Home Guns and Training News Ohio - Buckeye Firearms Association

Latest News

News Feeds

Buckeye Firearms Association
Defending Your Firearm Rights

  • NHF Day is Only a Month Away

    Help Support Conservation Efforts on September 27, 2014

    SPRINGFIELD, Mo.- Only a month away, National Hunting and Fishing Day is the perfect opportunity to celebrate the conservation efforts of outdoorsmen and women across the nation. Outdoor enthusiasts everywhere are encouraged to participate at their nearest event. To find the event closest to you, visit http://www.nhfday.org. 

    Always the fourth Saturday in September, NHF Day 2014 is set to take place on September 27 this year.

    Help us celebrate this special annual "holiday" established by Congress in 1972 to recognize hunters, anglers and recreational shooters for their leadership and contributions to the conservation in America. For example, through dues and contributions to conservation organizations, hunters give an additional $280 million annually for wildlife and habitat. 

    Nobody does more for fish, wildlife and habitat than traditional outdoor enthusiasts. Communicating this message is a daily goal for all of us at Wonders of Wildlife museum-the official home of NHF Day-in Springfield, Missouri.

    National Hunting and Fishing Day is one of the easiest ways to recognize the conservation efforts of hunters and fishermen across the nation. It is also a great way to get youth involved in our great heritage.

    This year, U.S. Army veteran, country music star and award-winning TV host Craig Morgan is stepping forward to help promote NHF Day with all our national sponsors. He has been slated to serve as the honorary chairman for National Hunting and Fishing Day.

    Morgan is well known as an avid outdoorsman and also takes pride in serving others. He has made eleven overseas tours to entertain our troops and received the 2006 USO Merit Award for his tireless support of our U.S. soldiers and their families. 

    The Tennessee native is also host of the award-winning "Craig Morgan All Access Outdoors," airing brand new episodes Sundays at 11:00 p.m. ET on Outdoor Channel. The high-octane hit reality show gives viewers an all access, backstage pass to Morgan's travels as he and his crew pursue big thrills and big laughs across the globe in a quest for the ultimate outdoor adventure.

    The first to suggest an official day of thanks to sportsmen was Ira Joffe, owner of Joffe's Gun Shop in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. In 1970, Pennsylvania Gov. Raymond Shafer adopted Joffe's idea and created "Outdoor Sportsman's Day" in the state.

    NHF Day could not happen without the help of great sponsors. The list of sponsors for National Hunting and Fishing Day 2014 includes: Wonders of Wildlife, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Bass Pro Shops, Realtree, National Rifle Association, Yamaha, GunBroker.com, Izaak Walton League, Ducks Unlimited, Limit Out Production, Scout, National Wild Turkey Federation, Smith & Wesson and Outdoor Channel. 

    For more information, visit http://www.nhfday.org.

    Republished from The Outdoor Wire.



  • California Pro-Gunners Win A Big One

    It's not often that good news- very good news- comes out of California, especially if you're one of the embattled Second Amendment supporters there. But there's good news today after a federal court judge upheld a challenge to the state's 10-day waiting period for gun purchases brought by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, along with the Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation.

    In a decision released [Monday], California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii (a Clinton appointee) found that the "10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [Sections 2861(a) and Sections 27540 (a)] violate the Second Amendment" as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and "burdens the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs".

    Jeff Silvester called the decision "a great win for the Second Amendment civil rights and common sense," adding, he "couldn't be happier with how this case turned out."

    The court order mandates the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the "unobstructed release" of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a Department of Justice-issued Certificate of Eligibility and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.

    Lead plaintiff attorney Donald Kilmer expressed his happiness for the protection of the Second Amendment and acknowledgement of that right by the court, calling the case "one more example of how our judicial branch brings balance to government in order to insure our liberty."

    Combs, who is also director of the executive director of the Calguns Foundation, says the decision by Senior Judge Ishii proves "California gun owners are not second-class citizens and the Second Amendment isn't a second-class right."

    Combs says the decision is a valuable step in "restoring fundamental individual liberties in the Golden State."

    He says the decision lays the strong foundation from which "other irrational and unconstitutional gun control laws" will be challenged. And, he says, "We look forward to doing just that."

    Alan Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President, says he's "delighted with the outcome" saying it "clearly addressed the issue we put before the court."

    Senior Judge Ishii's decision can be read in its entirety at http://bit.ly/silvester-v-harris-decision.

    Republished from The Outdoor Wire.



  • Up to 40 Not Killed in Shooting Rampage
    by Jeff Knox

    Crazed Lunatic Stopped Cold by Doctor Who Violated Policy

    America’s latest murderous rampage is remarkable for what did not happen. A single innocent died a needless death. That’s tragic. But fortunately, there was only  one innocent killed. A suicidal madman hellbent on leaving this earth taking a load of innocents  with him was thwarted not by a sign, paperwork, or bureaucratic hoops, but by a citizen who had  prepared for the worst contingency. 

    On July 24, Dr. Lee Silverman, a psychiatrist, was meeting with a psychiatric caseworker  and a patient she had brought to the psychiatric crisis center at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital. The  meeting became heated and vocal to the point that a staff member peeked in to see what was  going on. What the staff member saw, was the patient pointing a gun at Dr. Silverman. The  associate quietly closed the door, to avoid setting off the violent patient, and immediately  called 911. But long before police arrived, the criminal opened fire, shooting Theresa Hunt, the  caseworker, in the face and then turning the gun on Dr. Silverman. The psychiatrist dropped  behind his desk for cover. That’s when the violent encounter took an unexpected turn: Dr.  Silverman drew his own, legally carried sidearm and returned fire. Even though Silverman was  hit in the side of his head, he managed to hit the murder with three shots. The attacker stumbled  out into the hallway where he was pinned down by another doctor and caseworker.

    As the local police chief pointed out, the murderer clearly had intentions to harm more  innocent people, and surely would have, had Dr. Silverman not stopped him. The fact that the  criminal had 39 more rounds of ammo in his pockets clearly indicates that he was not planning to  stop with Ms. Hunt and Dr. Silverman. 

    With a crowded medical facility of people disarmed by the hospital’s “No Guns  Allowed” policy, it is unlikely that he would have met with much resistance. The Washington  Post quoted Delaware County District Attorney Jack Whelan saying, “If the doctor did not have  a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other  people in that facility would also be dead.” 

    At this point, indications from the hospital are that they are not planning to fire the hero  psychiatrist who violated hospital policy by having an effective means of self-defense available.  In Pennsylvania, like in most states, there is no force of law behind “No Guns” signs in a private  business. Unlike schools and some government buildings where ignoring a “No Guns” sign can  be a felony, someone who knowingly violates a private “Gun-Free Zone” could be charged with  nothing more than misdemeanor trespassing. An employee or contractor of a company with a  “No Guns” policy could be dismissed or disciplined for their violation though.

    In this case, the hospital indicated their appreciation for Dr. Silverman’s heroic actions  and said they were looking forward to his recovery and return to work. They also said they  were going to review their security policies. The conclusion of that review is more likely to  result in more armed guards, and security checkpoints than acceptance of the reality that good,  responsible people with legally-carried sidearms are no threat, while evil people bent on murder  will figure out ways around security measures. Perhaps the hospital will adopt a policy whereby  employees with carry licenses and special permission from management might be allowed to  keep their defensive tools handy, but it is unlikely that they will completely abandon the idea  of a disarmament policy. For some reason such a rational and practical admission of the limits  of signs and rules seems beyond the comprehension of institutional bureaucrats like hospital  administrators and corporate boards.

    The media coverage of this tragic case has been sadly predictable. Not only has the  coverage been thinner than it would have been had the murderer not been stopped so quickly,  it has tended to focus on potential negative aspects of a doctor or hospital worker having a gun,  rather than the fact that, an armed civilian stopped what could easily have been a massacre.  Just as the media dismissed suggestions that an armed civilian might have stopped, or at  least mitigated the atrocities in Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown, the anti-gun media are now  downplaying an event that proves the theory.

    While it is impossible to prove what might have happened – either to the positive or to  the negative – the anecdotal evidence is pretty clear: 

    ● Being a prohibited person does not prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun.

    ● Signs forbidding guns do not prevent criminals from engaging in horrific acts. 

    ● The majority of mass murders occur in areas where firearms are not “allowed.” 

    ● Armed citizens do not pose a threat to the public. 

    ● We know armed citizens can stop massacres because they have stopped  massacres.

    The arguments against armed citizens boil down to a matter of mistrust of “those other  people.” Hoplophobes have a pervasive, irrational fear of guns and feel that just because  someone could do something bad, there should be restrictions on everyone. Of course that  doesn’t apply for things these people are actually familiar with such as cars or gasoline or 

    Dr. Lee Silverman is just the latest, prominent example of a responsible person using a  gun to stop a criminal – something that happens every day in this country, usually without a shot  ever being fired. So the next time you see a “No Guns” sign, remember the dozens of people  who are alive today because Dr. Silverman chose to ignore one of those signs.

    ©2014 The Firearms Coalition, all rights reserved. Reprinting, posting, and distributing permitted with inclusion of this copyright statement. www.FirearmsCoalition.org.



  • Ottawa Co. Sheriff's office investigating firearms instructor
    by Jim Irvine

    The Ottawa Co. Sherriff's office has begun issuing letters regarding an instructor who allegedly issued training certificates to individuals who had not completed the course requirements as established by the NRA, or required by Ohio law. Click here to view the letter.

    If you took a class that failed to meet the required 12 hours of instruction, your certificate is not valid for purposes of obtaining an Ohio CHL. Further, if you apply for a CHL using an invalid training certificate, you could face criminal charges. Penalties could include suspension/revocation of your CHL, fines, jail, and a lifetime ban on possessing firearms.

    In past similar situations, sheriffs have been reasonable with people who immediately came forward and cooperated. Those that try to hide or lie to investigators are likely to be prosecuted for their crimes.

    If you or someone you know have obtained a training certificate from any instructor purporting to meet Ohio training requirements, that did not meet the requirements outlined in state law, your certificate is no good. Use of that certificate to obtain a CHL is a crime.

    If you are in this situation, you should contact an attorney. I recommend Sean Maloney, who may be contacted at smaloneyesq@gmail.com.

    Even if you have not received this letter, you may still be subject of an investigation and criminal charges. Being honest and cooperating with an investigation is normally the best course of action.

    There are many laws that Buckeye Firearms Association is working to change, but it is critical that we follow the laws that are on the books. It does not matter if we like or dislike a law. It does not matter if we think it's a good or a bad law. All that matters is that it is a law, and we follow it. When something like this happens, it paints all CHL holders, and all gun owners, in a bad light. It is unfortunate that the acts of a few people can damage such a large segment of society, but that is the political reality of such reckless behavior.

    According to the sheriff's office, anyone who has used a certificate from Mr. William Harrer will have their license suspended or revoked. Providing proof of proper training in a timely manor may allow your license to be reinstated. You can find a list of instructors here - http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ohio-ccw-classes-and-instructors

    Note: It is the responsibility of you, the student to insure you have met the requirements outlined in the law. Buckeye Firearms Association will not list any instructor we know to be violating the law, but we can not police every instructor who is listed on our web site. As with every other purchase you make, be sure you get what you pay for.

    Buckeye Firearms Association thanks the more than 99% of all NRA/OPOTA instructors who do a good job, and the more than 99% of all CHL holders who follow the law.

    Jim Irvine is the Buckeye Firearms Association 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."



  • How to travel with a firearm

    “Have gun, will travel,” is not as simple as it sounds.

    Whether you’re planning to attend a competition, going on a distant hunt, or just want to take along a firearm for your own personal-defense when you travel away from home, you absolutely need to know the rules of how to legally travel with your gun.

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



  • Judges already have tools to keep guns from abusers
    By Ken Hanson

    [Editor's Note: The following op-ed was recently published in the Columbus Dispatch, opposite an anti-gun rights column entitled "A gun increases the chances the victim will die." Both columns were written in response to a question posed by the Dispatch: "Should Congress pass a law to keep guns from domestic abusers?". Judging by this editorial entitled "Lethal mix of guns and dompestic violence requiers legislative action," the editors of the Cleveland Plain Dealer could also stand to read it.] 

    Recently, Everytown for Gun Safety published a report in support of new gun-control laws subtitled “America’s Uniquely Lethal Domestic Violence Problem.” (Not) Coincidentally, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, the Center for American Progress, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and multitudes of local domestic-violence groups joined in the demands for Congress and the states “to do something” about domestic-violence offenders having easy access to firearms.

    The public-relations campaign launching this report got off to a spectacularly bad start when ABC television’s The View screened a commercial supporting Everytown’s study. The commercial dramatically depicts a man breaking into the home of a completely helpless, hysterical woman, grabbing her child and then shooting the woman.

    Rather than moving on to discuss how important it is for Congress and the states to adopt the report’s proposals, three of the four female hosts of The View, none with a history of supporting gun rights, shared their own personal experiences with stalkers and opined that they wished they had a gun when their personal confrontations occurred.

    I was astounded when these television hosts publicly shared these views, but perhaps I should not be.

    Since 2004, the year Congress chose not to renew the federal semi-automatic rifle ban, gun-control proposals are increasingly met with little enthusiasm. It is not for lack of emotional commercials, pleas from parents, bus caravans to Washington, D.C. and slick, well-funded PR efforts. Rather, the lack of support comes from the current American electorate experiencing 20-plus years of failed gun-control laws.

    Women are our mothers, sisters, daughters, grandmothers, beloved school teachers, etc. No one wants to see them killed by abusive partners. This does not mean, however, that voters have to accept proposals that do nothing to address the stated problem. It is perfectly reasonable for voters to look back on the past failed promises of gun-control proposals and conclude that words on a piece of paper (protection order, a new firearm-prohibition law, more background checks) will not be effective.

    The first rule in a government of specific, limited, enumerated powers is that all laws should have a demonstrated effect outweighing the burden placed on the liberty of society as a whole.

    Turning to the proposals contained in the coordinated reports, we see a multitude of proposals that already are law, or are continuations of the myths fronted by gun-control groups for decades.

    The biggest fallacy within these proposals is that domestic-violence offenders are somehow able to lawfully purchase or possess firearms. They cannot; they already are under firearm prohibitions. The Supreme Court of the United States recently affirmed that this prohibition can include even threatening force against an intimate partner. Stalkers? Persons subject to a protection order? Yes, all currently subject to firearm prohibitions.

    Another fallacy advanced is that current law does not give police, prosecutors and judges “the tools” required to order these people to surrender their firearms. Judges have absolute power, through terms of bail, bond, protection orders, probation and sentencing, to order surrender of all firearms under current law. There is even a checkbox on our standard protection-order form where the judge ticks a box to have the police seize guns from the accused.

    Finally, no gun-control group study would be complete without calling for universal background checks. The “statistic” often cited by proponents is that 40 percent of gun transactions happen between private parties without a background check. This assertion persists despite being debunked (http://wapo.st/1f8p7XQ). Colorado is the latest state to experiment with universal background checks, and in 2013, the first full year of the new law, less than 4 percent of all gun transactions (13,600) were conducted through private individuals. And it should be noted that universal background checks do nothing to stop a key source of firearms used by criminals: theft. In 2012, 2,575 guns were stolen in Colorado. Background checks do nothing to stop the trade in and use of stolen firearms by criminals, including the criminals who perpetrate domestic violence.

    Perhaps the easiest way to debunk the latest push from Everytown for Gun Safety is to simply look at page 4 of its own report. In interviews of women living in California domestic-violence shelters, two-thirds of the battered women living in a household with a gun reported that their partner used the gun against them.

    Yet page 12 of the same report gives California perfect marks for already having all of the laws these groups are calling for. Am I the only one confused? If California already passed these laws yet still experiences the same domestic-violence problems, why should we expect different results in the other 49 states?

    Ken Hanson is a Delaware, Ohio, attorney active in gun-rights legislation, litigation and lobbying.



  • 5 Tips For New Concealed Carriers

    After completing the NSSF First Shots program, many of our participants move right on to getting their concealed carry permit. If this is your goal, there are a few things you need to know before you take on that process and begin to carry a firearm daily.

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



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