An email sent by the president of the League of Women Voters of Hudson (Ohio) to its membership yesterday recruited support to overturn the state’s preemption laws on guns.
“If you are concerned by gun violence, you may be interested in Oberlin’s request for help on getting legislation to allow home rule with regard to banning firearms in city parks,” President Karen Swedenborg advised members. “This is a grass roots effort, if you are interested, contact me.”
Gun Rights Examiner readers who also frequent The War on Guns blog and/or listen to the nationally-syndicated Armed American Radio program know that Oberlin was the site of open carry protests which this correspondent attended after the town tried to ban guns in local parks, a blatant violation of Ohio law. The City Council, faced with legal realities, reluctantly ceded to state law, albeit in a close vote, but vowed to seek other ways to enact local citizen disarmament edicts.
This latest League action outlines one potential route. The Hudson chapter email linked to a letter from Linda Slocum, President of the LVW in the Oberlin area, suggesting a possible course of action.
“A next step could be a concerted state- wide effort to get the Ohio legislation changed,” Slocum advised. “Might there be enough interest among the local leagues to network with other organizations to push for a change?
“We have a very visible local League and are well poised to help mobilize this effort,” she offered. “I’d like to assess the extent of support among local Leagues for such a state-wide push.”
That Hudson has joined in the exploratory effort shows the word is being spread among LWV chapters, and that local volunteers are being solicited from them. It’s hardly surprising, considering the tone set by Mayor William Currin, who presumes to represent the whole community on gun matters through his membership in Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition.
This points to a town that has not considered the sentiments of lawful gun owners, but may be about to learn them if they really want to experience former House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s adage that “All politics is local.” Ohio gun owners have already demonstrated their commitment to peaceful armed public demonstrations for their rights, and a concerted effort in Hudson or other towns considering emulating the Oberlin experience may be inviting similar unintended consequences.
That the League and its chapters would engage in what could be fairly described as bipolar hypocrisy is unsurprising. While talking “home rule” out of one side of their mouths, the newsletter links to advisory actions urging support for various global and/or national “progressive causes” including “fighting climate change,” and lobbying the Senate on the Voting Rights Act. In the latter, they’re fighting the decision in the Shelby vs. Holder, where the Supreme Court ruled it’ a violation of sovereignty principles to impose federal preclearance authorization on state and local governments before allowing them to implement voting law changes. That is, they are fighting “home rule.”
Indeed, the League as a national organization has been a consistent and strong advocate for a host of federal citizen disarmament edicts that would be imposed on states and localities, including:
The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that the proliferation of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons in the United States is a major health and safety threat to its citizens. The League supports strong federal measures to limit the accessibility and regulate the ownership of these weapons by private citizens. The League supports regulating firearms for consumer safety.
The League supports licensing procedures for gun ownership by private citizens to include a waiting period for background checks, personal identity verification, gun safety education and annual license renewal. The license fee should be adequate to bear the cost of education and verification.
The League supports a ban on “Saturday night specials,” enforcement of strict penalties for the improper possession of and crimes committed with handguns and assault weapons, and allocation of resources to better regulate and monitor gun dealers.
Note there are no exemptions permitted for “home rule.” President Obama, masking the “progressive” goal of uniform control by claiming “I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne,” highlights the disingenuousness of that excuse, which is especially evident by the way the gun-grabbers have fought state Firearms Freedom Act legislation at every turn.
Those who oppose the right of the people to keep and bear arms won’t be satisfied until they’ve eliminated it everywhere, and depending on the circumstances will push just as strongly for disarmament under the guise of local self-determination as they do for sweeping national measures from which no “home rule” exemptions are allowed.
Ohio towns may unwittingly be inviting a lesson in real grassroots activism if they decide to follow the course being charted by a handful of insulated LVW dilettantes who seem intent on provoking a gun owner response.
If you’re a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won’t find in the mainstream media, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (Dan) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.”
What the Obama administration can’t get through legislation they’re determined to get just by issuing orders. The latest GUNS Magazine “Rights Watch” column is online, and you can read it before the magazine hits the stands. Click here to read “Executive Actions.”