Local citizens react to high court's gun decision
Staff, wire reports<*p(0.0,10.0,0.0,10.4,0,0,g)*L>Protecting oneself against those same ‘‘bad guys’’ is paramount to the SeconArticle Photos
Protecting oneself against those same ''bad guys'' is paramount to the Second Amendment, says Todd Garland, owner of Rattlesnake Hill Sporting Goods in Newton Falls.
''To sum it up, the bad guys have guns,'' said Garland, who also teaches gun safety and permit classes. ''As good, law-abiding citizens, we should be able to defend ourselves.''
In the Supreme Court's first ruling on gun rights under the Second Amendment, the justices on Thursday struck down a handgun ban on the books in the District of Columbia. Weighing in on an argument for the ages, the court affirmed 5-4 that an individual right to gun ownership exists and, in this case, it allows people to have guns in their home for self-defense.
How far that right extends is an argument for another day.
The mix-and-match nature of gun laws presents a problem for gun users, Garland said.
''There isn't a universal law. Every city, state or town can have different rules about registering guns,'' Garland said. ''I tell my students in the concealed carry classes that they have a permit to carry a firearm in Ohio, but if they go to Pennsylvania, it's different.''
Warren police Detective Michael Currington said he was not surprised by the Supreme Court's decision since the right to bear arms has been guaranteed by the Constitution for 200 years. However, he was surprised at the close 5-4 vote on the issue.
He said Washington, D.C., has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, but its crime rate also is among the highest. Currington said that shows gun control laws do not deter crime.
''Guns do not cause or create crime. People do,'' he said.
Warren police Chief John Mandopoulos said he thought the court's decision was split along ideological lines, but he was doubtful that it would change the way of life in Trumbull County.
''It's not going to affect us around here either way. We have no ban on handguns in the home,'' he said.
Lt. Joseph Marhulik, who supervises the department's firearms qualification program, said the Supreme Court's decision won't have much of an effect locally.
''I support the Constitution. If people want to target practice and have guns in their home, the Constitution says they can. That's part of what makes this a great country,'' Marhulik said.
Garland's comments were mirrored by Falls police Chief Robert Carlson.
''The people who shouldn't have guns are the ones that got them. It (the ruling) gives people that obey the law the right to have them,'' Carlson said.
Protecting constitutional rights is also important to Everett Radcliffe Jr. of Warren, who serves as vice president of the Vienna Fish and Game Club.
''It's a right in the Constitution that we have,'' Radcliffe said. ''And when people want power, the first thing they do is disarm the population.''
Historically, Radcliffe said certain phenomena simply can't be legislated against.
''Laws won't stop criminals. We tried it with whiskey, Prohibition and prostitution. You just can't legislate those types of things.''
Ohio politicians including Gov. Ted Strickland are hailing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that Americans have a right to keep guns for self-defense.
In a statement, Strickland said the court understands that the right to bear arms is as fundamental as free speech and the right to vote.
Democratic Ohio Congressman Zack Space called the court's 5-4 ruling a victory for gun owners everywhere.
|
Handala
|
|
|---|---|
|
06-28-08 11:38 AM
|
IRA...Irish Republican Army!? Hmm?
|
|
EducateNF
|
|
|
06-27-08 11:06 PM
|
The second amendment was not so much about protection from robbers and bad guys, but about protecting yourself against a government that was out of hand. Our forefathers were greatly concerned that at sometime in the future, the government would abuse it's power. They believed that the common citizen should be able to possess arms in order to be able to rise up against a government that no longer served the people. This is a very important part of our history that people like to overlook. Much is lost when we do not study our own history.
|
|
pahootaman
|
|
|
06-27-08 4:42 PM
|
It's all just another excuse for a dumb teenager to walk into his/her highschool wearing a bullet belt. Have fun with that one, parents/school admin.
|
|
cortlandmom
|
|
|
06-27-08 4:37 PM
|
If you want it bad enough, you will get it. I think the citizens of the United States need to protect ourselves against criminals. It's just a shame that the law don't support the victim when they are protecting themselves.
|
|
pahootaman
|
|
|
06-27-08 9:53 AM
|
I might be wrong, but couldn't you all ready carry a gun in these parts? I don't see things changing too much. I personally brush my teeth and comb my hair with my .45. Everymorning... I'm a stickler for good hygiene.
|
|
OldManGrump2
|
|
|
06-27-08 8:02 AM
|
I have a CCW permit so this ruling doesn't matter to me. It is a victory for the average citizen to be allowed to protect his family from the hoodies and criminals who make life so hard to live these days. This levels the playing field for Joe average citizen with the criminals who have always had guns.
|
|
concerned
|
|
|
06-27-08 7:35 AM
|
I was a little discouraged that the vote was actually 5-4. However, a victory is a victory. This indeed is a bid deal, Tonelli. However, I agree with you that pass or fail it would not impact my decision to own weapons for self defense. I will own them regardless of what the government says.
|
|
Tonelli
|
|
|
06-27-08 6:34 AM
|
No big deal here, I always carry a weapon.
|
