🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

1 total messages Started by Matthew Gaylor Wed, 26 Aug 1998 00:00
Columbus, Ohio Assault Weapon Victory!
#375
Author: Matthew Gaylor
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 00:00
67 lines
4249 bytes
From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
Subject: Columbus, Ohio Assault Weapon Victory!

[Note from Matthew Gaylor:  Peoples Rights Organization (PRO) is a gun
rights organization based in Columbus, OH  3953 Indianola Ave.;  Columbus,
OH 43214; Tel (614) 268-0122 FAX (614) 261-9100 (note new FAX number!)
EMAIL:CompuServe ID: 73427,1615 INTERNET: 2PRO@compuserve.com or
dcarney@freenet.columbus.oh.us .  Files of their newsletter the  PROponent
back issues are available by email request at:   2pro@compuserve.com  Or
any of the above email addresses.  I personally know the chairman and vice
chair of PRO and I can say that they spend an incredible amount of effort
in defense of our 2nd amendment freedom.  This particular announcement is
from PRO's Chairman Jim Ramm.  Jim is a retired police Sgt. and is a
sitting board member of the National Rifle Association.]


From: #jramm <jramm@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 98

IT'S BEEN A LONG WAIT, BUT IT WAS WORTH IT!!!!   THE U.S. COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE 6TH CIRCUIT HAS REACHED ITS DECISION ON THE PRO V
COLUMBUS ASSAULT WEAPON BAN SUIT.

This is the last paragraph of a 4 page fax I got from Stephen P.
Halbrook, Ph.D. (our attorney) yesterday afternoon describing the court's
decision:

          "In sum, the Columbus assault weapon ban in nullified by the
decision based on the grandfather clause being violative of equal
protection and all of the assault weapon definitions being vague.  The
high capacity magazine ban is nullified because its grandfather clause is
violative of equal protection."

The only thing which could have made this decision better would have been
if the court had linked the ordinance to a violation of constitutional
protections under Art. II U. S. Constitution and Art. I, Section IV, Ohio
Constitution.

This is a quote from the decision, "Nevertheless, it is well established
that due process protects our citizens from vague legislation even when
that legislation regulates conduct which otherwise does not enjoy
constitutional protection."  This could be the one hope that Columbus has
in either appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court or dropping this and
drafting a completely new ban.  Rest assured; if Columbus attempts to go
further PRO will be there to stand in their way (as always)!

The complete decision can be downloaded from the following URL (thanks to
Billie Grey and Steve Halbrook's office for providing it):

          http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/july98/98a0210p.06.html

Constitutionally,

Jim Ramm
Chairman, PRO

###



**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH  43229
Archived at http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?list=FA@coil.com
**************************************************************************
Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads