Ohio To Put Guns in Baby Strollers

.


The Ohio Legislature has approved a bill that would allow parents to conceal loaded guns in baby strollers and carriages, even if the baby is also on board.  "It's a splendid extension of our cherished Second Amendment rights," crowed Representative Howard Teap, the bill's sponsor, "since it would never occur to a mugger that a mother might pull a gun from a stroller and defend herself by shooting him down."  The bill would also allow hidden guns in all sorts of baby carriers, including backpacks and slings.  To avoid accidental discharge of guns concealed in these things, the gun would have to be heavy enough that the infant could neither lift it him/herself nor pull the trigger without parental or sibling assistance.

When opponents of the bill protested this latest extension of Ohio's vigorous gun protection laws, Representative Teap pointed out forcefully that "Babies are also Americans with Second Amendment rights!"  This argument carried the day, and Governor John Kasich has promised to sign the bill when it reaches his desk.


Far-fetched?  Perhaps, but consider the following:
Today's Columbus Dispatch has an article entitled "Gun Backers Win Again," detailing the remarkable record of victories for the gun lobby in the Ohio Legislature.  Guns are now allowed in bars, in restaurants, in hidden compartments in cars (unless you are a drug dealer), and more.  Concealed weapons are encouraged, and recently proposed legislation would gut gun responsibility training rules, while automatically allowing gun owners who have concealed-carry permits issued by other states to carry in Ohio without having to take any local steps.  Also proposed is a bill allowing loaded magazines in vehicles if the owner also has a gun in the car/truck/snowmobile/etc.

This is despite the fact that these laws have been consistently opposed by Ohio prosecutors and most law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police.  The National Rifle Association is delighted, of course, and points to Ohio as a shining example of a state that has its priorities straight.  Meantime organizations like the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence are weeping in their beer (which they will be well advised to drink at private parties rather than doing so in a bar while wearing their OCAGV t-shirts).

Rumors are that the United States Supreme Court will soon have an opportunity to hear a case in which the issue is whether guns are people too, and given the Court's opinion in the Citizens United case, who knows how that will come out?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also: "A Guide to the Best of My Blog," April 29, 2013

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How To Write an Effective Legal Threat Letter

Image
                                              . Since I graduated from law school in 1968 I've always had some sort of legal practice which varied from extensive in the early years, to these days when I'm retired and mostly just doing consulting work for a hefty fee.   In this period I've written a lot of letters threatening legal action on behalf of my client (or, on the rare occasion, myself—see Related Posts below).   In the classroom I've passed on my advice on how to create an effective letter, and now I offer it to you, blog reader. A letter threatening legal action almost always discombobulates a recipient who is not him/herself routinely involved in legal actions.   I tell my law students that in their coming practices they will often...
Read more

Mortgage Foreclosures, Missing Promissory Notes, and the Uniform Commercial Code: A New Article

Image
. For the last few years I have been crossing the country giving lectures on what I now call the "Golden Rule of Mortgage Foreclosures," which is that such foreclosures cannot proceed without production of the original promissory note signed at the closing.  A symposium at Western State University Law School last year at which I gave the keynote address turned into a law review article on point, and that law review article is reprinted below in full.  The correct citation for the printed version is 39 W. St. U. L. Rev. 313 (2012).  As subsequent developments occur I will add them in red to the original article below.  Any corrections or suggestions may be sent to me at dglswhaley@aol.com .                                             ...
Read more

The Payment-In-Full Check: A Powerful Legal Maneuver

Image
Having a dispute with a creditor? One way to win it (and fast) is to send that creditor a "payment in full" check [hereafter "PIFC"] and end it things in your favor. How does this bit of legal magic work? Read on. It's always been the law that if you and I have an existing contract, either one of us can propose a modification to that contract, and if we both agree, the contract changes accordingly. There are technical names for this. Say, for instance, that I owe you an undisputed amount of $500. I send you an email and ask if you would take my horse Dobbins is settlement of the debt, and you reply in the affirmative. My offer of something different than what was originally owed (the horse for the money) is called the offer of an "accord." Your agreement to take Dobbins is the "satisfaction." Thus an "accord and satisfaction" in our law is nothing more than a fancy name for a modification agreement. I no longer owe you $500; I...
Read more