The Toledo Blade reports that a man entered the store asking about a job.  He returned later and held a gun to the clerk's head, and Bilger reportedly shot at the robbery suspect causing him to flee.   He collapsed across the street and was taken to an area hospital in serious condition.  Toledo Police have issued a warrant for his arrest.

Read the full story here.

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14" - PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT - XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID - 14" LOP are designated as the only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

A 14" barrel is something denied to We the People. Unless our registration is approved and we pay a tax...

Visit the National Gun Rights Examiner of the rest of this story.

As I recapped a week ago (Cleveland continues fight for local gun control), Cleveland sued the state of Ohio over Ohio Revised Code 9.68. That law, known a statewide preemption, overturns all but a select few local gun laws in an attempt to make gun regulations consistent across the state. Cleveland, and a few other cities, feel they should have the ability to pass whatever gun laws they want.

The Ohio Supreme Court previously upheld preemption in the Ohioans For Concealed Carry v. City of Clyde case, ruling that Clyde's ban on guns in city parks violated preemption. Cleveland is throwing out various arguments, including that the Clyde ruling only pertains to concealed carry of handguns.

The local courts agreed with the legislature and refused to overturn preemption, but the appeals court sided with Cleveland and, to a certain extent, challenged the Ohio Supreme Court's precedent on this matter in our case against Clyde.   The Cleveland Plain Dealer has begun covering the story as well.  Updated: Cleveland to fight for its gun restrictions before Ohio Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments later this year.   In cases like this the position of the legislature (and, in this case, Ohioans For Concealed Carry) will be defended and argued by the Ohio Attorney General's office.  Attorneys representing Ohioans For Concealed Carry will file friend of the court briefs in the coming months.  A pro-gun "win" in this case would be a majority decision overruling the appeals court, maintaining the Ohio Supreme Court's recent precedent in OFCC v. Clyde.

This case highlights the importance of upcoming Ohio Supreme Court justice elections.

Gun control advocates will point to this as an example of why guns have no place in schools or the workplace. The problem with this logic is that it was already illegal for Brown to bring a gun into the maintenance building. Not only is it a violation of workplace policy but it is also banned by Ohio law since it is a building on school property. None of that deterred Brown from carrying out his murderous plan of revenge. The gun ban did, however, ensure that nobody was able to fight back.

NRA MEGA WEEKEND
March 19-21, 2010 at Cabela's
Dundee, MI.

Friday, March 19
NRA-ILA Grassroots Seminar
Suzanne Anglewicz
6:30pm-9:00pm
(Whitetail Room)

Saturday, March 20
11:00am-4:00pm
Wayne LaPierre-Exec-VP. NRA
Dave Coy NRA Board Member
Melissa M Pierce-CPL Attorney
Terri Stocke-Second Amendment March

Sunday, March 21 - CCW UPDATES
11:00am-4:00pm
William Nichols-Monroe Prosecutor
Steve Dulan-MCRGO (MI. Reciprocity)
Bryan A. Patrick-University of Toledo (Second Amendment)
Trooper Bret Smith (Michigan State Police & CPL)
Daniel White-Ohioans for Concealed Carry (Ohio CCW Laws)

Campbell, Ohio, a suburb of Youngstown, decided to pass an emergency ordinance banning firearms sales within city limits after discovering one resident planned to obtain a Federal Firearms License and open a gun repair shop. Anti-gun officials in the city moved quickly to stop his plans, citing fears ranging from worry it would increase crime to claims it would result in the resident being killed by local criminals. The legislation was reportedly sponsored by the City's police chief.

The problem is, they can't do that. Ohio law as enacted in Ohio Revised Code 9.68 specifically prohibits bans on sales of firearms and also addresses zoning as follows...

Earlier this year the NRA-ILA sent out an alert advising Ohioans that the small city of Campbell Ohio, near Youngstown, was going to ban the sale of firearms city wide.  We heard about it too and couldn't believe a city in Ohio still thought it could get away with this.   Discussion on our forums began and OFCC sent off a polite letter asking for a copy of the proposed ordinance.  What we learned is that the council had voted to adopt emergency legislation that created a city issued license and prohibited certain sales of firearms.

All of these issues were in direct violation of Ohio Revised Code 9.68.   Days after receiving our letter and explanation of the laws that they may have violated the city sent us back what they proposed as an amendment to fix the law.  It exempted residential sales and continued to prohibit commercial sales city wide.

We've since been told that the letters we were sending to the city were not shared with the council, but instead secretly held by the proponents of the legislation.  In this small town the police chief wants to ban guns, and his wife supposedly works for the Mayor.   So when we wrote the Mayor, she received the letter and responded to us.   Her phone call was nearly hysterical fear of guns existing in a safe.  We were told that a resident wanted to get his FFL and store firearms in a safe in his house, but it was her opinion that he would be killed over this because of the high crime in their community.  The City contacted the BATFE, which advised them that they had no objections to their ordinance, so they proceeded.

As if to make this story even harder to believe, we've been told that the city was advised by an attorney that "some gun case in Chicago" was going to change everything for them. Our second letter had already been sent and we couldn't point out how unreasonable this argument was, but what will city council do?