BFA logo

Defending Your Firearm Rights


  • Experience Ohio’s Premier Public Shooting Ranges During Free Event

    Jul 30, 2021 | 11:00 am

    Experience Ohio’s Premier Public Shooting Ranges During Free Event

    Experienced and beginning recreational shooters are invited to visit any of Ohio’s premier public shooting ranges on Saturday, Aug. 14, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. during Free Range Day, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife. On this date, the shooting range permit requirement is waived at all Division of Wildlife Class A, B, and C shooting ranges.

    The Division of Wildlife is partnering with the National Shooting Sports Foundation to host Free Range Day as part of a continued effort to provide more opportunities for recreational shooters. New shooters can gain hands-on experience with firearms at no charge from certified instructors at five public ranges. Staff will offer on-site instruction to beginning shooters and will provide equipment, ammunition, ear protection, and eye protection free of charge.

    The following public ranges will have Division of Wildlife staff on-site to assist shooters:

    • Deer Creek Wildlife Area, corner of State Route 207 and Cook Yankeetown Road NE, Mt. Sterling 43143
    • Delaware Wildlife Area, 1110 State Route 229, Ashley 43003
    • Grand River Wildlife Area, 6693 Hoffman Norton Road, Bristolville 44491
    • Spring Valley Wildlife Area, 3570 Houston Road, Waynesville 45068
    • Woodbury Wildlife Area, 41384 State Route 541, Warsaw 43844

    Free Range Day is being offered as part of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.’s National Shooting Sports Month. The Division of Wildlife shooting ranges provide the public with comfortable, safe places to shoot archery or firearms. A complete list of range facilities can be found at wildohio.gov.

    Outside of Free Range Day, all persons age 18 and older shooting on Division of Wildlife Class A, B, and C ranges are required to purchase a shooting range permit, available at all hunting and fishing license outlets, wildohio.gov, and the HuntFish OH app. Class A ranges offer supervised rifle and pistol target shooting. Class B ranges have unsupervised rifle and pistol target shooting, while Class C ranges host unsupervised clay target shotgun shooting.

    The mission of the Division of Wildlife is to conserve and improve fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for sustainable use and appreciation by all. Visit wildohio.gov to find out more.

    ODNR ensures a balance between wise use and protection of our natural resources for the benefit of all. The visit the ODNR website at ohiodnr.gov.

  • New Program Connects Ohio Hunters with Participating Landowners

    Jul 29, 2021 | 19:00 pm

    New Program Connects Ohio Hunters with Participating Landowners

    The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife recently launched a new incentive program that provides a path for Ohio hunters to access participating landowner properties during the hunting season. Enrollment for the Ohio Landowner and Hunter Access Partnership program is underway now.

    Once enrolled, participating landowners receive annual payments ranging from $2 to $30 per acre, depending on the characteristics of the property and recreational opportunities available. Enrollment contracts are for two to three years, with the possibility of an extension. A list of rules is provided to participating hunters before accessing a property.

    “Ohio is 95% privately owned, and many of these lands are prime outdoor recreational areas,” said Division of Wildlife Chief Kendra Wecker. “This new program helps connect landowners and hunters through incentives and opens many more acres of land to Ohio’s hunting enthusiasts.”

    Those interested in hunting the enrolled properties must first obtain a free daily access permit. Permits are available from Sept. 1, 2021, to June 1, 2022, and are filled on a first-come, first-served basis. More information for both landowners and hunters can be found on the Ohio Landowner/Hunter Access Partnership Program page at wildohio.gov.

    The Ohio Landowner and Hunter Access Partnership program is funded, in part, by the federal Farm Bill under the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP). This bill provides funding to state and tribal agencies through a competitive grant process to implement programs encouraging hunting access on private properties. The federal dollars funding this program exclude fishing, trapping, and white-tailed deer gun hunting, however, landowners can still give written permission for these activities on their property.

    Landowners interested in creating, improving, and protecting wildlife habitat on their property are encouraged to work with a Division of Wildlife private lands biologist. Contact information for the private land biologist can be found on the Private Lands Biologists Contact Information page at wildohio.gov.

    The Division of Wildlife wants to help new and experienced hunters and anglers make the most of their outdoor adventures. Visit the Wild Ohio Harvest Community page at wildohio.gov for information on getting started, hunting and fishing opportunities, and delicious wild game recipes.

    The mission of the Division of Wildlife is to conserve and improve fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for sustainable use and appreciation by all. Visit wildohio.gov to find out more.

    ODNR ensures a balance between wise use and protection of our natural resources for the benefit of all. Visit the ODNR website at ohiodnr.gov.

  • Man accused in Toledo's Savage Park shooting arrested on gun charge week prior

    Jul 29, 2021 | 11:00 am

    Man accused in Toledo's Savage Park shooting arrested on gun charge week prior

    In early June, as he stumped for a package of gun control proposals he's been promoting since 2019, Governor Mike DeWine (R) warned that we were on the verge of a "summer of violence" and claimed "we need to toughen our laws."

    But as the summer wears on, more and more examples are proving that it isn't a lack of gun control laws that is resulting in the violence, but rather a lack of enforcement of laws already on the books.

    Just weeks ago in Cincinnati, a man who had been arrested on a gun charge in April was charged with carrying out a quadruple shooting while out on bond.

    And earlier this month, another man who was out on bond for a gun-related crime shot someone in the back at a Dave & Busters in suburban Cincinnati.

    During coverage of the quadruple shooting, a Cincinnati Enquirer investigation discovered that people who are being arrested for gun-related crimes are quickly being put back on the streets, sometimes with deadly results.

    Indeed, in their initial research, The Enquirer found that there had been two recent cases in which men who were out on bond have been charged with killing people.

    Yet another example came recently in Toledo, where a man who is accused of having engaged in a shootout at a city basketball game attended by dozens of people was found to have been arrested for a gun-related crime only one week prior.

    From WTVG (ABC Toledo):

    On Wednesday, police issued a felonious assault warrant for Maliek Emanuel-Mitchell for the shooting that happened Sunday. One person was injured and multiple cars were shot during that incident.

    A week earlier, Emanuel-Mitchell was arrested by Toledo Police and charged with carrying a concealed hand gun. He made a court appearance the next day and was released on an own-recognizance bond, with a scheduled court date of Aug. 27.

    Emanuel-Mitchell is still at large. Court documents said he and two other co-defendants threw fireworks out and began firing their guns while more than 50 people were at the park for a basketball tournament. More than 15 shell casings were recovered from the scene.

    This kind of lack of enforcement of existing gun laws shows exactly why passing still more laws or increasing penalties is not going to have the effect on crime that DeWine claims.

    This problem has been on full display in Ohio cities for many years. In the past two decades, leaders in the cities of Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo have all claimed they just had to have new gun control laws in place in order to combat crime in their cities. Yet investigations showed that when the laws were put in place, they were rarely if ever enforced (see here and here and here).

    There should be no more talk of new laws which will only punish the law-abiding. Instead, those who are truly seeking to make a difference should focus their efforts on ensuring that government entities fairly, consistently, and regularly use the crime-fighting tools they already have.

    Chad D. Baus served as Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary from 2013-2019, and continues to serve on the Board of Directors. He is co-founder of BFA-PAC, and served as its Vice Chairman for 15 years. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website, and is also an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

    Related Article:

    Dispatch editorial: "Gun laws pointless if not enforced"

  • Tactical Training Scenario- “They’re Putting On Ski Masks”

    Jul 28, 2021 | 11:00 am

    Tactical Training Scenario- “They’re Putting On Ski Masks”

    I once responded to a very unique call in my cop job. The details might generate some critical thinking on the part of my readers.

    A woman and her infant child were parked outside a small electronics store on a busy thoroughfare in the suburban city where I work. She was waiting to provide a ride home to her sister and her best friend, both of whom were working in the store. Five minutes before closing, another car pulled into the parking lot. It was occupied by two men. She thought it was strange because it backed into a parking space facing the store and because it had no license plates, either front or back. Even though it was strange, the car was a Lexus and didn’t seem out of place in the wealthy suburb.

    The woman watched as one of the men entered the store while the other stayed in the car with the engine running. The man in the store asked some unusual questions about a remote control, looked around the store thoroughly and then left a couple minutes later without buying anything. He returned to the parked car and sat down in the passenger seat.

    The woman, still unnoticed by them men, watched as the two men in the car pulled ski masks down over their faces and got out of the car together to walk into the store. The woman realized she was witnessing a robbery going down. She wanted to protect her sister and best friend inside, but didn’t want to endanger her infant child in the back seat.

    If you were the woman watching, what would you do?

    The woman told me that she couldn’t live with the thought that her sister and friend could be killed. She took a risk. She simultaneously turned on her car’s lights and called her sister on her cell phone. The robbers saw that a witness was watching them and was calling someone. That was enough to stop their attack. They ran back to the car and sped away.

    Everything turned out fine. The store wasn’t robbed and the witness (and her child) weren’t harmed. But did the woman make the right choice? What else could she have done?

    Calling her sister on the phone led to some unanticipated chaos and a delayed police response. The sister inside the store was new to that location. She didn’t know where the non-emergency police numbers were written down. The store employee said she didn’t know if it was appropriate to call 911 for such a situation and she couldn’t find the non-emergency police number.

    Instead of calling 911, she called her store manager, who then called the non-emergency police number from home. By the time we got the call, the robbers were long gone.

    Don’t be afraid to call 911! Get the police on their way as quickly as possible. Anytime there’s a serious crime in progress or a likelihood of injury, 911 is the appropriate number to dial. It would also be a good idea to write down any essential numbers near your home or business land line phone. It will save critical minutes if you don’t have to look up the number you need.

    Besides calling 911 instead of her sister in the store, what else should the woman have done? I think she is heroic for turning on her lights and alerting the robbers, but that course of action could have led to tragedy. The woman was unarmed. If the lights didn’t disturb the robbers, there was nothing that she could have done to stop the robbery. Any further action would only endanger her and the child. Maybe turning on the lights as she drove away would be a better option? If the lights would deter the robbers, they would still see them as the woman drove away. But driving away would put her in a safer position relative to the robbers.

    I don’t know what the “best” course of action would have been. I think that I would have driven away if I were in her spot, but you might feel differently.

    Most of my readers carry guns. What would you do here if you were carrying your pistol? Would you leave your infant child to protect your sister and friend? Would you willingly engage the two robbers knowing that you are certainly outnumbered and likely outgunned? Would you go into the store guns blazing or would your pretend to be unarmed until you could get a better handle on what was happening inside?

    All of these are questions to consider. There are no “right” answers. Each person will likely respond differently depending on skill level and motivation. I encourage you to think through this scenario and find your own “right answer.”

    Greg Ellifritz is a retired firearms and defensive tactics training officer. He holds instructor or master instructor certifications in more than 75 different weapon systems, defensive tactics programs and police specialty areas. Greg has a master's degree in Public Policy and Management and is an instructor for both the Ohio Peace Officer's Training Academy and the Tactical Defense Institute.

  • Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson continues to shift blame for problems literally in his own back yard

    Jul 27, 2021 | 11:00 am

    Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson continues to shift blame for problems literally in his own back yard

    Ohio gun owners are very familiar with Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, even if they are blessed to live outside of Cuyahoga County.

    Throughout his years as mayor, Jackson has sought to punish law-abiding gun owners for the violence in his crime-plagued city again and again and again.

    His latest effort comes via a letter to President Joe Biden, signed by 27 other mayors, asking for help to reduce gun violence.

    From Cleveland's Plain Dealer:

    The mayors, all from major U.S. cities, praised proposals already put forward, such as red flag laws various states have adopted and proposals to limit so-called ghost guns.

    But more is needed, they said.

    “We write to congratulate you and your administration on the steps you have already taken to address the scourge of gun violence we face in cities across America,” the letter, dated June 15, states. “We believe there are other steps that the federal government is uniquely qualified to take to enhance the efforts already underway.”

    Those steps, the mayors wrote, include:

    Using the platform of the presidency to emphasize that reducing gun violence is a public health imperative.

    Pushing for meaningful and common-sense gun control legislation.

    Implementing universal background checks, closing loopholes in gun laws, banning assault weapons and promoting policies that keep guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous to themselves and others.

    The letter was sent to Biden through the United States Conference of Mayors.

    The article notes that as crime rose in Cleveland during the pandemic, Jackson often cited the ease with which guns can be obtained as a major factor in crime in Cleveland and other cities.

    But Ohio gun owners know, if Jackson really wanted to do something about crime, he would start literally with his own house:

    In a statement released following the arrest of his grandson in 2017, Mayor Jackson said "Frank is my grandson and as any parent or grandparent who has raised children in a challenging environment knows, there is a constant worry about their wellbeing."

    Major Jackson's repeated efforts to violate the Second Amendment rights of residents of this "challenging environment" have been found by courts to be unconstitutional (see here and here).

    In early 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court refused to take up the City of Cleveland's appeal of an Eighth District Court of Appeals decision which declared that a Cleveland gun offender registry and several gun regulations first proposed by Mayor Frank Jackson in 2014, and passed by city council in 2015 are unconstitutional. A lower court had already struck down other parts of the law in 2016.

    Buckeye Firearms Association has fought Jackson's efforts for many years. We have repeatedly exposed the fact that the local gun control policies he supports are rarely used to prosecute crimes because, as municipal statutes, they can only be enforced as misdemeanors, whereas when crimes are committed involving firearms, state laws have been violated that carry felony penalties are involved. Given the choice, prosecutors will naturally chose to pursue charges on the higher penalty.

    It's no surprise that crime is up in a "challenging environment" like Cleveland. What else would anyone expect when the city "leaders" are part of the problem instead of part of the solution?

    Chad D. Baus served as Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary from 2013-2019, and continues to serve on the Board of Directors. He is co-founder of BFA-PAC, and served as its Vice Chairman for 15 years. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website, and is also an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

  • PODCAST: Get a "Sneak Peak" Inside the Most Pressing Gun Rights Legislation of 2021

    Jul 26, 2021 | 19:00 pm

    PODCAST: Get a "Sneak Peak" Inside the Most Pressing Gun Rights Legislation of 2021

    The Keep and Bear Radio podcast is hosted on the Podbean platform and is also available on Apple, Google, Spotify, and iHeartRadio. Make sure to subscribe to the podcast to hear every episode.

    ***

    Episode 23:

    Discover why some sanctuary legislation runs too cold … or too hot. Find out who is really behind the Madison School legal case that, for the moment, has nixed armed school staff.

    Hear our assessment of whether any of the current crop of anti gun bills in Ohio will pass. And see just how easy it is to track the progress of any gun bill.

  • August is National Shooting Sports Month. Join the +ONE movement and invite someone to the range!

    Jul 26, 2021 | 11:00 am

    August is National Shooting Sports Month. Join the +ONE movement and invite someone to the range!

    August is National Shooting Sports Month®, a time to celebrate one of America’s great pastimes — target shooting — a safe, fun activity enjoyed by millions of people across the country, with millions more wanting to take their first shots.

    Research by the National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) shows that 24 million Americans are very interested in learning about the shooting sports, making National Shooting Sports Month the perfect time for someone to give target shooting a try. There are dozens of sports from which to choose, from hitting steel targets with handguns and rifles to breaking clay targets in the shotgun sports of trap, skeet and sporting clays.

    If just one in three of America’s recreational shooters adds one new person to the shooting sports, we’ll secure a strong future for generations to come. So be the one. For all the thrills and excitement recreational shooting has given you, join the +ONE movement and invite someone to the range today. Share your experience with posts on social media. #PlusOneMovementSM

  • Gun Control Research Methods: Close Enough

    Jul 23, 2021 | 19:00 pm

    Gun Control Research Methods: Close Enough

    Social science methods are not perfect, but that has never stopped anti-gun researchers from making outlandish claims. Most recently, a team of researchers led by Doctor Apurva Bhatt from the University of Missouri Kansas City sought to evaluate the effect of changes in Missouri firearms laws on suicides among teenagers and young adults. Their analysis is burdened by a fundamental disregard of applicable firearms laws and their findings are so suspect that even uninvolved anti-gun researchers have formally acknowledged the problems.

    Let’s begin with the results as claimed by the researchers in the first-page summary of their findings:

    “Repeal of the PTP [permit to purchase] law was associated with a 21.8% increase in firearm suicide rates in young adults aged 19 to 24 years in Missouri. Lowering the minimum age of concealed carry to 19 years in Missouri was associated with a 32.0% increase in firearm suicide rates and a 29.7% increase in nonfirearm suicide rates in adolescents aged 14 to 18 years, and a 7.2% increase in firearm suicide rates in young adults aged 19 to 24 years.”

    We’ll unpack these findings a bit but – spoiler alert – they didn’t include all of their results in that summary. Surely it was a simple oversight, but we’ll get to these other findings.

    Bhatt and company here claim that the 2007 repeal of the requirement that a law-abiding adult obtain a permit to purchase a firearm is associated with a large increase in firearm suicide rates among people between the ages of 19 and 24. This, on the surface, aligns with what anti-gun activists and researchers insist must be true: that less onerous requirements to obtain firearms must lead to more deaths involving a firearm. The key to this study is what Bhatt and team have intentionally excluded from this summary. You see, according to the researchers in Kansas City, the repeal of this law is also estimated with a decrease in firearms-involved suicides among teenagers aged 14 to 18. If the law were really related to the suicide rate, one would expect similar changes among both populations.

    But don’t take it from us. Take it from widely published researcher and new CDC grant recipient Doctor Ali Rowhani-Rahbar. He said, “This finding should be interpreted with caution, especially considering the lack of traditional measures of uncertainty when using the synthetic control approach. If not explained entirely by chance, one would want to understand why the consequences of repealing the PTP law might be qualitatively in different directions for individuals aged 14 to 18 years compared with those aged 19 to 24 years. This repeal does not seem to coincide with additional safety measures at home for families with youth, questioning the mechanism behind these seemingly opposing associations.”

    Like, Dr. Rowhani-Rahbar, we’ll also question that mechanism. Bahr and company used a synthetic control methodology which, in short, means they used a statistical analysis program to build a version of Missouri comprised of other states with similar laws and other similarities across a very limited number of additional variables. The “synthetic” version of Missouri used to model teenage firearm suicides was 46% New York.

    The second aspect of this new study concerns the twice-lowered age threshold for concealed carry permits in Missouri. The age requirement was lowered from 23 to 21 years old in 2011 and later lowered to 19 years old in 2014. According to the researchers, lowering the age for concealed carry permits to 21 is associated with a decrease in the firearm suicide rate among teenagers aged 14 to 18 AND among adults aged 19 to 24. This reduction is also associated with a decrease in the non-firearm suicide rate in the older of these two populations but an increase in the non-firearm rate among the younger cohort. Again, differing affects by age cohort.

    Don’t remember reading these in the results summary? Of course not. The researchers left it out. Instead, they only mentioned the findings from the second age reduction. Supposedly, reducing the age for obtaining a concealed carry permit to 19 years old is associated with a 32% increase in the firearm suicide rate among teenagers 14 to 18 and a 7% increase in firearm suicide rate among adults aged 19 to 24. According to their analysis, this reduction is also associated with a nearly 30% increase in the non-firearm suicide rate among teenagers in Missouri but a 19% decrease in non-firearm suicide rate among adults age 19 to 24.

    That…just does not make sense. Suicide prevention researchers believe that changing access to one type of means for suicide would also have a corresponding effect on other types of suicide. The overly simplified version of this would be an increase in non-firearm suicide if all firearms just disappeared. But for the third time in this study, the researchers have effects moving in opposing directions for the two age groups. If the change in the law was associated with changes in the suicide rate in the real world, we would expect to see offsetting changes between firearm and non-firearm suicide rates. That is not present in this study, so we have some questions about this mechanism as well. Maybe their data and coding system is flawed?

    Missouri instituted permitless carry at the very tail-end of the researchers’ study period (in 2016), so they could maybe – maybe - be excused for not addressing that in their analysis IF one was desperate to believe in this work. They could have just excluded those years from their study period. What cannot be excused is the glaring oversight in the concealed carry laws in the states used to create the synthetic Missouri for these models.

    “For the concealed carry analysis, states were only included in the donor pool if they had an existing concealed carry law and no change in that law during the study period (January 2008 to December 2018).”

    States used to build “synthetic” Missouri included Alaska (2003), Arizona (2010), Arkansas (2013), Kansas (2015), Maine (2015), Mississippi (2013), New Hampshire (2017), West Virginia (2016), and Wyoming (2011).

    The years in parentheses are the year in which each of these states enacted permitless carry. Some of these states set the age threshold for permitless carry at 18, some at 21. The point is that there is a very fundamental mistreatment of the states and laws at the heart of this analysis. Their “synthetic” Missouri also includes may-issue states that allow local official to deny even a qualified person a permit for arbitrary reasons. California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey are all may-issue states that were used in the concealed carry permit model to build a synthetic Missouri.

    The authors do not appear to have built a reliable “synthetic” Missouri. The charts on page 7 of their study reveal that synthetic Missouri and “real” Missouri did not have similar rates of firearm suicide or non-firearm suicide. The trend lines for the two Missouris are plotted on the same chart, and one can simply see that the two lines do not match up before the law was changed. This, of course, indicates that their synthetic control is not really approximate the relevant characteristics of Missouri.

    There was no effort to control for mental health treatment or other laws or state programs that may have impacted suicide rates. The researchers offer ham-handed excuses for the discrepancies within their findings and the limitations of their study, and Rowhani-Rahbar tries to make the case that this “research” is still relevant and important because it contributes to the body of knowledge about firearm policies and suicide.

    It does not contribute to the body of knowledge – it muddies what is known about suicide and firearms policy by promoting claims drawn from fatally flawed analyses.

    This paper, like other examples of poorly done research – see here and here, seems to have prioritized blaming firearms instead of using a sound methodology.

    Surprised?

    © 2021 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

  • Gun Control “Redlining” - Journalist Demands Realty Records Show Gun Owners

    Jul 23, 2021 | 11:00 am

    Gun Control “Redlining” - Journalist Demands Realty Records Show Gun Owners

    In a series of tweets on June 8, Virginia Heffernan, a Harvard-educated columnist for The Los Angeles Times, wrote: “Real-estate listings should include prevalence of gun-ownership in a 50-mile radius and number of annual mass shootings in the region. Time to change what a ‘bad neighborhood’ is.” In follow-up tweets she added, “…and introduce a meaningful tax on guns and gun violence. No one should say ‘this is a great place to raise kids’ about neighborhoods where even one person has an assault rifle.” The idea is to take “race, class [and] politics out of the real estate equation.”

    There are so many flaws in this piece of unhinged idiocy that it’s hard to know where to start. Perhaps the most neutral point is envisioning the implementation of her new “bad neighborhoods” approach.

    Heffernan’s “gun ownership metric” calls for disclosure for not just a particular neighborhood, but every place within a “50-mile radius.” Using Los Angeles as the base, the 50-mile zone would include the cities of Long Beach, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Glendale, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Pomona, Torrance, Rancho Cucamonga, Garden Grove, and scores of others. Disclosure for real estate in Washington, D.C. would have to cover several sensitive federal facilities (among them the White House, the ATF headquarters, and the Pentagon) as well as cities in neighboring Maryland and Virginia. How realistic or relevant is this?

    Another snag (even assuming this information would never need to be updated) is how the “prevalence of gun-ownership” in any given area would be determined. There is no national gun registry or federal license required to own a gun. If a recent request regarding Hunter Biden is a reliable indication, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) claims it is prohibited from releasing its records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act where “the subject of the records request is a third party and a private citizen,” unless the person has authorized the release or the “public interest in the disclosure outweighs the personal privacy interests” of the individual.

    Many states protect their own records of firearm licenses, permits and the information they contain, and make it a crime to disclose these records to anyone other than law enforcement or other authorized personnel carrying out specific official duties. Real estate agents, would-be homeowners, or common snoops can’t comb through public records for information on whether any licensed individuals keep firearms nearby.

    Expecting voluntary disclosure to make this crackpot proposal work is fanciful in the extreme. Criminals – the class most at risk for gun violence – are as liable to comply with voluntary disclosure requests as with existing mandatory firearm laws (and accordingly, are unlikely to feature in any real estate map of gun owners). Persons in lawful possession of guns may have their own good reasons for not wishing to disclose that fact, not the least of which are the distorted value judgments of people like Heffernan. (Heffernan, in case you’ve forgotten, had written a column in February likening her Trump-supporting neighbors to Hezbollah mafias and Nazi sympathizers because the “Trumpites” had the gall to clear a driveway for her, snarking “Free driveway work, as nice as it is, is just not the same currency as justice and truth.”)

    Most fundamentally, Heffernan’s proposal ignores the fact that in America, the freedom to exercise constitutionally-protected rights is not dependent on the approbation of one’s neighbors or the opinions of (what passes for) the news media.

    In addition to practical and legal deficiencies, Heffernan’s tweets expose her contemptuous assumptions that all gun owners are immoral or at least, undesirable (“time to change what a ‘bad neighborhood’ is”) as are all guns, even those lawfully possessed (“No one should say ‘this is a great place to raise kids’ about neighborhoods where even one person has an assault rifle”). Less obvious is the underlying argument for universal gun registration, the usual end game for gun control activists, because the success of her proposal is entirely dependent on pinpointing the firearm owners in any given place. Once such a scheme is in place, how long would it be before gun-owner zones faced Heffernan’s “meaningful tax on guns” or some other forms of financial sanction as part of this gun-control version of redlining?

    Heffernan’s claim that her idea takes “race, class [and] politics out of the real estate equation” falls apart given her response, detailed in her February column, to the “Trumpites next door.” Gun owners or not, they don’t merit “absolution” for the offense of having supported the elected president. Heffernan offers the trite observation that “[l]oving your neighbor is evidently much easier when your neighborhood is full of people just like you.” As record numbers of Americans opt to exercise their Second Amendment rights and acquire firearms, we’re predicting she’ll be increasingly hard pressed to find a location where she can love her like-minded neighbors unreservedly.

    © 2021 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

  • Renew Your Pride in America - Attend a Project Appleseed Rifle Marksmanship Event

    Jul 22, 2021 | 19:00 pm

    Renew Your Pride in America - Attend a Project Appleseed Rifle Marksmanship Event

    Project Appleseed isn’t a gun club or a militia, nor is it a historical society. Instead, it's a non-partisan group of men and women (known as the Revolutionary War Veterans Association) who are committed to upholding the values and principles of America’s founding fathers.

    They use rifle marksmanship instruction as a gateway to help bring our nation’s history to life and to show that many of the values that our forefathers relied on to win our independence are still very much in demand today.

    Through clinics and events, they teach rifle marksmanship and early American heritage to introduce individuals of all skill levels to the knowledge that was so crucial to the success of our nation’s founders.

    Aside from the fun and camaraderie of these events, the designed takeaway is a renewed sense of civic responsibility that each attendee can then implement in his or her own community.

    CLICK HERE for more information and online registration.

    2021 Appleseed Schedule for the State of Ohio

    NOTE : Online registration ends 24 hours prior to the event. If you have any questions, contact steven.branam@projectappleseed.net.

    July 2021

    Marion OH July 24, 2021 - July 25, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    Piqua OH July 24, 2021 - July 25, 2021 - Pistol Clinic

    Salem OH July 24, 2021 - July 25, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    August 2021

    Marengo OH August 07, 2021 - August 08, 2021 - Pistol Clinic

    Vienna OH August 07, 2021 - August 08, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    Piqua OH August 14, 2021 - August 15, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    Wilmington OH August 14, 2021 - August 15, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    New Philadelphia OH August 21, 2021 - August 22, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    Toledo-Curtice OH August 21, 2021 - August 22, 2021 - Pistol Clinic

    Coshocton OH August 28, 2021 - August 29, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    September 2021

    Toledo-Curtice OH September 18, 2021 - September 19, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    Orwell OH September 25, 2021 - September 26, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    October 2021

    Newark OH October 02, 2021 - October 03, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    Marengo OH October 09, 2021 - October 10, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    Wilmington OH October 16, 2021 - October 17, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    Marion OH October 23, 2021 - October 24, 2021 - Known Distance Clinic

    Piqua OH October 23, 2021 - October 24, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    Gibsonburg OH October 30, 2021 - October 31, 2021 - Rifle Marksmanship

    New Philadelphia OH October 30, 2021 - October 31, 2021 - Known Distance Clinic

    November 2021

    Marengo OH November 06, 2021 - November 07, 2021 - Pistol Clinic

    Piqua OH November 13, 2021 - November 14, 2021 - Pistol Clinic

    CLICK HERE for more information and online registration.

 

BFA logo

Defending Your Firearm Rights