[Homicide victim] had reported threat days before his death
October 2, 2003

McARTHUR — Five days before Nicholas Wheeler was shot to death, he complained to authorities that a gun was pulled on him by the man who would later be charged with his murder.

However, Thomas Craft had denied to a Vinton County sheriff’s deputy that the gun incident took place, and there was insufficient evidence to file charges, according to Sheriff David Hickey.

Wheeler, 24, of Radcliff, had filed a complaint with the sheriff’s office on Sept. 8, claiming Craft pulled a gun on him during a confrontation on Route 124, Hickey said.

Wheeler told a deputy that Craft was following him and his girlfriend closely as they drove on Route 124. Wheeler alleged that when they stopped at a stop sign, he walked back to Craft’s vehicle and Craft pulled a gun on him.

“He pulled a gun out and put it to my belly,” Wheeler said in a written statement he gave the sheriff’s office. Wheeler said Craft told him he would shoot him if he moved. At that point, Wheeler said, he went back to the car.

According to the sheriff’s report, Wheeler told the deputy that Craft had a small .22 caliber semi-automatic handgun.

Commentary:
Ohio's ban on bearing a concealed firearm for self-defense acts as a stiff deterrent to carrying firearms - AMONG THE LAW-ABIDING. Despite knowing his life was in danger, Wheeler chose to rely on the police to protect him, and not to exercise any affirmative defenses. Did he fear arrest more than for his own safety? We may never know.

On the other hand, the man charged with Mr. Wheeler's murder obviously was not the least bit concerned about the ban - just as it appears he was not concerned about a law against homicide.

The founder of criminology, 18th-century scholar Cesare Beccaria of Milan, once wrote:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty — so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator — and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson (another 18th century scholar and politician from whom those obstructing HB12 could learn much) enjoyed these observations - they are quoted in his "Commonplace Book."

Click here to read the entire story in the Jackson County Times-Journal.

October 2, 2003
Chillicothe Gazette

Efforts to introduce versions of a concealed weapons law into legislation is like walking a fine line between public safety and constitutional rights, local law enforcement agencies say.

With the battle to allow Ohio residents the right to carry handguns on their person raging in the House and Senate, local law enforcement agencies weighed in on the debate.

Sheriff Ron Nichols said the Buckeye Sheriff's Association has come out in support of the law if wording about screening and training can be properly placed in the text.

"It always has been one of our constitutional rights to let law-abiding citizens to protect themselves," he said. "With proper training and screening the law can be supported."

Nichols said if a form of the proposed bill becomes law, he will not fear for his officers' safety anymore than he does now.

"This is a serious issue," he said. "Every time a law enforcement officer makes a stop, he is putting his life on the line. The possibility that a gun can be used against an officer is around everyday but we have to remember law-abiding citizens don't pull guns on police officers. It's the criminals that we need to be worried about."

The State Highway Patrol is taking a neutral stance. Sgt. Robin Schmutz, from the public affairs office in Columbus, said the patrol is reviewing the decision from the Ohio Supreme Court before making a statement in either direction. However, officer and public safety safeguards will solidify its decision.

Commentary:
Sgt. Robin Schmutz' claim that the OSHP is taking a neutral stance on it's opinion about the Supreme Court ruling is a little hard to understand, given comments from another OSHP bureaucrat quoted the day after the ruling was issued:

Patrol spokesman Lt. Rick Fambro said, "We feel that this decision has solidified the officer safety and public safety concerns that we've had." - Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 25, 2003

OFCC volunteers and supporters are in the process of polling law enforcement municialities statewide, to ensure that these "person of common intelligence", in Justice Paul Pfiefer's words, understand Ohio's current Vermont-style open carry law (as was exercised in Cincinnati this past Sunday). As we argued in court, it is readily apparent that many law enforcement officers appear to be something other than "persons of common intelligence".

More on what they learn soon...

Click here to read the entire story in the Chillicothe Gazette.

O'Connor a ray of hope in Klein gloom
Michael J. Maurer

The Ohio Supreme Court's Klein decision on the constitutionality of concealed carry laws is good news for supporters of gun rights: They lost by only a 5-2 vote.

My own prediction was that they would lose 7-0, with a slim chance at 6-1 with Chief Justice Tom Moyer in dissent.

But things turned out more favorably. For one thing, the court's best jurist, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, was one of the dissenting votes. Her vote tells conservatives they were on the side of principle.

During oral arguments, Stratton seemed ready to take judicial notice that Ohioans could, without fear of police molestation, carry their guns ostentatiously, holsters hanging visible from their purses, if guns were really so important to them.

align="right">
In the end, though, she joined newly seated Justice Maureen O'Connor in a happily sound and modest piece of judicial reasoning: The law ought not require criminal defendants to prove themselves innocent, as the current concealed carry statute does.

Sure, it would have been more satisfying if O'Connor had shown herself to be a wild-eyed Yosemite Sam, a Second Amendment Sister blasting a stone monument to the right to bear arms.

But it may well be more valuable that O'Connor was cautious, working the safer, narrower grounds of essential and general civil rights. If her opinion is less than gun rights proponents wanted, it was nonetheless good news for anyone who believes in the rule of law.

The good news is, O'Connor is emerging as a jurist rather than a policy maker.

As to the narrower issue of guns, it is clear that the majority of our chief judges either do not understand guns or are in the camp of gun-haters.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

October 2, 2003

To the editors of the Toledo Blade:

Do Buckeyes realize that the recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling affirming the ban on handgun concealed-carry will place them at a great disadvantage when we Wolverines move to reclaim our ancient, ancestral Toledo lands?

DELMER O. GASCHE
Morenci, Mich.

Click here to read the letter in the Toledo Blade.

The Toledo Blade editors' latest in a long history of uninformed, anti-CCW editorials, is entitled "A blow to CCW".

Click here to read about the three homicides (two in cars) that occurred in Toledo while the Blade editors were writing their diatribe against concealed carry.

Husband tells police man he shot had knife to wife’s neck
October 02, 2003

Screams from the driveway brought Deshawn Davis outside early yesterday to find his wife in the grasp of a man holding a knife to her throat, Columbus police said.

Davis, 22, who had armed himself with a handgun, shot Jeremy Andrews in front of the Davis home, 1699 E. Columbus St., on the South Side.

Andrews, 21, was at Grant Medical Center last night. His condition was being withheld at his request.

Police said Davis told them he heard his wife, Laygeana Young, 23, scream about 5:10 a.m. She told officers that Andrews, whom she knew, had come to the house to demand money. When she refused, Andrews allegedly pointed the knife at her and said, "You know what this is."

Robbery detectives were investigating. No charges had been filed as of last night.

Davis declined to comment.

Click here to read the story in the Columbus Dispatch (subscription site - paid access only).

Ohio's ban on carrying a concealed firearm has once again failed to protect a victim, and once again failed to stop a criminal.

North Side man ‘critical’ after lunchtime shooting
October 02, 2003
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Lisa Adams and her 3-year-old son, Isaac, were eating yesterday afternoon at a North Side fast-food restaurant when gunshots cut through their lunchtime chatter.

"I heard 12 gunshots and everybody ran," Adams, 21, said.

She grabbed her son by his collar, scooped her infant daughter from a carrier and bolted for the door.

Employees ushered patrons outside.

The shooting, at 12:40 p.m. at the McDonald’s at Morse and Maize roads, left a 75-year-old man clinging to life and the gunman, who was wounded, running loose for hours.

Around 6 last night, Larry T. Scott, 59, of Denver, was arrested in connection with the shooting.

He had driven to a fire station just down the street from the restaurant and requested first aid for a hand injury.

Columbus police homicide detective Jim McCoskey said Scott was unaware that the fire station is connected to a police substation.

An officer saw Scott and his truck, which police had been searching for. Detectives were just finishing their work at McDonald’s, homicide Sgt. Ron Roberts said.

Scott was arrested on charges of felonious assault and aggravated robbery and taken to Riverside Methodist Hospital. He was in surgery last night.

It was the second shooting at a North Side fast-food restaurant in a month. The other took the life of an employee.

McCoskey said it appears that Scott shot himself in the hand as he struggled with Charles J. Mintun over the gun in the McDonald’s restroom.

Mintun was described by his wife, Dorothy, as a "feisty" war veteran.

It’s still unclear exactly what occurred, though police are speculating that Mintun was being robbed.

Letters edited for space - full letters can be read in the Cincinnati Enquirer.

October 1, 2003

Timing of Gun Walk was in very poor taste - Mary T. Helmes, Northside

Another day, another pro-gun article in the Enquirer. At least the reporter, Brenna R. Kelly, noted that "Not all residents" of Northside welcomed Hyde Park hairdresser Vernon Ferrier and his "gun walk" of armed pedestrians on Sunday ["Armed activists say guns protect," Sept. 29].

In reality, I'd say that most residents of Northside, myself among them, were appalled that Ferrier would invite people with guns to walk through a family neighborhood less than a week after a little boy was shot and killed by a friend just up the road in Mount Airy.

Gun-walk coverage left some things out - Nicholas Nienaber, Northside

As a resident of Northside and one of the protesters demonstrating against Vernon Ferrier's "Gun Walk," I was both pleased and upset at the way the afternoon played out ["Armed activists say guns protect," Sept. 29]. First, I was pleased by the behavior of most of the demonstrators on both sides of the issue. The shouting and arguing that usually takes place at heated demonstrations like this was replaced by spirited and intelligent political discussion. Of course, there was some inappropriate behavior, and not just from the counter march.

I was told a few times that I must not care if I was robbed or my family raped and murdered, since I don't like guns.

Commentary:
No matter how much education we and others offer on the subject, there will always be some who are afraid of firearms.

"Defense Walks" are designed to offer those persons, in particular, a visual display of the choice they have before them - open carry, with no training, background checks, or restrictive "defenseless victim" zones, as is allowed by current Ohio law and as was upheld by the Supreme Court last week as a "fundamental individual right"; OR a more subtle form of self-defense - concealed carry, as could be made law with passage of HB12.

The choice for Ohioans has never been "guns or no guns" - and the sooner those who have a fear of firearms realize that, the sooner they will realize that they may actually prefer a concealed carry law, such as is practiced in 45 other states across our nation.

In the mean-time, more and more Ohioans are going to practice open carry - timing issues not-with-standing. The actions of the Supreme Court, and those who are holding up House Bill 12 for political reasons, suggest they prefer it this way.

Related Stories:
Click here to read about how crime is on the increase in Cincinnati's suburbs.

Cincinnati's "other" newspaper, the liberal and thus less well-circulated Post, has published an editorial in which they try to make the case that "Ohio Supreme Court's decision the other day has eased pressure on the General Assembly to act. ".