Home Guns and Training News Ohio - Buckeye Firearms Association

Latest News

News Feeds

Buckeye Firearms Association
Defending Your Firearm Rights

  • Attacker shoots at group of people, including 1 year-old; Ohio CHL-holder shoots back
    by Chad D. Baus

    WXIX (FOX Cincinnati) is reporting that a man with an Ohio concealed handgun license (CHL) was able to defend the lives of himself, his sister, a one year-old child and another man after a neighbor began firing his gun at them.

    From the article:

    According to police, [Thomas] McCary argued with a woman on Holland Drive about 7:30 p.m. Sunday night.

    During the dispute, her brother, Patrick Ewing, walked over to see what was going on.

    That's when, police say, McCary pulled out a .38-caliber handgun and fired three shots at Ewing.

    Ewing was not hit, but he had a gun on him and holds a permit to carry a concealed weapon. He drew his gun and fired three shots, striking McCary in the leg.

    McCary went into his house and re-emerged with another handgun. With a gun in each hand, he fired three shots in the direction of the woman he was arguing with, her 1-year-old son and a third man.

    The victims retreated into their home to avoid being shot.

    Seeing his relatives under attack, Ewing fired additional rounds at McCary to try to divert his attention.

    According to the report, McCary was taken to University of Cincinnati Medical Center and arrested.

    A complete list of known incidents involving Ohio CHL-holders defending themselves is available here.

    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.



  • Diverse Chicagoans Exercise Their Right-to-Carry

    A recent report by the Chicago Sun-Times reveals the diversity of the Chicagoans choosing to exercise their Right-to-Carry, offering some rare good news regarding the city’s beleaguered gun owners.

    According to a Sun-Times analysis of Right-to-Carry permit data obtained from the Illinois State Police, the city zip codes with the most permit-holding residents span from “upper middle-class, safe and predominately white neighborhoods” to “high-crime, minority neighborhoods.” Delving into further detail, the article states “Chicago’s highest concentration of permits is in the 60617 ZIP… According to the census, about 55 percent of the residents in 60617 are black, 34 percent are Hispanic and 7 percent white.”

    The piece goes on to note that the Auburn Gresham, Avalon Park and Chatham neighborhoods also rank high in their number of permit holders. These areas are described as “minority neighborhoods that have been plagued by gun violence.”

    The abundance of Right-to-Carry permit holders in high-crime and predominantly minority communities helps to break down pernicious stereotypes about the “typical” gun owner and permit holder. The data also proves that the protection offered by exercising the Right-to-Carry is being used by those most vulnerable to violent crime.

    Under the rule of anti-gun Clinton and Obama staffer Rahm Emanuel, Chicagoans have been forced to cope withsevere, and frequently-debated, levels of violent crime that the authorities often appear helpless to contain. In this climate of rampant crime, even the mayor’s son was the victim of a robbery only a short distance from the family home. Taking a brief respite from his usual spin on public safety, in January, the notoriously combative mayorconceded that city residents don’t feel safe, noting “Too many families, too many parents do not let their kids go outside because they're scared.” This feeling was likely further cemented following the July 4th holiday weekend, during which 55 were wounded by illegal gunfire and 10 killed. In this environment, permit-holding Windy City residents are wise to provide for their own self-defense. Hopefully, the breadth and diversity of permit-holding Chicagoans revealed by the Sun-Times will encourage more residents to follow their lead and get the tools of protection to the communities where they are most needed.

    © 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

     



  • CMP National Rimfire Sporter Match Set for August 1st at Camp Perry
    by Ashley Brugnone

    CAMP PERRY, Ohio – One of the most popular events of the Civilian Marksmanship Program’s (CMP) National Rifle Matches is always the Rimfire Sporter Match, fired this year on August 1 at Camp Perry. The match is perfect for preparing first-time shooters for competition-style shooting, as well as allowing experienced marksmen to rekindle a nostalgic connection with a .22 rifle.

    Fired every year to a growing crowd of competitors, the event is simple enough that even new shooters can complete it, while also being uniquely challenging for experienced riflemen. It’s the perfect opportunity for families or old friends to participate in a fun afternoon of entertaining competition.

    During the match, competitors fire smallbore sporter rifles from 50 and 25 yards. Rifles may be manually operated or semi-automatic and supported with sights or a sling. Competitors will complete slow fire prone, rapid fire prone, slow fire sitting or kneeling, rapid fire sitting or kneeling, slow fire standing and rapid fire standing shot sequences. There is no minimum age for the match, but all competitors must be capable of safely completing a 60-shot course of fire.

    Three different classifications of rifles will be used during the competition: “O Class” for open-sighted rifles, “T Class” for telescope-sighted rifles and the recently-added “Tactical Rimfire” class. High Juniors and Seniors, as well as Overall winners will be named for each class.

    For those wanting to learn more about the match before firing, an instructional Rimfire Sporter Clinic will be held on Friday, July 31 from 4-6 p.m. to cover rules, Course of Fire, safety instructions and competition procedures. This free course will include demonstrations and presentations by qualified members of the CMP. Competitors with no previous Rimfire Sporter Match experience are strongly encouraged to attend.

    More information about the Rimfire Sporter Match can be found by visiting http://thecmp.org/cmp-national-matches/national-rimfire-sporter-match/.

    For more information about the CMP and its programs, log onto www.TheCMP.org for more information and program descriptions.



  • U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Second Amendment Case, Draws Strong Dissent From Thomas, Scalia

    [Last month], the U.S. Supreme Court declined a petition to either summarily reverse or hear an appeal of the decision in Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 25, 2014. The Ninth Circuit decision upheld San Francisco ordinances requiring any firearm within the home not actually carried on the person to be in a locked container or disabled by a state-approved trigger lock and banning the sale of hollow point ammunition.  In each case, the Ninth Circuit wrongly determined that while the ordinance "burdens" the "core" Second Amendment right of self-defense within the home, it does not entirely "destroy" it. The court then wrongly applied a deferential form of "intermediate" scrutiny to the regulations and found they satisfied that test. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia (who wrote the landmarkDistrict of Columbia v. Heller opinion) penned a sharply critical dissent (see p. 11 at link) of the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal.

    The dissent noted, "Because it is impossible to 'carry' a firearm on one's person while sleeping, for example, petitioners contended that the law effectively denies them their right to self-defense at times when their potential need for that defense is most acute." Justice Thomas emphasized that the Ninth Circuit decision was in "serious tension with Heller" and noted that the District of Columbia's very similar firearm storage law had been held by that case to violate the Second Amendment. Criticizing the Ninth's Circuit analysis of the burden, the dissent noted that a person suddenly awakened from sleep by an intruder faced a significant impairment to the right of self-defense by the necessity of having to negotiate the locks on the firearm or safe. "That delay," Justice Thomas wrote, "could easily be the difference between life and death."

    The dissent also gave a rare glimpse into how two members of the five-justice majority in Heller view development of Second Amendment jurisprudence in the wake of that case. According to Justice Thomas: "[N]othing in our decision in Heller suggested that a law must rise to the level of the absolute prohibition at issue in that case to constitute a 'substantial burden' on the core of the Second Amendment right. And when a law burdens a constitutionally protected right, we have generally required a higher showing than the Court of Appeals demanded here." The petition should have been granted, he stated, "to review this questionable decision" and "to reiterate that courts may not engage in this sort of judicial assessment as to the severity of a burden imposed on core Second Amendment rights."

    For firearm and self-defense advocates, the Supreme Court's decision signals a disinterest by the high court in revisiting its Second Amendment jurisprudence. Lower federal courts have sustained Second Amendment challenges in the face of absolute prohibitions (for example, on shooting ranges, sales, or carrying for self-defense outside the home). Yet virtually any justification by a state or locality has been deemed sufficient for regulations falling short of an all-out ban on protected Second Amendment activity. This is so, moreover, even where the courts have grudgingly acknowledged that the regulation burdens self-defense, which the Supreme Court has made clear is at the heart of the Second Amendment.  

    To be sure, the most anti-gun jurisdictions in America remain willing to push the envelope, even with the considerable latitude they have been given by the courts.  As a result, cases concerning a total ban on "bearing" arms for self-defense in public (for example, Peruta v. County of San Diego or Wrenn v. District of Columbia) may yet prove unavoidable, even for the increasingly gun-shy Supreme Court. 

    In the meantime, however, Thomas and Scalia's reproof to the Court provides rather cold comfort to liberty-loving Americans who are weary of the Second Amendment being treated as a second class right by the same imperious, activist judges who used to deny it provided any individual protection. In the concluding paragraph of the dissent, Justice Thomas offered a final admonition: "We warned in Heller that "[a] constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all." That is how the anti-gun legal establishment once had it, and anti-gun lawyers and jurists are clearly working to restore that dismal state of affairs.

    Fortunately, the American people have always had more to say about the real fate of the Second Amendment and gun culture in America than the cloistered legal elite. Even when judges were dismissing the notion that the Second Amendment had anything to do with individuals, most Americans had relatively free access to and use of firearms. Indeed, gun owners throughout the world can only envy the freedom we in America have enjoyed throughout our history. Your NRA remains hard at work –in Congress, in state legislatures, in City Halls, and, yes, in the courts – to keep that heritage intact and to expand our precious freedoms.

    The result in Jackson is yet another clear reminder of the importance of the 2016 elections.  Our nation cannot afford to have another anti-gun president pushing anti-gun nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court.  With your help, liberty will prevail – because the future of our freedom depends on it.

    © 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.



  • The Trace: Just Another Effort to Mislead America

    One recurring truth about the anti-gun movement is how often they try to create new organizations which claim “neutrality” or “moderation” on the Second Amendment, but in reality are nothing more than carbon copies of all the anti-gun groups that have come before them.

    As we reported a few weeks ago, fanatically anti-gun Michael Bloomberg has found a new venture to pour his money into.  It’s called “The Trace”, which claims to be a fair news organization devoted to researching “gun violence.” The head of the new group, former New Republic Magazine editor James Burnett even went as far as to suggest the group will not publish editorials supporting specific legislation or candidates, but simply provide information and news stories in opposition to “gun violence.”  But let’s look at reality.

    First, the group has no need to endorse specific legislation or a given candidate to achieve their anti-gun goals.  All they have to do is gin up “news” or biased “analyses” that provide specific anti gun messaging which supports whichever draconian law is Bloomberg’s favorite flavor of the day at the national or state level.  Obviously, this information will then provide the foundation for countless more news stories from the anti-gun press, countless more anti-gun legislative initiatives, and countless more talking points for anti-gun candidates to use when running for office.  And this is exactly what “The Trace” will work tirelessly to make happen.

    And we can’t forget who is making this all possible. “The Trace” is funded not only by Bloomberg, but also by the famously anti-gun Joyce Foundation and the cofounder of the reliably anti-gun Huffington Post. With financial support like that, does anyone believe that there will be any information from “The Trace” that is anything other than anti-gun propaganda?

    Burnett stated that “The Trace” is needed because there is not enough anti-gun violence coverage in the media.  One wonders if he has ever read the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, or any one of a number of big city newspapers that attack our Second Amendment rights on a regular basis.  Or perhaps he does not have cable TV and so is not exposed to anti-gun coverage on CNN or MSNBC.  It sounds more like Editor Burnett lives where pigs fly and unicorns win the Kentucky Derby.

    There can be no doubt that Bloomberg and his allies are focusing resources towards an all-out assault on our rights with “The Trace” simply another move to fulfill their broader mission.  As subverting the truth to achieve their goals has been well established as a tactic of choice, we can expect the same from “The Trace.”  NRA-ILA will not let their lies and distortions go unanswered, and together we can stand up to Bloomberg and his media allies, especially when he stacks the deck against freedom in such an unmitigated and craven way.

    © 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.



  • Mass murderers are chasing the fame our media can be counted on to give them
    by Jeff Knox

    Last month, a deranged coward joined a Bible study group in Charleston, South Carolina, sat with them for about an hour, and then pulled out a gun and started shooting people, killing nine. He then drove away, only to be captured without incident a few hours later.

    Reports say the demented little troll declared his need to kill the people because they were “raping our women and taking over our country.” How sick and detached from reality did this vile creature have to be to take these nine innocent lives – six women and three men –on such a pretext?

    The answer to that was summed up very accurately by Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist who appeared on “Fox and Friends” a few days ago. During his brief interview, Dr. Welner stressed several things. “The mass killer is an irrelevant person … who is looking for relevance,” he said. “Of course this is a hate crime. Of course it’s a racist crime, but the mass killer is about himself, and is about getting attention for himself, and he knows that if we have this ‘national dialogue,’ ultimately we’re talking about him.” He goes on to say, “This was a cultural crime. It is happening in the United States much more than elsewhere, but it’s not a gun issue – it’s because we socially incentivize it.”

    Dr. Welner suggests that these murderers are seeking fame and attention, and that the media and politicians reward them by giving them that fame and attention. He said that rather than focusing on the infamy-seeking perpetrator, we should instead focus attention on the victims and what remarkable people they were. He offered up coverage of the murder of Chris Kyle as an example of a better way to handle these situations. In the Kyle case, the attention focused primarily on Kyle and his life and accomplishments. Welner pointed out that few people remember the name of the man who murdered Kyle because the media and politicians didn’t focus their attention and agenda on the murderer, instead focusing on the victims.

    Dr. Welner’s comments comport with my own long-held belief and our policy of never naming these cowards in our reports. He made a point of not repeating the murderer’s name during the interview and pointed out that these murderers are invariably copycats, trying to capture the same sort of fame as their predecessors. In typical, tone-deaf media fashion, one of the Fox hosts then launched into a question about how all of these depraved killers have the same sort of “empty look,” and prattled off the names of several of them, reinforcing their fame and notoriety.

    Years ago, suicide experts prevailed upon media to avoid giving too much coverage to suicides, particularly teen suicides. After showing the data on “suicide contagion,” the tendency for one suicide to be followed by several more in a given area, they convinced the media to change the way they covered these events. The result has been a reduction in the copycat effect. If only the media and politicians would follow a similar standard of coverage regarding mass murders, we might see this trend dwindle as well.

    Instead, politicians, including President Obama, most of the Democratic presidential candidates and a number of members of Congress, used this tragedy to re-launch their failed campaigns against gun ownership, focusing on the motives and tools of the murder, and only mentioning the victims as emotional leverage for promoting the agenda.

    ...

    None of the gun control laws being pushed by President Obama, or any of the laws seriously discussed in the past two decades would have had any impact on this atrocity.

    The loss of these nine precious lives in Charleston is heartbreaking. Blaming the tools and gun owners encourages copycats and is shameful exploitation of the tragedy.

    Click here to read the entire article at WND.com.

     



  • Federal Regulators Breathe Life into Marijuana Businesses Even as They Seek to Choke Out FFLs

    By now, knowledgeable members of the pro-gun community are well aware of Operation Choke Point (OCP) and its effect on lawful firearm-related businesses. As we have often reported, OCP is a deliberate attempt by federal regulators to pressure banks to sever or avoid business relationships with legitimate industries that are considered politically objectionable, including firearms and ammunition sales. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has issued reports condemning the participation of both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the program. Internal investigators at both agencies have also launched their own probes into allegations of abusive practices under the guise of OCP.

    According to a recent article by State Net (a provider of legal research tools), however, the administration’s use of banking regulators for political purposes goes both ways.

    Titled “Cashed Out: Legal Weed Outlets Flush In Cash Struggling To Find Banks,” the piece recounts the “unique problem” facing prosperous marijuana businesses operating legally under state laws that are finding banks reluctant to provide them with services. This is perhaps not surprising, given that marijuana distribution is still, after all, a federal crime, and banks that knowingly do business with marijuana dispensaries could expose themselves to criminal prosecution. According to the article, “That prohibition could even chain out to include security companies that provide legal weed outlets with security or transportation services.”

    Yet who’s seeking to “mitigate the problem” of banks shying away from participating in actual criminal activity? Why none other than Obama’s Treasury Department and DOJ. According to the article:

    [The U.S. Treasury Department’s] financial enforcement arm, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCEN, issued guidelines in 2014 that gave banks a pathway for dealing with marijuana businesses. Those include a requirement that such businesses take responsibility for making sure their marijuana clients are obeying the laws of their state and notify federal authorities of suspicious transactions. Other actions have since followed, including a Department of Justice directive to U.S. Attorneys ordering them not to prosecute banks that deal with pot sellers as long as the banks adhere to federal guidelines.

    Considering how lawful firearm and ammunition business have been systematically cut-off from access to necessary financial services by abusive government regulators, we just had to know if this was true. The short answer is “yes.” The administration’s position seems to be that it will ignore unlawful activity it doesn’t agree with, while attacking lawful activity it finds objectionable.

    The FinCEN guidance document explicitly sets out to “enhance the availability of financial services for, and the financial transparency of, marijuana-related businesses.” In that vein, the document describes DOJ enforcement priorities for marijuana-related enforcement and counsels financial institutions to keep these in mind when making decisions as to whether or not to service marijuana-related businesses. It also provides advice for conducting “customer due diligence” and filing mandatory “suspicious activity reports” of varying detail depending on the bank’s assessment of the customer’s risk profile. The document concludes with reassurance that “FinCEN’s enforcement priorities in connection with this guidance will focus on matters of systemic or significant failures, and not isolated lapses in technical compliance,” and encourages banks to contact the agency with further questions.

    DOJ’s memorandum directly addresses “ALL UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS” and is similarly blunt and to the point. While acknowledging that “provisions of the money laundering statutes, the unlicensed money remitter statute, and the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) remain in effect with respect to marijuana-related conduct,” it points federal prosecutors to a limited list of eight enforcement priorities. These include such things as businesses that divert revenue from the sale of marijuana to criminal gangs and cartels and that “use … firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana … .” It goes on to state, however: “Conversely, if a financial institution or individual offers services to a marijuana-related business whose activities do not implicate any of the eight priority factors, prosecution for these offenses may not be appropriate.” The DOJ memo does, however, insist that is merely “a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion” and “does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including federal laws relating to marijuana, regardless of state law.”

    Ironically, a number of the “due diligence” steps the memos mention as a means of facilitating the provision of financial services to state-legal marijuana businesses are, in the context of doing business with firearm-related companies, among the forces driving banks to drop customers. This is likely because banks are being systematically indoctrinated by federal regulators to consider firearm businesses as inherently risky, if not inherently criminal. Yet unlike marijuana sales, sales of firearms and ammunition are not only legal, but even as an Obama-appointed judge acknowledged, protected by the Second Amendment itself.

    That’s a distinction that’s apparently lost on the Obama administration, however, which certainly never lets “details” like democratically-passed laws (or even constitutional amendments) get in the way of its relentless political agenda, a defining priority of which is to undermine lawful gun ownership.

    © 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.



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