Should Ohio become a Second Amendment Sanctuary State?

In the last session of our Ohio Legislature, a bill was introduced to protect Ohioans from Federal Government encroachment on our right to bear arms. Although the bill did not pass last session, a new bill has been introduced in the Ohio House (HB51) that will attempt to do likewise. Should we support it?

We have heard our President and other elected officials say they want to "take our guns", impose all kinds of restrictions, and even abandon "due process" (red flag laws) if someone thinks someone else might be dangerous. What are we to do?

Our Founders were very clear about their support, nay the need, for citizens to freely own and bear firearms. To the Founders, a “militia” was composed of all able bodied men in a State (confirmed by the Militia Acts of 1792: Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia ), who would own and maintain their own firearms- yes, the same types of firearms that would be used to defend the nation. In the Federalist Papers (#46), Madison even described how States could ban together to oppose Federal tyranny and use military force if needed- and why they would win! At the time of our founding, the Founders were against a standing army, and instead described State militias which would band together if needed to defend America or even their own security and liberty. Able bodied citizens needed to be familiar with the types of arms that would need to be used in a war, as well as in the unlikely event that they would need to defend their rights from Federal tyranny.

So, should the Federal Government have the right to limit the types of firearms that we possess? Can they limit the number of bullets that we can carry (e.g. magazines)? Should we be able to buy a bazooka or canon (if we could afford to)?

What was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? The right to keep and bear arms was not just to allow hunting or sports shooting. It was for personal and community defense. If we are to keep that God given right of self-defense, I believe the Founders would argue that the types of weapons we can own and their characteristics should not be “infringed.”

We have plenty of laws against the irresponsible or dangerous USE of any type of weapon- if we would just enforce them. The FBI crime database shows that more people are killed in America by knives, or even hammers, than rifles. More people die in automobile accidents, many by drunk drivers, yet we don’t criminalize knives, or hammers, or cars or drinking. In America, we legislate and criminalize ACTION, not thoughts or even just intent. If we want to buy a bazooka or a canon for display on our property, but never use it to break a law or endanger anyone, why should we be prevented?

This may sound like an extreme position on the surface, but… Think about it- it is the action of causing harm that is unlawful. We don’t need laws that restrict our basic freedoms based on what “they” think we are going to use them for.

House Bill 51 is a welcome declaration by the State of Ohio of our state sovereignty and our commitment to protect the God-given rights and freedoms of our citizens from encroachment by the Federal Government.