screen resolution of 800x600 or greater is recommended
profile pic   ChuBlogga!
Offended? Intrigued? Contact my manager.

    Here begins your journey into the mind of everybody's favorite asian, and I don't mean Jet Li.
What follows is the somewhat inane, mostly irrelevant, and self-important ramblings of a man on the brink of madness.
Welcome... to the Chu.

Monday, December 11, 2006
 I Write Letters    [L]

I've never written a politician, until today.

But HB347 (dealing with CCW law) is important enough for me to do so.

Thanks to VikingSpirit, I picked two state senators from nearby districts representing Columbus, and sent them the following email:
Dear Senator:

I write to you as a neighbor in district 10, and fellow Ohioan, urging you to reconsider your position on HB347. You're undoubtedly aware of your minority position in this matter, and while I honor the courage it takes to stand up for your beliefs, it is my hope that I can reason with you and change your mind.
HB347 has two main points: the first being a change of the "in plain sight" car carry law, which I don't believe you've stated you have a problem with. This, quite frankly, is the part of the bill that is most important to me as a CCW holder. I would rather not become a criminal simply due to a badly-written and ultimately useless law (None of the other states with a shall-issue CCW law have this provision, and they haven't seen any problems due to a lack of it).

I understand that your main point of contention with HB347 is the overriding of home rule. I can understand your stance against it, as the state would override local Columbus law, and that you may feel the state is overreaching. But CCW law was enacted at the state level, and not the local level. Much like an Ohio driver's license, the law must be uniform across the entire state. It would be utter chaos if each locality operated on a different set of vehicular laws.

But in the realm of CCW law, the stakes are much higher, for breaking a locality's CCW law carries a much stiffer penalty than a traffic violation. It is completely ridiculous, unjust even, to be able to felonize an otherwise law-abiding man for violating a local gun law which does not exist in an adjacent county. All the while, the real criminals ignore federal, state, and local gun laws alike. On the whole, CCW licensees are some of the most law-abiding citizens a state could hope for - they have no felonies - no drug convictions - no mental illnesses - and yet arbitrary and inconsistently applied gun laws could turn these people into felons.

Home rule gun law makes criminals out of the innocent and does nothing to protect the innocent from criminals.

Allow me to quote from the Ohio State Constitution:
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).

20 other state senators voted yes for HB347; all of them Republican. You are one of 3 Republican senators who voted no. On your side of the issue lies the nation's most unpopular governor, and every Democrat senator.

Of your counterparts in the house, every single Republican representative voted yes for HB347, as well as 25 out of 39 Democrat representatives.

I'm not saying that might makes right, or that the majority view is always the correct one; however, I am asking you to entertain the possibility of the majority view having some merit. The strength of the bill on both sides of the legislature, the bi-partisan support in the house, and the urgings of many other citizens of Ohio filling your mailbox right now, should be telling.

Please consider voting to override Gov. Taft's veto on HB347.

Respectfully,
Chublogga



Chu,

I've read your blog and the corresponding links and I'm still not clear on exactly what this law does and doesn't do. Could you please spell it out for me?

By Blogger Keith Walker, at 12/18/2006 11:29:00 AM      


^^^ speak up ^^^