Gun control hearing in Worthington Monday, MAY 7, 2018

Discuss gun rights in Ohio, coordinate activism and learn who the pro gun lawmakers are and how to support them.

Moderators: WileyCoyote, Viking

Post Reply
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:04 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Gun control hearing in Worthington Monday, MAY 7, 2018

Post by Naga » Mon May 07, 2018 12:44 am

Hello everyone. I just learned about this city council hearing regarding assault weapons. Even though Worthington can't enact any legally enforceable laws by itself, I still think it would be a good idea for people on our side to attend and show our disapproval of this. Information can be found starting on page 129 of this document (at the very end): ... /Item/2622

Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:51 pm

Re: Gun control hearing in Worthington Monday, MAY 7, 2018

Post by OhioLoaded » Mon May 07, 2018 10:13 am

Wow! Read the letter in the last three pages. The one from Bonnie Michael (President Worthington City Council) to Mike Duffy. The citizens of Worthington want this? They want gun grabbing liberals to tell them what to do? What Rights to have, what foods to eat/drink, where the free speech zone is located? Absolutely disgusting Worthington.

color of law
Posts: 2722
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Too close to Cincinnati

Re: Gun control hearing in Worthington Monday, MAY 7, 2018

Post by color of law » Mon May 07, 2018 10:14 am

Send them the following Notice.


The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) unanimously held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

The Ohio Legislature enacted ORC §9.68, which became effective in 2007. ORC §9.68 clearly provides that a person’s possession or transportation of a firearm, including the open carrying of a firearm, is a right secured by the U.S. Constitution, and Ohio Constitution, because it predated those Constitutions.

On January 12, 2018, in the case of Virginia Duncan, Et Al. v. Xavier Becerra, in the State of California, eighteen States filed an Amici Curiae Brief, in Support of Virginia Duncan, in which they made clear that:

‘“The Second Amendment guarantees “the individual right … to carry weapons in case of confrontation”’ — that is, to “‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584, 592 (2008).”’

Eighteen states including the Attorney General of Ohio agree that the Feds and the States have no authority to regulate the bearing of arms, period.

Post Reply