To: The Ohio State House, The Ohio State Senate, and Governor Mike DeWine
Ohio Assault Weapons Ban
Assault weapons, along with large capacity ammunition feeding devices, should not be used by civilians and have no place in our cities and towns.
Why is this important?
In Ohio, we limit to three the number of shotgun slugs a hunter can have in his or her rifle while deer hunting. Why in the world do we offer a better chance of survival to a deer than we do to a nightclub patron?
First, as the author of this petition, I want to be clear about my position. I own a handgun and I support the right of other responsible people to also own handguns and sporting weapons. Furthermore, unlike most of the people who are vocal about their right to protect themselves with a gun, I've actually been in situations where I've used my gun for self protection—twice last summer alone, once when a man broke into our home in the middle of the night, and another time when I crossed paths with a feral hog at my farm.
But for the life of me, I see no reason why anyone needs an assault-style weapon for self-protection. I get the attraction and enjoyment that some people find in owning these sorts of weapons They are a lot of fun. I also acknowledge that an assault weapons ban is an infringement against the majority of people who use them responsibly. But, dammit, I am so tired of seeing innocent children slaughtered by these weapons.
Some people feel a better solution would be to arm everyone. I don't see that working. Not everyone wants to carry a gun, and not everyone wants to live in a world where they feel they need to do so in order to go about their daily affairs. They would prefer some common-sense alternative that would help keep assault-style weapons out of the hands of crazies, criminals, and terrorists. Furthermore, it's reckless to suggest that a gun is the best choice for folks who don't want to carry guns to begin with, who are afraid of them, and who wouldn't put the time in that's needed in order to be proficient in their use.
I also know that both sides of this debate arrived at different conclusions about the effectiveness of the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. About the only thing that they agreed on was that it appeared to lower the incidents of mass shootings. That'll work.
Is there a Constitutional issue here? That's a red herring, in my mind. As the Supreme Court has ruled a number of times, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, nor is it a device designed to assist mass murderers and terrorists. Of course an assault weapons ban isn't going to stop every instance of mass murder or every type of terrorist attack. Of course there needs to be more effort made to identify the people who truly intend to misuse these weapons to kill children and cut short promising lives. But it might help some. An assault weapons ban is not a perfect remedy, but it's an uneasy compromise I'll accept at this point if it helps keep just one more nut from causing mayhem at just one more elementary school.
Addendum: Some people have contacted me to state that it's hard to define what an assault weapon is. Ultimately, that's a legislature's responsibility to define, but here's my suggestion for a starting point--an assault weapon is a firearm with a barrel length greater than 12 inches AND holding more than 11 rounds at a time AND able to fire 30 rounds or more within two minutes. If a firearm meets all three of these conditions, it's an assault weapon. If a firearm does not meet all three of these conditions, it's not an assault weapon.
First, as the author of this petition, I want to be clear about my position. I own a handgun and I support the right of other responsible people to also own handguns and sporting weapons. Furthermore, unlike most of the people who are vocal about their right to protect themselves with a gun, I've actually been in situations where I've used my gun for self protection—twice last summer alone, once when a man broke into our home in the middle of the night, and another time when I crossed paths with a feral hog at my farm.
But for the life of me, I see no reason why anyone needs an assault-style weapon for self-protection. I get the attraction and enjoyment that some people find in owning these sorts of weapons They are a lot of fun. I also acknowledge that an assault weapons ban is an infringement against the majority of people who use them responsibly. But, dammit, I am so tired of seeing innocent children slaughtered by these weapons.
Some people feel a better solution would be to arm everyone. I don't see that working. Not everyone wants to carry a gun, and not everyone wants to live in a world where they feel they need to do so in order to go about their daily affairs. They would prefer some common-sense alternative that would help keep assault-style weapons out of the hands of crazies, criminals, and terrorists. Furthermore, it's reckless to suggest that a gun is the best choice for folks who don't want to carry guns to begin with, who are afraid of them, and who wouldn't put the time in that's needed in order to be proficient in their use.
I also know that both sides of this debate arrived at different conclusions about the effectiveness of the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. About the only thing that they agreed on was that it appeared to lower the incidents of mass shootings. That'll work.
Is there a Constitutional issue here? That's a red herring, in my mind. As the Supreme Court has ruled a number of times, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, nor is it a device designed to assist mass murderers and terrorists. Of course an assault weapons ban isn't going to stop every instance of mass murder or every type of terrorist attack. Of course there needs to be more effort made to identify the people who truly intend to misuse these weapons to kill children and cut short promising lives. But it might help some. An assault weapons ban is not a perfect remedy, but it's an uneasy compromise I'll accept at this point if it helps keep just one more nut from causing mayhem at just one more elementary school.
Addendum: Some people have contacted me to state that it's hard to define what an assault weapon is. Ultimately, that's a legislature's responsibility to define, but here's my suggestion for a starting point--an assault weapon is a firearm with a barrel length greater than 12 inches AND holding more than 11 rounds at a time AND able to fire 30 rounds or more within two minutes. If a firearm meets all three of these conditions, it's an assault weapon. If a firearm does not meet all three of these conditions, it's not an assault weapon.