facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

It’s time to act on gun safety



Published: Fri, February 1, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

It’s time to act on gun safety

In the United States, more than 85 people are killed at the hands of gun violence every day. More than twice as many people are injured. Over the past few years, we’ve seen mass shooting after mass shooting. Most recently, 20 elementary school students and 6 of their teachers died at the hands of a troubled young man in Newtown, Conn.

The time to discuss what to do with guns in America is not the future. It’s in the past, before we had to mourn the deaths of children. We can’t wait until “it’s the right time.” The right time was yesterday. We have to work toward safe gun policy today.

President Obama laid out his plan for a safer gun culture, but here’s what the KSU College Democrats and I believe is more important:

1. A Federal Background Check System encompassing all 50 states, with mandatory reporting for all gun sales, including those at gun shows.

2. A re-instatement of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, known colloquially as the “Assault Weapons Ban.”

3. A national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign including statistics about gun injuries and deaths in the U.S., safe gun storage and gun ownership liability.

4. An examination of our violent American culture.

5. A discussion of the actual rights granted by the Second Amendment.

We also realize that our health-care system needs to be a central focus of the national gun debate. Through the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the Affordable Care Act, many more Americans will soon have mental health coverage the same as their physical health coverage.

We need to fix this problem. We need to have the right conversations. One more day of bloodshed is too many.

Jake Green, Kent

The writer is president of the Kent State University College Democrats.


Comments

1Adnil(24 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

I applaud you. This all makes perfect sense to me.

Suggest removal:

2Photoman(1013 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

When I travel, I get through gun control states as rapidly as possible. They're just too dangerous as only law enforcement personnel and criminals are likely to have guns. Law enforcement is spread thinly in these states but the criminals are everywhere.

Suggest removal:

3Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Way to go Hman, lets begin the adult conversation by calling the young man delusional!

Suggest removal:

4VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

What "The People" are avoiding is where this gun crime is centered. The majority of gun crime is in urban areas and is being committed by teenagers who are not supposed to purchase, own or posses handguns. Yet, this is where all the crime is growing. So, rather than address and fix this issue, our politicians, the media and gun control advocates are overlooking it and blaming the rest of society for what they created with their liberal policies against crimes committed by urban teens.

Suggest removal:

5walter_sobchak(1950 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

5. A discussion of the actual rights granted by the Second Amendment.

Once again, a civic lesson is needed! The Bill of Rights grants no rights. They are a limitation of the power of the central govt so that the rights of the people, that already exist, are not infringed. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights (which most Americans probably haven't read) states:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

The Second Amendment reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems rather obvious. To maintain their security, the people need to have and use "arms". Now, the government does have the right to set to regulations for obtaining and possessing arms. That is where the discussion needs to be centered. But, if I am a law-abiding citizen, I should be able to obtain a firearm if I can meet reasonable requirements.

Suggest removal:

6HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Walter, you point is well taken with regard to the 2nd amendment granting rights. I just wish that more people understood the point you are making.

Where I think people get hung up is the phrase "shall not be infringed". There is a whole group of people who reject the notion that firearms are, or should be, subject to any regulation at all. Unfortunately for those persons the Supreme court has made it plain that firearms can and should be regulated.
Unless and until Heller is overturned, this is settled law. So the non-regulation folks will just have to swallow that.

I might just add that the folks who promote non-regulation seem to accept that being a law-abiding citizen is a exception to the literal reading of the 2nd amendment. Non-regulation is just that, non-regulation, therefore people of any background would be entitled to arm themselves with whatever firearms they wish.

The actual discussion about regulation should be around what is reasonable and prudent in our current and foreseeable environment. On the question of whether to regulate or not.... that train left the station years ago.

Suggest removal:

7cambridge(3049 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

walter....I agree with your post. I would only slightly edit you last paragraph with the addition of the word...."(reasonable) fire arm if I can meet reasonable requirements."

Suggest removal:

8KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

To Hman: Do you make these comments just to try to make people angry (attacking KSU) or are you just an ignorant gun toting jerk?

Obviously an adult and respectful conversation should occur on Jake's fifth point, because there are many who just will not accept that Supreme court has ruled that the second amendment is not an absolute "right" to arm for all people.

Calling Jake delusional just demeans you. Put on your big boy pants!

Suggest removal:

9redeye1(4631 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

KSUgrad QUIT your whining Hman called as he sees it. In today society we have to many LIBERAl profeessors who feel the need to spread their BS throughout the world. What a shame. I too went to KSU

Suggest removal:

10HelterSkelter(2 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

It's time to act on medical safety.

Medical errors cause between 180,000 - 200,000 deaths a year.

So you are about six times more likely to be killed by a doctor than a gun.

Is it time to outlaw doctors?

Suggest removal:

11cambridge(3049 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

hman....firearms designed for hunting would be reasonable in my opinion. While Walter and I may disagree what constitutes "reasonable" firearms and requirements. I was trying to make the point that even I agree with "reasonable" gun enthusiast's.

Suggest removal:

12commoncitizen(961 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

We don't need more laws on the books that will not be enforced. ENFORCE the existing laws.
The criminals will always find ways of getting guns.

Suggest removal:

13KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Mr Hman,
Among other things In college I learned the importance of expressing myself using complete sentences, proper spelling and logical thought.
Among other things in life I have learned to respect others opinions and avoid making generalizations about those who disagree with my opinion.
In my opinion, people who wish to have a discussion about the 2nd amendment don't necessarily want it abolished. They want to see how it should be applied in today's society.

As regards your postscript, what is it you are telling me to "get over"?

Suggest removal:

14HelterSkelter(2 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

@KSUgrad,

You forgot an apostrophe. I was well schooled in the proper use of apostrophes in high school.

Suggest removal:

15KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Sorry Helter. I did miss the apostrophe!
The point I was making is that if someone is going to lecture on the Second Amendment, they should at least know how to spell it.
The man knows nothing about me or my parents insurance. It would ne nice if he would just drop the personal implications.

Suggest removal:

16KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

@Hman - You shouldn't regret asking!
Among other things this is what Jake was suggesting, that there be a discussion about the Second Amendment. The fact is that we can have different opinions about its application in today's society. Walter (above) offered some significant food for thought about "rights".

My thoughts on the amendment are that the Supreme Court had it correct when they decided that the "right to bare arms" is not an absolute right, that there can be some regulation of that so-called right. In short, the plain language intrepretation of "shall not be infringed" the amendment is incorrect.

The discussion should now be what is reasonable regulation and how far can that regulation go before it infringes on other "rights"

Suggest removal:

17excel(301 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Confiscate all of the guns. Obama can lead the way by giving up his shotgun. He has no need to shoot skeet.

Suggest removal:

18kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

"The discussion should now be what is reasonable regulation and how far can that regulation go before it infringes on other "rights" "
That discussion was had about 200+years ago. The people who founded this country decided that since the gubmint would control the military (the well regulated militia) and possibly try to use it against it's own subjects (the people), "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They had just gone through that crap. It really can't get much planer!
Constitution 101:
The first priority was to worship as they wish and speak their minds so they wrote Article I of the Bill of Rights.
The second priority was to protect that first RIGHT in the event the gubmint got a little rambunctious.
Aw hell, this will splain it better...
go to the "tube" video site and search for "Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment! ".

Suggest removal:

19KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

to kk80586: Can I conclude that you disagree with SCOTUS regarding the regulation of firearms. If so, what do you intend to do about it?

to excel: I doubt that it is "his" shotgun, however I do agree that skeet are pretty defenseless and not very dangerous.

To hman: No, I was not aware that over 80% of gun owners are not hunters. Can you direct me to a source for that fact?
Here is a fact, and I will give the source. According to the Department of Justice, in 2011 Kentucky lead the nation with 2.3 million new firearms background checks. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics...
Considering the population of Kentucky that would be about one gun for every family. Contrast Texas that had a rate of one-tenth that, one firearm for 10 families.
If most of the guns are not being purchased by hunters but rather for self-protection, it suggests that Kentucky is a state awash in violence.

I agree with you that "All this discussion is about "limiting" rights not increasing them." I don't think that anyone is seriously discussing increasing gun rights - except those that refuse to accept the Supreme court's interpretation and application of the Second Amendment.

Suggest removal:

20KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Hman:
You asked how many guns. The statistic is the number of NICS background checks. It could be one gun, or many guns. It could even be no gun, because the dealer was told to deny.
I don't really think that Kentucky is awash in violence - it just seems peculiar that there were so many firearm purchase attempts made, and even more so because, you contend that over 80% gun owners are non-hunters.
I followed up with gallup poll (
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-...). According to their poll 58% of gun owners said the use their gun for hunting.
That same poll also states that 66% also use their gun for personal protection, and somewhat less for target shooting.

Because a gun can serve multiple uses, to say that over 80% of the gun owners are not hunters is not accurate.

What would be a more useful statistic, that none of the independent pollers have asked is:
"What is your principle reason for owning a gun?"

I am sincerely sorry that you don't have faith in your government, or the "numbers produced by government". It makes it almost impossible to have an enlightened conversation when you refuse to accept evidence. It tends to put you into the tribe of those who don't believe the moon landing or the holocaust.

Suggest removal:

21KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

BTW Hman, the remark about my parent's insurance was unnecessary and offensive. Both of my parents have passed away.

Suggest removal:

22kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

ksu- as far as 'federal' regulation, yes. The first 10 amendments were intended to limit the power of the federal gubmint. 2A says "shall not be infringed". State and local laws may be needed to regulate where and when firearms may be discharged (for practice, hunting, recreation, etc.).
Sometimes people (including SCOTUS) try to be overly intellectual and read way too much into a simple straightforward sentence with 27 words (most of which are 5 letters or less) that simply says the federal gumbint may do NOTHING that would hinder me (or you) from owning and carrying weapons...period. If anyone thinks they may (limit me) then I will seek to introduce a law that they must be gagged before entering a theater because they might yell "fire". If we're going to trash one amendment we'd may as well trash them all and just rename this country to something like... Cuba.

Suggest removal:

23KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Hman, Apology accepted. I will check the F&W.
Do you have something against a college education? I don't understand what the personal pokes are all about.

@ kk80586: Point taken, the Heller decision was about the ability of local and state governments to regulate firearms. However the Brady Act is a federal law and has yet to see a constitutional challenge.
The NRA primary mission (from their legal filings) is to protect and defend the US Constitution. By not challenging the Brady Act they have accepted that the Federal government can establish regulations on firearms.

So let's try the second amendment without "reading way too much" into it:

Literally taken the congress can not establish laws that would prevent fugitive criminals, and mentally deranged people from arming themselves. Do you honestly think that the writers and adopters of the constitution intended that?

Suggest removal:

24kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Actually, there is NO law by congress or anyone else that PREVENTS criminals and mentally deranged people from arming themselves (not that works anyway). There should be state and local laws that can be used to prosecute and punish those groups. Back in those days you were hung or shot for committing murder (obviously NOT "cruel and unusual" punishments) but now you just plead guilty to manslaughter, get out in 5 or less and kill again (see Youngstown). I think the writers knew that people were (and would be) wimpy and squeamish and intended exactly what they wrote...short and to the point so it would be easily understood that it is a RIGHT to protect yourself against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I don't know much about the NRA but I do know I would not determine if something is constitutional or not just by whether they challenge the law or not. Maybe they don't waste their time challenging the Brady act because it is basically useless. Didn't do a damn thing to stop Sandy Hook did it? In fact, if the Constitution were followed someone would probably have been armed and reporting of the incident strongly suggests that person would have only had to show the gun and the perp would have offed himself right then (since that's what he did when he heard cops coming). Tear down the criminal protection zone signs and I guarantee these types of shootings will be drastically reduced. I believe only 1 of the last 10 mass shootings took place in "gun free" zones. The shooting at the Oregon mall was stopped by a concealed carry who did not see the sign when he entered the mall. He did not have to shoot the perp. The perp went to a concealed area and popped one in his own head. Only 2 people were killed in a busy (Christmas time) mall.

Suggest removal:

25kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

correction--only 1 of the last 10 mass shootings took place OUTSIDE of a "gun free" zone.

Suggest removal:

26KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

@Hman; I check because I said I'd check. And based on that F&W article I am inclined to agree with you that 80% on the gun owners do not use their gun for hunting.

With regard to the Brady law, at it's inception the NRA supported the Brady Act. They testified before Congress that they supported the Brady Act. Even today they want more mental health records to be available to NICS to strengthen the ability of the Brady Act to prevent firearms sales to "bad guys". Do you dispute this?

On the last point, do you honestly believe that the Constitution adopters intended criminals, mental defectives, and enemies of the country to have free access to any firearms they could afford to purchase? “With out reading too much into it”, The 2nd Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. In plain language there are no qualifiers, no exceptions, no exclusions. Criminals, insurrectionists, mental defectives, children, persons in prison, all are given the right to bear arms. Do you honestly believe that this is what the adopters of the Bill of Rights intended?

Suggest removal:

27KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

KK, The NICS background check prevented millions of sales from dealers to would be gun purchasers by the "bad guys". Were those "bad guys" able to obtain a gun on the secondary market, one not covered by the Brady Act? Very likely so. So maybe it's time to have the Brady Act apply to that secondary market.
The idea that it doesn't work because the Act is limited in scope is not an effective argument to limit the scope of the Act.

The question is Do you want to make access to firearms more difficult to those who are not law abiding citizens? If you say yes then you should be supporting either expansion of the Brady Act, or suggesting something more substantial. If your answer is no, then you should be on the side of rescinding Brady and rejecting anything to replace it.

Regarding "gun-free zones", The thing people against gun free zones don't seem to appreciate is that they are not really gun free at all. They are gun-free to those who are not authorized to have a firearm in the zone. You can still have a Gun-free zone, where all the teachers, all the administration, all the guards, law enforcement are carrying weapons.
With authorization anyone can carry a gun in a Gun Free Zone.

Analogous to speed limit zone, the sign simply warns that, unless you have authority, there are penalties that exist in that zone, that don’t apply outside that zone. There is no evidence that speeders are attracted to speed zones. There is no evidence that people purposely go faster in a school zone just because there is a speed restriction.

Suggest removal:

28kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

The law COULD be changed to allow teachers, administration,etc. to carry in "gun free zones" but no, in Ohio (unless you are law enforcement or the security guard) you cannot carry even with a ccw. Anywhere, that stupid sign is. Even if you own a business, if your policy is and you post the sign, you cannot even give employees permission to carry. You may carry as owner of the business but unless the ccw instructor was misleading us or mistaken, NO ONE else can.
Your analogy of the speed zone is like comparing apples to spinach. If I was a speeder and an area of road was marked as "radar/cop free" zone I would be attracted to that area to speed. If I were a burglar and a neighborhood was marked as an "alarm/security free zone" I would be attracted to that area to burgle. And if I was a fruitcake looking to rack up a big body count I would be attracted to a "gun free zone". That is why they are called "criminal protection zones". The ONLY thing that "gun free zones" accomplishes is to deny law abiding citizens any chance to defend themselves. I can't say ALL mass shooters go to CPZ's, (soft targets) but looking though the list of mass shootings since 1982 I see places where people normally don't carry (churches), states that did not at that time allow for concealed carry or make it extremely expensive and difficult to get permit (CA), children's hangouts (Chuck E. Cheese's killings: Aurora, Colorado Dec. 14, 1993), etc. I see several where the shooter probably didn't care because he had a vendetta (workplace shootings, think ex-cop in CA). But the majority are/were in places that were gun free or gun unlikely.

Suggest removal:

29kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Near as I can tell 2012 was a record year :
"
Su Jung Health Sauna shooting
Feb. 22, 2012

Oikos University killings: Oakland, California
Apr. 2, 2012 SOFT TARGET School Zone Post GFSZA

Seattle cafe shooting: Seattle, Washington
May 20, 2012

Aurora theater shooting: Aurora, Colorado
July 20, 2012 SOFT TARGET Cinemark Theaters’ No Firearms Policy

Sikh temple shooting: Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Aug. 5, 2012

Accent Signage Systems shooting
Sep. 27, 2012

Connecticut elementary school shooting
Dec. 14, 2012 SOFT TARGET School Zone Post GFSZA
"
50% were in CPZ's or a church. At least 2 look like workplace or was mad (jilted lover) of a person who worked at that place.
What will 2013 be like? Well, that ex-cop in CA has us off to a good start. If I were to come face to face with him I would prefer to be prepared, and if he got me before I got him, at least I would not die as a defenseless victim. I would at least have a chance. That ex-cop will either be shot or eat his gun or freeze to death in the mountains but there will be the next one and the one after that and the more restrictions you put on the lawful citizens, the higher the body counts will be. And no matter what the reasoning, it still comes down to, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". No amount of background checks works. Look at the cops and ex-cops that commit crimes with guns. Maybe not a lot as far as the number of good cops but I can argue that the number of nuts and loonies who commit gun crimes compared to the nuts and loonies out there is miniscule". As far as guns go, I can live with what we have now even though it is the camels nose in the tent. But what is being proposed is the camel in all the way to the hump. We know what comes in next.
Search for "Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment" on the "tube" site that shows videos (don't know if you can post links here). I wish (and I KNOW she does) that she had been packing. Watch the whole thing though, there's more after her testimony to congress.

Suggest removal:

30KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

to KK,
I don't know if your CCW instructor was misleading his class or not, but in general it's probably good advice just to not carry in a school safety zone. That avoids possible legal wrangling.

However the Buckeye Firearms Association disagrees with your CCW instructor about teachers and others -provided that are authorized by the School Boards.

see: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stori...

According to the Columbus dispatch: "The Ohio Revised Code allows school boards to give individuals written authorization to carry a gun on school grounds, said Ken Hanson, legal chairman for the Buckeye Firearms Association. The law, an exception to the ban on guns in schools, is found in ORC 2923.122.
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said schools should consider arming “someone” in their buildings as the first line of defense against a gunman. DeWine said his office will work with law enforcement and educators to train teachers and administrators to deal with “active shooters.”

Buckeye Firearms Association wouldn't be spending 24,000 dollars to train teachers to carry if they had any doubt that those teachers could be authorized by the school boards.

I would agree with you that to the non law abiding a sign that says "radar/cop free zone" would be an invitation to speed. But that's not what the signs say. The sign begins with " Unless authorized by law ...."
So I will stand by my suggested analogy.

I also take issue with your statement that "no amount of background checks works". Are you suggesting the denial to purchase guns by 1.5 million criminal applicants makes no difference? If those weapons purchases had been permitted there would have been no impact ? There is no way that you can prove your point.

As an unanticipated benefit to background checks, last year because of firearm abckground checks, the Pennsylvania State police were able to locate and arrest 110 fugitives. Isn't that a good thing?

Suggest removal:

31KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

@ kk.
ORC 2923.122 is what makes weapons illegal in Ohio schools. But provision (D)(1)(a) says the prohibition does not apply to "any other person who has written authorization from the board of education or governing body of a school to convey deadly weapons or dangerous ordnance into a school safety zone or to possess a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a school safety zone and who conveys or possesses the deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in accordance with that authorization."

Suggest removal:

32kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

For every law there is an opposite and equal loophole. ORC does allow for armed teachers but (at least until recently) most or all school policies were no guns. This is obviously changing.
---"I also take issue with your statement that "no amount of background checks works". Are you suggesting the denial to purchase guns by 1.5 million criminal applicants makes no difference? If those weapons purchases had been permitted there would have been no impact ? There is no way that you can prove your point."----
I am saying there most likely would be no difference because any or all of those criminals that wanted guns can get them by just going a little north of Midlothian. Hell, a pi$$ poor machinist can MAKE a gun. My point was that many who cannot pass a b.c. would never use a gun to kill another person and that many who do pass a b.c. go out and kill people (ex-cop in L.A., Aurora shooter). But basically, the two examples I gave (and I'm sure there are MANY more) PROVES that b.c's are useless. If they really worked, there would not be a dead cop and many dead civilians in CA and CO. Background checks or not, criminals will get guns, criminals will kill people. Law abiding citizens will not kill people whether they have a gun or not. Show me the proof that b.c.'s actually prevent even one murder and I might reconsider. The criminal that wants a gun Will get a gun (or make one).
---"I would agree with you that to the non law abiding a sign that says "radar/cop free zone" would be an invitation to speed. But that's not what the signs say. The sign begins with " Unless authorized by law ...."
So I will stand by my suggested analogy."----
In a court house the sign "Unless authorized by law..." most likely means that nobody but cops have guns but there probably ARE cops with guns in there. On a school or most businesses that have signs with that wording it means (to the criminal) that if there happens to be a cop in there or there just happens to be a security guard present he may be carrying his weapon IF they just happen to be there.
Don't know if you are talking about school zones specifically but there is no standard I know of for "gun free" zones. Some just have a picture of a gun with a red circle and line through it, others have various wording. but your analogy was still apples to spinach (but you are free to stand by it). "Gun free" zones are attractive to those who wish to rack up body counts without much if any interference. People with vendettas, they don't care.
The Aurora shooter had several theaters to choose from but he went to the ONE that had a STATED policy of no weapons allowed. coincidence? I don't think so. Reporting is that he drove past several theaters showing the same movie (full house) to go to the Century (Cinemark owned) theater which had a sign.

Suggest removal:

33kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

Near as I can tell, doing a quick gurgle search and just scanning over the search page results, virtually ALL mass shootings (except 1) in the last 20 years have been in criminal protection zones. Feel free to do your own research and let me know if you find any different results from an authoritative or unbiased source.

Suggest removal:

34Askmeificare(700 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

As a responder in Vindy City, In the County of the Land of Mahoning, I respond to this article regally and put my thoughts into a post, legally.

You see, and I have got to state this meagerly, to be, you see, yes banshee, a gun banshee, is morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and, reliably, limit gun ownership!

Suggest removal:

35KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

kk80586,
So now you DO agree that the Ohio State law does permit teachers, admin etc to possess firearms in a school safety zone. But you don't like either the idea that they can be authorized or that the state law requires a sign outside that says so.

In case you don't want school boards to have the authority to authorize, that current law is up for renewal. Best I can figure it is due to expire on 3/27/2013.

Here is the law that you seem to object to:
2923.122 Illegal conveyance or possession of deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance or of object indistinguishable from firearm in school safety zone.
(A) No person shall knowingly convey, or attempt to convey, a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance into a school safety zone.
(B) No person shall knowingly possess a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a school safety zone.
(C) No person shall knowingly possess an object in a school safety zone if both of the following apply:
(1) The object is indistinguishable from a firearm, whether or not the object is capable of being fired.
(2) The person indicates that the person possesses the object and that it is a firearm, or the person knowingly displays or brandishes the object and indicates that it is a firearm.
(D)
(1) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) An officer, agent, or employee of this or any other state or the United States, or a law enforcement officer, who is authorized to carry deadly weapons or dangerous ordnance and is acting within the scope of the officer’s, agent’s, or employee’s duties, a security officer employed by a board of education or governing body of a school during the time that the security officer is on duty pursuant to that contract of employment, or any other person who has written authorization from the board of education or governing body of a school to convey deadly weapons or dangerous ordnance into a school safety zone or to possess a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a school safety zone and who conveys or possesses the deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in accordance with that authorization;
(b) Any person who is employed in this state, who is authorized to carry deadly weapons or dangerous ordnance, and who is subject to and in compliance with the requirements of section 109.801 of the Revised Code, unless the appointing authority of the person has expressly specified that the exemption provided in division (D)(1)(b) of this section does not apply to the person.

Suggest removal:

36KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

@ kk....Now, in the event that you object to the sign required at school safety zones, that law is due to expire on 1/1/2014.
Here is that law: OCR 2923.1212 (B) … “Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code section 2923.122, no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person’s control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance into a school safety zone.”

In the event that you object to the sign required at non-school zones, that law is also due to expire on 1/1/2014.
Here is that law: OCR 2923.1212 (A) … “Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person’s control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance onto these premises.” :

I don’t agree with your conclusions that these zones are made inherently unsafe because of these State laws.
But you are welcome to initiate your campaign to change these laws.

Personally, I don’t think you will succeed. Not because you didn’t or won’t try, but rather because your argument is illogical.

Suggest removal:

37kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

---"So now you DO agree that the Ohio State law does permit teachers, admin etc to possess firearms in a school safety zone. But you don't like either the idea that they can be authorized or that the state law requires a sign outside that says so."----
No, I have nothing against teachers being armed if they wish and nothing I've said would show otherwise. The signs do nothing but invite criminals and inhibit/inconvenience law abiding citizens. Nice to see that OH does allow for armed teachers but still, if the policy of most schools is that no one may carry, what good is it?
Of course those policies are most likely changing.
BTW, you do not need to c&p entire (or even partial) laws. I can gooooogle OCR 2923.1212, etc. Like I've said before, for every law there is an opposite and equal re-law (loophole). There is federal law, state law, local laws and policies. Who trumps who?
Your last statement is totally backa$$wards and looking at the number of mass shootings in criminal protection zones I would say YOUR argument is illogical.

Suggest removal:

38kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 9 months ago

"Askmeificare(541 comments)posted 14 hours, 6 minutes ago

As a responder in Vindy City, In the County of the Land of Mahoning, I respond to this article regally and put my thoughts into a post, legally.

You see, and I have got to state this meagerly, to be, you see, yes banshee, a gun banshee, is morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and, reliably, limit gun ownership!"

Nothing intelligent to add?

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes