Home Guns and Training News Ohio - Buckeye Firearms Association

Latest News

News Feeds

Buckeye Firearms Association
Defending Your Firearm Rights

  • Wisconsin Police Chief Badgers Residents to Forego Second and Fourth Amendment Rights

    Perhaps inspired by the recent introduction of surprise home inspections of gun licensees in the UK, Beloit, Wisc., Police Chief Norm Jacobs issued a press release on December 1, urging city residents to volunteer for warrantless police searches of their homes for firearms. Jacobs framed the residential probes as a valuable “opportunity” his department was offering to the public. Notably, the press release did not offer participants immunity from prosecution for any illegally-possessed firearms or other contraband police might find while “inspecting” the premises, suggesting the program was aimed squarely at law-abiding households.

    In the press release, Jacobs made clear that he doesn’t have a very high opinion of the gun-owing residents in his community. The concerns that prompted his initiative included his belief that residents are not able to account for guns within their own homes, fail to secure them adequately against theft or unauthorized access, or use them “in the fit of rage” to “settle scores.” Jacobs even absurdly insisted, “We need to consider potential crime guns as if they were the Ebola Virus and deal with them similarly to a health care issue” (no word from the chief yet on whether he’ll offer a similar program to snoop for unhealthy snacks or those showing signs of infectious disease).

    Beloit isn’t the first city to explore this type of “voluntary” rights relinquishment program. In 2008, Boston and the District of Columbia launched so-called “Safe Homes” initiatives where a resident, or an informer, could alert police to the possibility of an illegally possessed firearm inside a residence. Police would then be sent to the location and attempt to acquire consent for a search of the premises. The initiatives were met with widespread opposition, prompting D.C. to abandon their program, while the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts expressed its displeasure with Boston’s. Offering a further critique of the Boston program was Boston City Councilor Michael Flaherty. A Boston Globe article described his opposition to the initiative, stating, “Flaherty argues that the Safe Homes Initiative has been a bust. Obviously, not many people have been willing to turn in their weapons voluntarily.”

    Fortunately, Beloit city officials have stepped in and put a halt to Jacobs’ scheme. In a December 9 press release, the Beloit Office of City Manager stated, “At this time, the department is withdrawing its offer under this initiative, and will be submitting the program to the City’s legal office for further review.” Officials admitted reaction to the program had been negative.

    Chief Jacobs’s belief that firearms in the home of law-abiding residents pose enough of a public safety risk for police to search for and seize them serves as a chilling reminder of how important all of our constitutional rights are, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It also suggests a need for the chief to rethink his policing priorities and focus on those actually committing crime, none of whom accepted his offer or would ever be likely to do so. In the future, we suggest he leave the “health care issues” and house calls to local doctors and start brushing up on police tactics for dealing with actual bad guys.

    © 2014 National Rifle Association of America. Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.



  • Man killed in Columbus home invasion had prior record of violence
    by Chad D. Baus

    The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that a man who was shot and killed in an apparent home invasion had been one of a number of people charged in 2013 after what police said was “a riot” that turned fatal in Circleville.

    From the article:

    Columbus police said yesterday that someone who lives at 556 Station Rd., south of Sullivant Avenue, called 911 at

    10:17 p.m. and said someone with a gun had broken in.

    The caller reported that he had shot the intruder. Police responded and found Brandon Bolin, 19, dead inside the house.

    The resident of the home and several witnesses were interviewed by police but all were released, police said. Detectives said the investigation continues.

    According to the Dispatch, the 2013 street brawl involving Bolin broke out after he had reportedly tried to break into a home in the neighborhood and had been caught, prompting the fight. A young woman involved in the fight collapsed and died. It was initially believed that she had been kicked in the head, but an autopsy revealed an aneurysm had ruptured after her blood pressure rose during the fight.

    Under Ohio's Castle Doctrine law, if someone unlawfully enters or attempts to enter an occupied home or temporary habitation, or occupied car, citizens have an initial presumption that they may act in self defense, and will not be second-guessed by the State.

    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.



  • Buckeye Firearms Assoc's Linda Walker discusses lessons after assault of Ohio Realtor on NRANews

    In the wake of the sexual assault of a 39 year-old Realtor in Zanesville, and her subsequent decision to share her experience in hopes of warning others, Buckeye Firearms Association Vice President Linda Walker (herself a Realtor) discusses the lessons learned.



  • Polls Find Broad Increase in Support for the RKBA

    Support for the right to keep and bear arms has sharply increased, and support for restricting gun ownership has sharply decreased, over the last two years, according to the results of a new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

    The poll, conducted earlier this month, found that 57 percent of Americans believe that gun ownership does more to protect people from crime, while only 38 percent believe guns do more to put people at risk.

    Viewed in conjunction with Pew’s previous polls on the same topic, the percentage of Americans who believe that gun ownership protects people from crime has risen by nine points during the last two years, a period during which President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and other gun control supporters have campaigned hard for restrictions on guns. By comparison, the percentage believing gun ownership puts people at risk has risen only one percent.

    Pew also asked whether people believe that protecting gun rights is more important than restricting gun ownership. Again, the response trend shows increased support for Second Amendment rights. “Since January 2013, support for gun rights has increased seven percentage points -- from 45% to 52% -- while the share prioritizing gun control has fallen five points (from 51% to 46%),” the polling organization said.

    Importantly, the polls find that over the last two years, the belief that gun ownership does more to protect people from crime than to place people at risk increased sharply among men, women, whites, African-Americans, all Republicans, conservative Republicans, Independents and conservative and moderate Democrats, and decreased only among liberal Democrats. Support for the belief that gun ownership does more to place people at risk decreased sharply among African-Americans, all Republicans and conservative Republicans, decreased slightly among conservative and moderate Democrats, stayed the same among women and Independents, increased slightly among men and whites, and increased sharply among liberal Democrats.

    Similarly, the belief that it is more important to protect gun rights than to restrict gun ownership increased among men, women, all age groups, persons of all levels of education, all Republicans, conservative Republicans, Independents, all Democrats, conservative and moderate Democrats, parents, non-parents, urbanites, suburbanites, and rural dwellers, and decreased only among liberal Democrats. Support for the belief that it is more important to restrict gun ownership increased among persons ages 30-49 and persons with a Bachelor’s degree (but not among persons with a graduate degree), and remained the same among liberal Democrats.

    Perhaps the most shocking of the polls’ findings, for gun control supporters who have convinced themselves that time is on their side, support for gun ownership rights increased eight points, while support for restricting gun ownership decreased seven points, among persons ages 18-29.

    Also, the belief that gun ownership does more to protect people from crime increased a whopping 25 points, while the belief that gun ownership places people at risk decreased 12 points, among African-Americans. Similarly, the belief that it is more important to protect gun rights rose 10 points, while the belief that it is more important to restrict gun ownership decreased six points, among African-Americans.

    Asked by the Washington Times to comment on the polls’ findings, Ladd Everitt, of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns), said the wording of the survey might have influenced the results.

    Sorry, Ladd. Americans of nearly every description are embracing the Second Amendment at historic levels, even as its opponents pour historic amounts of money and effort into suppressing it. These results support what we’ve said many times before: American freedom is not for sale.

    © 2014 National Rifle Association of America. Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.



  • Newtown Parents File Suit Against Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer
    by Jim Shepherd

    In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act was passed to protect gun companies from being sued for crimes committed with their firearms. It's intent was to protect the companies from liability because their products performed as they were designed.

    Yesterday, ten of the families from the Newtown, Connecticut massacre suit against Bushmaster firearms, firearms distributor Camfour and Riverview Gun Sales, the companies that manufactured, distributed and sold -legally- the gun Adam Lanza used to butcher those twenty six people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, respectively.

    They've filed suit asking an exception to the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act under the theory of negligent entrustment. Their attorneys will argue that the companies are liable for the deaths at Sandy Hook because they knowingly sold civilians weapons only meant for combat.

    They're seeking unspecified damages, but insist the money isn't the object. They say their purpose is to stop the "funneling of military weapons to civilians."

    By now, many of you are likely using deletable expletives at that suggestion.

    The idea of suing companies for the lawful manufacturing, distribution and sale of the nation's most popular rifle for everything from hunting to competition shooting is laughable, right?

    Sure, if you look at facts. But this case is not based on any facts. In fact, an examination of their lawsuit's introduction makes it apparent this case isn't about facts, it's about emotions.

    The "Introduction" reads more like the voice-over script that opens a tragic movie than a lawsuit based on facts:

    1. This is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief stemming from the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.
    2. In less than five minutes, 20 first-grade children and 6 adults were killed. Two others were wounded.
    3. The number of lives lost in those 264 seconds was made possible by the shooter's weapon of choice: a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, model XM15-E2s.
    4. The AR-15 was designed as a military weapon, and it has always excelled on the battlefield. Born of the exigencies of modern combat, the AR-15 was engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency.
    5. The AR-15 proved to be very good at its job. It has endured.....

    And it continues on, hammering home the flood of emotions we all feel at the thoughts of innocent children being systematically murdered with no one there to defend them.

    If your adult life has been spent producing video, you know you're only missing the cues for music ("music swells and fills as the camera pans the crime scene") to have a compelling bit of video production.

    And the suit continues, making several of the blanket assertions that are purely emotional and regularly employed by anti-gun proponents: the AR-15 actually has little utility for "legitimate civilian purposes" "it's size and overwhelming firepower, so well adapted for the battlefield, are in fact liabilities in home defense".

    This isn't a hint of dancing in the blood of those 26 victims, it's a carefully choreographed ballet, designed to employ a flood of emotion in hopes of overcoming the simple fact that the inanimate object wasn't to blame, a crazy boy named Lanza was.

    For all its "overwhelming firepower" any rifle will never more effective than when it's employed by an evil person who's willing to die after slaughtering his carefully chosen victims - the most defenseless form of humanity: children.

    As a parent, I grieve with those families, misguided as this lawsuit appears to me.

    But understanding their grief doesn't excuse their participation in what is nothing more than a shakedown lawsuit. They lack a compelling fact to back a claim of negligent entrustment. But no one who has watched an emotional jury trial can be one-hundred percent confident the jury won't find in their favor.

    Juries are people -and when faced with horrific crimes, they want to blame someone the same way people wanted to "do something" after the murders were committed.

    If that were to happen, the defendants would be forced to appeal rather than face a staggering liability judgement. And their legal meter would keep running.

    But would a guilty verdict -even one without facts- have a higher chance of being overturned after review by a supposedly neutral judicial panel? Normally, but this isn't a normal case. It will be characterized by anti-gun groups as the ultimate battle of good against evil.

    Can anyone be neutral if they're faced with Ferguson, Missouri levels of emotional protesters?

    In cases like this, the defendant with the lightest hip pocket is generally the first to offer settlement rather than risk financial ruin. In many instances their insurance carrier approves the offer to limit their potential losses.

    That's why I characterize suits such as this shakedowns. In many instances, the settlement is the reason behind the suit. And I'm not accusing these parents of that- but I have no problem believing anti-gun zealots would willingly use them to advance their agenda.

    And they're being exploited. Their grief is real, and the contemplation of their sense of loss is unimaginable. But they're also dealing with an equally crippling emotion- guilt. No one who's come through this sort of trauma could escape it. And that guilt is enough to drive them to almost any length to blame someone rather than consider the possibility that they really did nothing to protect their children.

    It's the same guilt faced by parents as they work hard to better the lives of their families, knowing they're simultaneously missing out on the their family's life. These parents are facing the fact that they missed what mattered most -and now change isn't an option. That's a hurt too-large to contemplate.

    And I can't forgive those who take advantage of that hurt- and disguise their manipulation as caring.

    Arguing the facts means you'll be labeled uncaring, but exploiting the hurt and using emotion to advance an agenda that ultimately wants all of us to be as defenseless as those twenty children at Sandy Hook is characterized as "caring".

    In times like these, the National Shooting Sports Foundation's response is probably the best response: "The U.S. Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act in 2005 in order to prevent lawsuits that seek to blame manufacturers for the criminal misuse of products that were lawfully sold. Like all Americans, we have great sympathy for the families represented in this suit. This tragedy was caused by the criminal actions of a mentally unstable individual. The suit lacks factual and legal merit."

    Yes, their suit lacks merit, but sympathetic feelings toward the families - even while we fight their lawsuit -doesn't make us hypocrites, it only confirms our humanity.

    They're wrong, but we still hurt for their loss. That is not a contradiction.

    Republished from The Outdoor Wire.



  • Hamilton Co. Sheriff sees red after confiscating painted handgun
    by Chad D. Baus

    Last week, State Rep. Alicia Reece's (D-Cincinnati) introduction of HB 681 ('Toy' Gun Control) was given great fanfare by media throughout Ohio and beyond.

    HB 681 seeks to mandate that any gun other than a firearm (including airsoft guns and BB/pellet guns) be marked with an orange barrel tip and orange trigger guard along with florescent adhesive bands. Such guns would be exempted from these requirements if they are "a device the entire exterior surface of which is white, bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright green, bright blue, bright pink, or bright purple, either singly or as the predominant color in combination with other colors in any pattern."

    In other words, Reece believes that law enforcement will be able to stop using lethal force to defend themselves against someone if they are brandishing a gun that looks like this:

    The trouble for Reece and her media psycophants, of course, is that many firearms already DO look like this, and those that don't already can be made to. In fact, the gun in the photo above is in fact a firearm which was confiscated from a man carrying 9 grams of cocaine by the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office just days after she introduced her bill.

    From the Associated Press:

    Southwest Ohio authorities said Friday they arrested a man with a loaded handgun painted red to resemble a toy.

    The arrest came just four days after legislation was introduced in the state to require that lookalike guns be brightly colored or otherwise marked. Ohio lawmakers took up the bill following two police fatal shootings of young people carrying lookalike guns in recent months.

    Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Neil said it's "a scary thought" that guns would be painted to mislead police.

    ...

    "And the fact is right here in Hamilton County, we arrested a dangerous individual who we believe purposefully painted a loaded handgun red to mislead law enforcement into thinking this was a toy gun," Neil said in statement.

    The article doesn't explain why Sheriff Neil believes the gun was intended to look like a toy.

    Even before State Rep. Alicia Reece (D) introduced HB 681 ('Toy' Gun Control), Buckeye Firearms Association has been working to disprove the fallacy of thinking that such a measure would help law enforcement distinguish between guns that are not firearms and guns that are.

    The fact is, in recent years guns have become something that their owners like to personalize. The days of the "Henry Ford firearm" (i.e. it comes in any color, as long as it's black) are long gone.

    How in the world does Rep. Reece think it will help to make all BB gun, air rifle and airsoft manufacturers make their guns look like the actual firearms shown below?

    If a firearm isn't manufactured in such a bright color, the owner need only to chose from a large variety of companies offering colored coatings that can be applied to a firearm.

    Does Rep. Reece honestly think police can afford to be any less concerned when the gun pointed at them is brightly colored, or when it has a few strips of florescent tape on it?

    The real answer to the problems seen in two incidents in Ohio recently is education, a point made quite well in this recent article at PoliceOne.com:

    Rule #1: “When a cop tells you ‘drop the gun’ — you drop the gun, immediately.”
    Rule #2: “When a cop asks to see your hands — make like a goal post and spread your fingers.”

    That goes for ANY gun - whether it's red, brown, yellow black or white, whether it's a firearm, an airsoft gun or a BB/pellet gun, or even a true non-firing replica/toy. Because police can't be asked to judge based on the color of a gun any more than they should judge a person based on the color of their skin.  

    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.



  • Do you believe in speaking your mind?

    Do you still believe in speaking your mind? When no one speaks freely, causes can’t be championed and the truth will be lost. So who are the people who still revere the principles of individual expression? 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.



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