Home Guns and Training News Ohio - Buckeye Firearms Association

Latest News

News Feeds

Buckeye Firearms Association
Defending Your Firearm Rights

  • Professor: Take Granny’s Gun

    Gun ban advocates, knowing their goals aren’t especially popular with the American people, have in recent years tried to couch their agenda in more innocuous-sounding terms. They don’t want to ban all guns, they’ll say, they just want to keep them out of the wrong hands. But once you start paying close attention to their claims, you realize that the “wrong hands” might be closer and more numerous than you think … and might even include the more senior members of your family.

    Breitbart News recently pointed out that an “expert” who works at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (BSPH) is sounding the alarm about firearm possession amongst the elderly. Perhaps not coincidentally, that “expert” also claims that firearm ownership is most common in America for those aged 50 or older.

    Dr. Shannon Frattaroli of the Bloomberg School told New America Media that the typical gun control focus on crime and mass shootings leaves out the risks of firearm possession among older Americans. “[A]ny conversation about guns has to include a conversation [about] gun ownership among older adults,” she said. “There’s definitely more to be done on that issue in the United States.”

    Frattaroli believes depression, frailty, dementia, grandchildren, and the risks of accidental shootings all counsel against senior citizens keeping firearms in their homes, as she claims, “they would harm someone coming into the home who’s not there for a home invasion, someone there for a legitimate purpose like a caretaker.”

    One solution, the New America Media article suggests, is “competency tests for gun owners,” which would be similar to “requiring motorists to prove their proficiency behind the wheel as they grow older.” Another, according to Frattaroli, is allowing a concerned “loved one or neighbor” to obtain a court order to disarm gun owners whom the petitioner considers a risk to themselves or others.

    It takes a true gun control extremist to paint Grandma with the same brush as others who are categorically prohibited from possessing firearms, such as felons or those who are addicted to illegal drugs like heroin or methamphetamine. 

    And while Dr. Frattaroli’s views may seem extreme, she is far from alone in suggesting the aged have a dark side that weighs against trusting them with firearms. Even the Social Security Administration, as we’ve reported, is looking to get into the gun control business by reporting certain of its beneficiaries to the FBI as “mental defectives.”

    But lest gun control advocates like Dr. Frattaroli be accused of age discrimination, college students fair no better in their eyes. A spirited classroom discussion is likely to provoke murderous rage, they insist. And if academic debate doesn’t lead to homicide, they argue, binge drinking or other degenerate behavior surely will. 

    What about adults with children? Shouldn’t someone responsible enough to oversee the well-being of another human being be responsible enough for possessing an inanimate object like a firearm? No, gun control advocates argue. The safest course is for them to forgo guns as well, because the children will find them.  

    Perhaps single women, then? No, gun controllers will tell you, because they’re too weak to hold onto the gun and too incapable to use it if they do. They’d be better off with whistles to summon help.  

    Even in an age of advanced political correctness, apparently no stereotype is too offensive to be employed in the pursuit of banning guns. And when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of “dangerous people,” even the Bridge Club or the Shuffleboard League could prove just a little too high-risk to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

    © 2016 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. 

  • LIVE VIDEO: Buckeye Firearms Assoc.'s Jim Irvine and Linda Walker to address Gun Rights Policy Conference
    by Chad D. Baus

    The Second Amendment Foundation’s 31st Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) in Tampa will be live streamed below on the conference days – Sept. 24 and Sept 25, 2016.

    Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA) President Jim Irvine and Vice President Linda Walker will both be addressing the conference.

    Walker will be speaking on behalf of Chris Cox and NRA-ILA Saturday at 8:30 a.m. and Jim will be speaking on behalf of BFA Saturday at 4:00p.m.

    This is your once-a-year chance to get an insider look and plan pro-gun rights strategies for the coming year.

    Live streaming of the entire conference will be available here:

    Day 1 (Sept. 24)

    Day 2 (Sept. 25):

  • Headline: These students are leaning toward colleges that allow concealed handguns on campus

    Football games, Greek life, spacious dorm rooms, dining halls -  these are all qualities aspiring college students typically take into consideration when choosing a school. But now, some students are eager to earn their degrees at schools where they can carry concealed handguns for protection. 

    Caroline Graziano, a Virginia high school senior, says she would feel safer going to a school where students with concealed carry permits can legally bring their weapons on campus. 

    "I would definitely lean towards the school with concealed carry, as long as everything else about the school I like about it," said Graziano.  "It would influence me to go to that school just because I would feel safer on that campus," she said. 

    Zac Wood, a Navy veteran looking to earn his graduate degree, says he'd prefer a school that allowed students to carry concealed weapons.

    "Being able to carry a weapon would definitely make me feel safer," he said. 

    Wood, 28, is one of the few who could legally carry on campus. Most states require a person to be at least 21 to have a permit -- depending on where he or she goes to school. 

    There are  ten states that allow students and/or faculty to carry concealed handguns on campus, though some  have limitations on who can carry and where. 

    There are another ten states that have laws strictly prohibiting concealed handguns on college campuses. The rest of the state leave it up to schools to decide, and the rules vary widely. 

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

  • Abracadabra! Gun Owners Reappear Like Magic!

    People who tell pollsters that they own guns: Now you see them, now you don’t. A new poll from Pew Research has found that 44 percent of American households own guns, up a whopping 29 percent from the figure reported in a poll conducted for the same organization two years ago.

    Impressed by the incredible trend, the Washington Examiner reported, “more homes are reporting having a weapon inside,” while Bearing Arms said that the poll showed that there is “an increasing number of gun-owning households in the United States.”

    However, what these polls really show is that folks shouldn’t put too much faith in polls. It’s no more true that gun ownership has risen 29 percent in the last two years than it declined 26 percent over a two-year period in the early 1990s, as Gallup polling found at the time.

    The “decline” a generation ago just happened to take place right as gun control restrictions were being imposed at the federal level. As we explained in July, “Ever since the early 1990s, when then-President Bill Clinton pushed the Brady bill, the federal so-called ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large’ ammunition magazine ‘ban,’ and regulations that drove many gun dealers out of business, many gun owners have not identified themselves as such during the surveys.”

    Gallup recognized as much, saying, “A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans’ willingness to say they had guns is unclear.”

    With President Obama unable to impose gun control during his last months in office, with Americans increasingly supporting gun ownership rights, and with gun control propaganda having been discredited by recent events at home and abroad, some previously cautious gun owners may now be willing to tell a complete stranger on the phone that they own guns. However, such complacency may change in a hurry, if Hillary Clinton is elected and begins using the power of the presidency to undermine gun owners’ interests.

    At the end of the day, no one knows what percentage of American households own guns, and no one should know. Even in our present technological age, when some seem eager to reveal things about themselves to anyone who will pay attention, the rest of us surely can understand that there is nothing to be gained, but perhaps something to be lost, by informing complete strangers that we own something of value, be it guns, jewelry, a big screen TV, a stamp collection, or anything else.

    If, for that reason, future polls show artificially low numbers of gun owners, as they have for most of the last 25 years, so be it. The only polls that count are the ones that are conducted on Election Day. If enough of us do our civic duty in November, the message we will send will be anonymous, but the whole country will it receive loud and clear.

    © 2016 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. 

  • TV ads show Strickland doubling down on sharp left turn to gun control
    by Chad D. Baus

    The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that U.S. Senate candidate Ted Strickland, desperately behind in the polls, is releasing a new ad attacking Sen. Rob Portman for his opposition to Democrats' gun control measures. 

    From the article:

    The 30-second spot, which will air in Cleveland and Columbus, features an Ohio veteran critical of Portman’s votes against comprehensive background checks and vote to stop those on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. Portman, R-Ohio, supported instead a Republican measure that would’ve allowed the attorney general to delay a suspected terrorist from getting a gun for up to 72 hours while federal officials tried to get a court to approve blocking the sale of firearms. Those on the terrorism watch list would be unable to buy a gun if a court determined that that person had committed or would commit an act of terrorism.

    The article goes on to mention that Strickland has "lagged" in the polls - which is a kind way of saying he is getting his butt kicked. The most recent polling shows Portman with a double-digit lead over Strickland, who, like his friend John Kerry and the war in Iraq, was for gun rights before he was against them.

    When one considers where things stood last fall, Strickland's current position in the polls is absolutely devastating. The most recent polls reflect almost a 20 point swing in the contest.

    I believe Ted Strickland's stunning and sudden loss in support can be laid squarely at the feet of his decision to abandon gun owners, and thus his current pro-gun control tv ad (showing in limited markets because of his fundraising woes) will only hasten his campaign's demise.

    It is commonly known that most voters don't pay attention until closer to an election.

    And so, when Quinnipiac first began polling, voters were clearly unaware that:

    • In 2010, after his narrow defeat to John Kasich, 2010, Strickland turned his back on the gun rights community that had kept his re-election race competitive, naming an anti-gun appointment to the Ohio Supreme Court.
    • In 2012, Strickland insulted gun owners' intelligence by trying to get them to ignore Barack Obama's already-abysmal record of support for gun control, endorsing the president's reelection bid and claiming that Obama "supports and respects the Second Amendment."
    • In 2014, Strickland went to Washington D.C. to take what he calls his "dream job" as president of the Center for American Progress - a liberal, anti-gun think tank that supports national regulation of concealed carry licenses, monthly background checks for permit-holders and reckless lawsuits that would put American gun manufacturers out of business. He has bragged the anti-Second Amendment group "paid me more money than I've ever made in my life."

    As voters began paying attention, however, as the 2016 primary got underway, they have watched a man they believed was a supporter of their rights attack them at every turn. As their country fell under attack from radical Islamic terrorists, they have seen Strickland join the gun control chorus that blames Americans and the Second Amendment. They have heard him call for a so-called "universal" background check gun registration scheme. They have noted that Strickland now favors a so-called "assault weapons" ban. In a campaign email following the terror attack in Orlando, Strickland even announced that he was joining Senate Democrats who staged a filibuster on the floor of the U.S. Senate to demand action on gun control.

    Voters have finally become aware that former Governor Ted Strickland completely and totally lost his way in Washington D.C. This truth is now even beginning to hit home in his own local area of Southeast Ohio:

    The war at home: Strickland's native home of Southeast Ohio has long served as his base of political support. But as I write, Strickland is at risk of losing parts of the region – partly because of a relentless wave of attack ads by Portman and his allies, partly because Southeast Ohio has already been turning Republican, and partly because of discontent with Strickland over local issues.

    The discerning news media consumer will read "discontent with Strickland over local issues" as code for "he sold his strongly pro-gun supporters down the river."

    It's gotten so bad, in fact, that Strickland recently had to apologize after audio surfaced revealing that he believes the death of United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - author of the Heller decision affirming the individual Constitutional right to bear arms - "came at a good time," all to the applause and laughter of his audience.

    The audio can be heard here:

    Meanwhile, in the wake of the San Bernadino and Orlando terror attacks and despite media misrepresentation, voters have watched as Senator Portman stood firm, insisting on due process rights be maintained for those wishing to make gun purchases who are named on the terror watchlist. They've seen Portman join other senators in refusing to hold hearings on President Obama's latest anti-gun rights Supreme Court nominee.  They've learned than Portman's vote was a key to the defeat of the anti-gun Manchin-Toomey legislation that was proposed in the wake of the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. They've seen him join 50 colleagues in the U.S. Senate in sending a letter to President Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating that a U.N. treaty infringing on the constitutional rights of American gun owners is unacceptable, and promising to continue to oppose the ratification of The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and any treaty that restricts the rights of law-abiding Americans to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer, or purchase firearms, ammunition and related items.

    In short, the voters are learning that Rob Portman went to Washington D.C. and did exactly as he promised. Ted Strickland went to Washington and sold his political soul to the gun-ban extremists for a quarter of a million dollars.

    And as they view the actions of these two men when it comes to their Second Amendment rights, the polls have shown voters shifting farther and farther away from Strickland and toward Senator Portman.

    On Thursday, September 1, Buckeye Firearms Association's political action committee (BFA PAC) announced its endorsement of U.S. Senator Rob Portman for re-election.

    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.

    Related Articles:

    Portman stands firm on gun purchases and the terror watchlist despite media misrepresentation

    Ted Strickland says Heller author's death "came at a good time"

    Pro-gun Ted Strickland: Remember when?

    Headline: "Despite pledge, Obama endorses pro-gun Strickland for Senate"


  • Taking Care of Your Guns Before You Store Them
    by Barbara Baird

    (Image source: FreeImages.com/gulden erikli tüllük)

    After you purchase a gun, you must store it properly. But, just like that lovely vintage lace dress from your great grandmother or a treasured coin collection from your favorite uncle, you must take care of your newly acquired item properly before storing it.

    Make it a Clean Machine First thing you should do with any newly acquired gun is clean it. If it’s brand spanking new, it’ll need at least a patch or two run through it to absorb oil from the factory, and you should do this either before you take it to the range and shoot it for the first time or store it. If it’s a used gun, you’ll definitely want to take the gun apart (after you’ve made sure it’s unloaded, of course), following exactly the directions in the manual regarding disassembly and reassembly. If you didn’t get a manual with your firearm, you can either request one from the manufacturer or go online to the company’s website (for currently produced and most other relatively modern firearms), to find the appropriate publication. You can always take a newly acquired gun to your local gunsmith (remember to bring it to him unloaded), and have them disassemble it and give it a good once-over to see if all the parts are in working order; this can be especially prudent with used guns. If you choose to go the gunsmith route, while you’re visiting with them, inquire whether they can store the gun for you until you acquire a proper storage device for safe keeping at home.

    Storage After you’ve cleaned your new gun, you’ll need to store it properly. Tom McHale has described different types of gun safes that provide options for the many different ways and places you intend to use your firearm.

    Make a Record Before you put your gun under lock and key, you should record its serial number, any specifics about the gun, and the price you paid for it. Snap a photo of the gun and file it someplace safe, along with your descriptive record. If someone steals your gun or it becomes destroyed in something like a housefire, such a record will help immensely with a future police report and insurance claim.

    Appraisal Options With new guns, you know their value (or at least enough, even given the slight variations in retail price), which can help greatly with insurance coverage and claims. With used guns, however, especially those that are inherited and may have significant monetary value, as well as recognized collectibles and antiques, you will likely want to have such firearms appraised.

    Not everyone needs an appraisal, nor does every gun. How should you decide if you need one? Ask yourself these questions:

    Will you need an appraisal for insurance purposes?
    Would you like to have an appraisal because you want to know the gun’s market value?
    Are you planning on donating a particular firearm to a charitable organization or museum? (Note: The appraisal fee for charitable donations may be deductible.)

    When searching for an appraiser, do not hesitate to ask for qualifications, experience, and references. Get more than one appraisal when possible and, if you want to check on the values, purchase the latest edition of Blue Book of Gun Values, Standard Catalog of Firearms, or other comparable valuation guide.

    Don’t Shoot It! Jim Supica, Director of the National Firearms Museum at the National Rifle Association, recommends that if you acquire an unfired gun and don’t intend on ever using it, leave it unfired. Don’t even dry-fire it. He says, “Even if the gun has never been fired, if the action has been worked to the extent that wear is visible, the value may be less than “NIB” (new in the box) or “AS NEW” to a collector. For example, the faint drag line that appears on the cylinder of a revolver that has been dry-fired a few times will reduce the value to less than “AS NEW” for a condition purist on an out-of-production revolver.”

    Supica says you should keep the original box of any gun you purchase. Older guns especially often had a serial number penciled on the bottom or marked at the end of the box by the factory. These small things are important to collectors.

    Supica also recommends noting each gun’s historical significance, and this should happen whether it’s a family heirloom that’s been passed down through generations, or whether you’re buying a current model you expect to pass down through your own family members or sell sometime in the future. Supica advises, “Take time to write it down now in a notarized statement. Keep the document with the gun.” Again, he reminds gun owners to identify each gun by its serial number and to explain how the aforementioned information is known. He concludes, “All too often, history is lost forever when a gun changes hands.”

  • Hillary Clinton Labels Americans “Deplorable” and “Irredeemable”

    If there’s one quality any aspiring president should have, it should be a love for America. And not just the America that supports that person’s candidacy, but the whole melting pot of people, backgrounds, cultures, and viewpoints that make up this great nation.

    On the other hand, hatred for America, or any significant part of it, should be a disqualifier.

    That’s just common sense.

    Even by that modest standard, Hillary Clinton has disqualified herself from occupying the White House. Over this past week, we have seen and heard Clinton and her apologists slam millions upon millions of Americans in the strongest possible terms. And the condemnation comes not because of anything these people have done (the vast majority of them are indisputably law-abiding, hard-working, and family-oriented), but simply because of their personal beliefs.

    We have often said that Clinton, notorious amongst Americans of all stripes for her dishonesty, feels most at home when addressing the elite who fund her political ambitions. And so [on Friday September 9], before an adoring crowd at yet another fundraiser (this one in lower Manhattan), Hillary Clinton displayed her true colors in the most unmistakable terms.

    Right from the start, Hillary’s remarks at the fundraiser attempted to drive a wedge between her audience and the supporters of her opponent, Donald Trump. “I am all that stands between you and the apocalypse,” she told them. She then went on to accuse Mr. Trump (without explanation) of “coz[ying] up to white supremacists.”

    But she was far from finished. Clinton went on to say, “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” because of what she described as their “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” views. “Now,” she continued, “some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

    For those who are not used to being slandered by a Yale-educated lawyer, the Oxford English Dictionary onlinedefines “deplorable” to mean “grievous, miserable, wretched.”

    Clinton didn’t elaborate on when a person’s views crossed the line from simple conservatism into one of her “deplorable” categories, but based on her past comments regarding America’s gun owners, there is little doubt that she would place them in the “basket of deplorables.”

    Speaking at a televised “town hall” meeting in June 2014, Clinton endorsed bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines. Referring to those who opposed such measures, she said, “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

    Notably, Clinton didn’t just condemn the ownership of modern rifles and their magazines. She went further, claiming that what “terrorizes” America is a “viewpoint” that diverges from hers. This “minority” viewpoint is not just ill-advised or misinformed, in her estimation. Rather, it “cannot” be tolerated at all. It is, in short, “deplorable” and “irredeemable” to the woman who would be president of the United States.

    © 2016 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