Online users
???: MessageChubbyloveable: FormRuss Walden: MessageChubbyloveable: Message

Note how The Columbus Dispatch disingenuously misrepresents and smears the Buckeye Firearms Association:
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

05/06/2019, 16:08:06

Author Profile Mail author Edit
www.dispatch.com

Ohio gun group falsely reports DeWine misspoke about 'red flag' legislation

Randy Ludlow
21-27 minutes

A leading Ohio gun-rights group falsely informed its members that Gov. Mike DeWine “misspoke” when he said his office is working to draft “red flag” legislation.

Expressing alarm over recent fatal shootings in houses of worship, DeWine said Monday that he is working to come up with a bill that would permit judges to order the seizure of guns from people found to be a danger to themselves or others.

In a Tuesday email to members, Dean Rieck, executive director of the Buckeye Firearms Association, said the group contacted administration officials to express their alarm. “We have been told that the governor misspoke when pressed by the media about red flag laws,” he wrote.

“And we have been assured that there is NO red flag bill under consideration by this administration and there will NOT be one.”

DeWine did not misspeak and his staff is indeed working to draft a “red flag” bill, said Dan Tierney, the first-year Republican’s press secretary.

“There is not a bill currently drafted. As Gov. DeWine stated, he has asked his team to work on this issue, and that is ongoing. Since the governor’s goal is to eventually draft a bill that can pass the Ohio General Assembly, we will continue to talk to and work with relevant interested parties, including the Buckeye Firearms Association, on this issue,” Tierney said.

Rieck did not respond Monday to a request for comment.

Jim Irvine, president of the Buckeye Firearms Association, said he had not talked with Rieck, but attributed his statement to members to apparent “miscommunication and imprecise use of the words ‘red flag.’”

“We need to use better words ... the governor and the media,” Irvine said. “That phrase means different things to different people ... ‘red flag’ is not a legal term, it’s a media term,” Irvine said, suggesting DeWine is not out to seek a law of the type enacted in California, which allows any family member or law-enforcement officer to request guns to be taken away from people believed to be at risk of hurting themselves or others.

A statement by Rieck on the group’s website differed from the email sent to its members. “We have been assured that there is NO current red flag bill drafted and we have been helping the governor explore options for safety and due process,” the website says.

The Buckeye Firearms Association fought former Gov. John Kasich’s proposal for a “red flag” law and other measures designed to reduce gun violence last year. The Republican-controlled General Assembly did not act on any of the proposals, to the governor’s dismay.

The group and other gun-rights organizations oppose such legislation.

Buckeye Firearms President Jim Irvine said last year, “No sane person wants evil or dangerous persons to have access to firearms to kill innocent people.

“Many people think confiscating guns from people who have not done anything wrong will somehow stop criminals from killing. That is an insane idea that must be confronted at every turn,” Irvine said.

Laura Lewis, of the Ohio chapter of Moms Demand Action, which seeks gun-control legislation, praised DeWine’s interest in a “red flag” law.

“Blue states and red states alike are enacting red flag laws because across party lines, there is broad support for keeping guns out of the hands of people who pose an extreme risk. The governor’s interest in this lifesaving policy is welcome news, and we’re looking forward to seeing the details of his team’s proposal,” she said.

rludlow@dispatch.com" style="color: rgb(0, 149, 221); text-decoration-line: none;">rludlow@dispatch.com

@RandyLudlow


  • Just now
"Red Flag" is, as Buckeye indicated, not a legal term but a media-generated meme that is understood to mean (according to all the versions so far enacted in different states) that the cops, family and others can petition a magistrate to issue an ex parte order to confiscate firearms based upon mere allegations. 

A so-called ERPO can only be constitutional if it enshrines the same protections for the denial of fundamental rights and property enumerated in the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. Additionally, the 4th Amendment requires that any warrant for such confiscation may only issue pursuant to probable cause of a crime having been committed, or in the process of being committed. 

As already enacted all over the place, that dog don't hunt. NONE of them have such protections in their laws. 

Translation: UNCONSTITUTIONAL.




LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.





Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page