Gun Rights Video News

CNN's report on the 2009 Gun Rights Policy Conference


CCRKBA CALLS COLUMBUS, OH GUN BAN VOTE A ‘DISGRACEFUL PUBLIC SAFETY FRAUD’

Tuesday, July 12th, 2005

BELLEVUE, WA – The decision by the Columbus, Ohio City Council to ban a wide range of semiautomatic firearms is a “public safety fraud” that will not prevent a single violent crime, and a disgraceful attempt to fool the public otherwise, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.

Despite considerable opposition from firearms owners, the council approved the gun ban ordinance unanimously Monday night with one member absent.

“This vote is a giant step backwards,” declared CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. “This will have a negative impact on law-abiding firearms owners, and no impact at all on crime. The council followed the lead of anti-gun Mayor Pro Tem Michael Mentel like rodents scurrying after the Pied Piper.

“Mentel and his council colleagues have essentially sold the citizens of Columbus an empty poke,” Waldron continued. “Similar bans have shown no discernible impact on crime, and even studies by the Justice Department and the Centers for Disease and Control suggest gun bans have had no effect on crime rates.

“What this ban amounts to,” Waldron stated, “is symbolism rather than substance; a flimsy sham that will only victimize competitive shooters, collectors and other law-abiding firearm owners. In terms of genuine public safety, this ban is a fraud and its supporters know it.

“Ohio firearm owners, whether they are hunters, recreational shooters or competitors en route to the Camp Perry national matches would be justified in boycotting every commercial business in the city, whether it be a grocery store, restaurant, pharmacy, theater, gas station or clothing store to send a clear economic message to the council,” Waldron observed. “If the council doesn’t want ‘their kind’ in town, then it stands to reason the council believes it can get along without their business, also.

“The city has tried this twice before,” he concluded, “and lost in court both times. It would not surprise me if the city once again finds itself in court defending an indefensible law at the taxpayers’ expense. Columbus voters should remember that at the next election.”