I support the NRA in this effort, as they are voting the way we should!...WITH OUR POCKETBOOKS!
Columbus will be the ultimate fiscal looser here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Assault weapons ban triggers NRA cancellation

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The National Rifle Association said Monday it is pulling its 2007 national convention out of Columbus because of the city's ban on assault weapons.


National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre holds a news conference Monday in Columbus, Ohio

The City Council passed a ban July 12 outlawing the sale or possession of semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips and detachable magazines.

The gun owners' organization had planned to hold its annual three-day event, expected to draw as many as 60,000 people, at the Greater Columbus Convention Center.

"The party is canceled because last week your city council unanimously voted to revoke the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens in Columbus by banning perfectly legal firearms," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.

Councilman Michael Mentel said the NRA knew when it scheduled the convention that the city was considering a weapons ban and used the Columbus law to seek publicity.

"I do think it is a ruse," he said. "They knew exactly what was going on in Columbus."

Mayor Michael Coleman said that the NRA and other groups won't dictate city policy and that the ban will make the city safer, which will attract convention business overall.

Federal lawsuits have overturned two previous attempts by Columbus to ban assault weapons.

The latest law attempts to avoid that by spelling out a distinction between legal sporting weapons and military-style assault weapons.

The NRA also considered Portland, Oregon, and Reno, Nevada, for the 2007 event.

The convention was expected to generate $15 million to $20 million for city businesses, but other groups have shown interest in meeting in the city the week the NRA was to have its meeting, said Paul Astleford, president of the city's convention and visitors bureau.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/18/nra.ban.ap/index.html

From the article:



i wonder if there is any real evidence that shows that semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips and detachable magazines are an actual problem in Columbus, Ohio?

http://www.wbns10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S...78&nav=LUERc1U3



Many rifles with an internal magazine and that don't have a pistol grip can do the same.



I wonder how many criminals who have the banned weapons are going to obey that law? I also wonder how they define "sportsmen" and why are they allowed to have a weapon that can "tear through a quarter inch piece of steel....shred a police vest...(and) go through an officer and exiting their body"?

Punishments listed for violating the law:



http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news...te/12112437.htm

This is interesting:



http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news...te/11929906.htm

Here is a link to the Legal Community Against Violence website:

http://www.lcav.org/index.asp

Here is a link to the model law promoted by the above organization:

http://www.lcav.org/library/model_laws/Assault_Weapons.pdf

"weapon that can "tear through a quarter inch piece of steel....shred a police vest...(and) go through an officer and exiting their body"?
========================================
This is just about exactly what it takes to humanely kill a deer, or larger animal.
Do you know that an arrow from a longbow, recurve or compound bow , or a crossbow, will penetrate a police vest better than many bullets?
Just as soon as everyone becomes informed and knowledgeable about this issue, we can begin to discuss it properly. Emotion driven rhetoric intended to frighten people is less than honest.
Please get the facts straight when we are discussing freedom. We don't need to lose much more.

I have my doubts if they will ever "get it", Bob...

The original "Assault Weapon".

Link to City of Columbus official website that has links to PDF and HTML files concerning the ban:

http://www.columbuscitycouncil.org/assaultweaponban/

From: "Libertarian Party of Ohio" <hq@lpo.org>
To: "LPO Announcements" <Announce@lpo.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:40:19 -0400
Subject: [Ohio LP] No Rights Are Absolute in Columbus
July 18, 2005

No Rights Are Absolute in Columbus
LPO supports NRA Decision

"Whereas, this Council recognizes that while no constitutionl rights
are
absolute, and there is no constitutional right to possess an assault
weapon.."

So starts the new Columbus City Council Ordinance disarming local
residents.

The Libertarian Party of Ohio issued a short statement today
supporting the
National Rifle Association's decision to move their convention
outside of
Columbus: "The Libertarian Party of Ohio supports the National Rifle
Association's decision to change their convention venue. The
Columbus City
Council clearly does not understand how to prevent crime, preserve
individual
liberty, nor grow the city's economy. They have violated their oath
to
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

"I want a safe community for my family as well. However, there is no
such thing as gun control, there is only victim disarmament. After
all,
who is going to obey a ban on a certain type of gun or ammunition?
Its
law abiding citizens. The criminals are not going to pay attention to
the ban," states Jim Schrader, a Libertarian Township Trustee from
Union
county.

"Once again, it saddens me to know that only Libertarians are
standing up for
the US Constition," notes Libertarian State Chair Jason Hallmark,
"Libertarian
cities like Gahanna and Piqua will never pass these types of bans."

Please help the Libertarian Party of Ohio. We're standing up for
you! But we
need your support! Click on this link to help us achieve our goals:
http://www.lpo.org/Contribute/LPOGoals.shtml

or mail a check to: Libertarian Party of Ohio, 700 Morse Rd. Suite
208,
Columbus OH 43214-1879

MAN. You guys sure jump all over this. We've discussed this before and came to some real consensus. However, (no matter the facts you presented) the City of Columbus, like Tombstone, or Dodge City has the right to say we don't want these guns in town.

Or don't they? If they don't according to the Second Amendment, then Wyatt Earp was violating the Second Amendment, back in the Wild Wild West.

My views on gun control are changing, if slowly. Since I now fear the control of our government (ref: CA National Guard story of a few weeks ago, etc.), I am beginning to believe that an armed populace may not be all bad. But I still have lots of reservations: Like making sure those who are gun owners are taught how to properly handle the weapon(s) they own. And requiring safety locks. And not allowing gun shows where just about anyone can come and buy whatever firearm they want. And, being a city dweller, I do think there is some merit to local control over these issues. But I no longer reject some of the NRA positions out of hand.

OK- now I am ready for a full assault on my mish-mash position.

I might add that the NRA should have chosen Reno- that would seem to be a no brainer, imho.

Of course they do!...And the NRA has a right to choose the venue for their convention where ever they please. It's that wonderful Democratic action called "protest"...and I support it!

I'm not an "all or nothing" type of guy when it comes to Gun Control, Pie. I believe in common sense when it comes to ownership, but I also believe that it should be based on a creditable fact or threat and not on political hysterics or agendas.

Fine! Common Ground!

This is why I'm interested in this. Is there a real nead for this law in Columbus or has it been put in effect because of hysterics or an agenda.?

Now, Michigan's a gun friendly state but I should be aware of what's going on in other areas and be familiar with the reasons given, the arguements used and so on.

What if the "reasons" aren't technically sound but are as you say "hysterics", perceptions by the majority of the populous of a town or city. Do they have the right to say that these particular guns are not wanted in town?

They can do what they want to do. Any gun law passed in Columbus, Ohio will have no effect on me. And we are free to discuss it here as whatever we say will have no effect on the gun laws put into force in that city.

Why do we bother to pretend we have a constitution at all? Why don't we just let the guy with the loudest mouth get to say what we can do?
You can't have a constitution when you need it, and ignore it when you don't. You can't dick around changing the meaning of words to whatever you want them to mean today, and something else tomorrow.
Cities, counties, and states don't have rights, individuals do, and it is the rights of individuals that the constitution protects, not the whims of any government entity.
I am a free American because the constitution says I must be, not because EVERYBODY likes Redskin Rednecks like me. If I had to depend on a popular vote I might end up stuffed and holding cigars on a sidewalk. I don't know of any of my African American friends that want to trust their future to a popular vote.
I am all for democracy, but like every other force it must have limits Those limits begin with the Bill of Rights.

Did the city bring this to a consensus vote of the citizens, or was this a decision based on political expediency?
Was statistical fact used in making this decision?

Well, to the people the Republicans like to call "Strict Constitutionalists" Or "Origionalists" it would be the concept of "GRANTING " rights to the "Guy" (or Corporation) with the Loudest (Most Money) voice. Instead of the Constitution limiting the powers of Government to curb YOUR liberties!

The twisted lie of the "Strict Constitutionalist" is that they are somhow protecting the Constitution from "activist Judges"!
Whom (now get this) evily "Grant" individual people liberties not enumerated in the Origonal Constitution! (how dare they? they are not even corporations)

Get it? They are protecting the Constitution from all of us evil individuals who think we have rights!

They have turned the ACTUAL origonal true concept of the Constitution on its' head. By claiming the RIGHT for themselves of GRANTING you RIGHTS and deciding if YOU deserve those rights!They are quite generous in making Corporations persons and then GRANTING THEM MORE RIGHTS THAN THEY GRANT YOU! But if a "Liberal" Judge says you have rights; WELL, THEN HE'S AN EVIL LIBERAL ACTIVIST STEPPING OUTSIDE THE LIMITED RIGHTS THEY CLAIM THE CONSTITUTION (THRU THEM) grants you!

Clever isn't it?

Are you claiming their elected representatives don't represent the people?

Man does not grant an inalienable right. No law may dictate my self protection or how I choose to protect myself. My freedom of survival is my responsibility.
A governing body that violates this...violates the Constitution, IMO.

I agree with the concept of total sovereignty of the individual. But when joining a community we voluntarily give up SOME sovereignty to co-operate. Ie.. my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

I would be violating your freedom to do so.
Self-protection violates none. If you deny that right, do you undertake the responsibility for my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
Laws like those that were passed in Columbus, infringe on that right.

I didn't read all of the thread so I won't say you're wrong. But If I got the gist they were banning only a certain type of gun. If that's true how does that infringe on your right to defend yourself?

It's incremental, TRoU. Kinda like the slow-boiling frog thing.
The gun itself is no different than any other semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact...It's considerably less powerful than my Deer Rifle. Over the last 20 years, the so-called Assault Rifle has been used in about one percent of gun crime. The handgun however is the criminal’s weapon of choice.
Laws that truly effect crime are good, but laws that only punish the law-abiding while giving the criminal the upper hand are bad.

OK Stephen, I don't want to go down the same road we went before and rehash all the arguements on both sides. I want to preserve the consensus I think was reached.

You believe the NRA is acting properly in this case. We agreed on that. The People of Columbus have the right to act as they chose, and so does the NRA Convention Committee.

Common ground!

Whatever, every time DiFi opens her mouth, WE lose another few million votes.
Who's side is she on? DiFi ain't worried about my grandsons healthcare future, all she thinks of is her personal little phobias.
With "friends" like "DiFi", why the hell do we need enemies?

It's been said that gun owners tend to be single issue voters and thus would consider Sen. Feinstein a bad egg. However, she's taken positions on other issues that I either found acceptable or have agreed with so overall, I think she's a pretty good and effective senator.

Effective at losing national elections, for sure. What's good about that?

While Sen. Feinstein's views on gun control probably do make some gun owners leary about the Democrat Party as a whole, it doesn't have the impact that a candidate for President does. I find Howard Dean's stand to be quite acceptable.

You need to get out in the boonies and talk to people, she does have great impact.
Don't make the mistake of acting as though your personal group of friends and associates is representative of the whole country.
Howard Dean's stand is overwhelmed by the shrill voices coming from the background. I sure don't envy him his job.

I live in the boonies. It's a 90 mile round trip to and from the nearest McDonalds. I think there's some truth to what you said about Dean being drowned out by others.

People I talk to worry about having a congress that would pass Draconian gun control laws, and a president that would sign them. There are many years of pent up suspicion lurking, it will be an effort to build trust, and take time. It is a shame the damage was ever done, worse that it keeps on growing.
I remember my first thought after Sen. Feinstein made the "turn them in speech", it was "who the hell do you think you're talking to, sister"! I have enough people mad at me for telling them not to worry, with someone spouting off like that, hell, it makes me worry.