now!
Join the NRA

Join NRA - $10 Discount Offer

$10-Off Discount Offer and Many Benefits
Web Hosting Reseller
Find Us on Facebook
Facebook Image