Now Nate Noy expects me to believe that Jean Schmidt is against the second amendment based on a 1991 vote when Jean Schmidt was on Miami Township's town coucil. The vote in question was on the adoption of regulations for the township's parks and the specific language to which Mr. Noy objects is as follows:6. WeaponsNote that this regulation is number six of eight regulations recommended for enactment.
No person, except authorized employees or agents of the Board and/or Township Administrator shall possess a firearm, deadly weapon, dangerous ordinance, or air rifle, sling shot or missile throwing device, within the park or discharge any firearm, deadly weapon, dangerous ordance or air rifle therein without specific from the Board and.or Township Administrator.
Two things... First, this sounds like reasonable legislation to me. Parks are usually where we have kids playing, so weapons fire ought to be limited as much as possible. It isn't the sort of place where recreational shooting ought to be taking place. I am an avid air gunner myself, as my friends will attest, and I would NEVER consider an open park as an appropriate place to practice my skills. Secondly, if there were reason to have these weapons on display in the park, there was a method built in to the regulations that allowed for it.
Now, let's get to the specifics of the "charge"... Nate calls this a gun ban...and to a certain degree it is, but only in the sense that these were considered common sense regulations back in 1990. Let's take a look at what has happened since...Jean Schmidt worked on a law to allow Ohioans to get certified to conceal and carry a weapon. Does that mean that either the 1990 vote or the 2004 indicates that she was bought off by somebody? No. It illustrates that Jean Schmidt is the sort of legislator who is protecting the rights of "good" citizens while trying to minimize the risk to those same good citizens.
My argument is this: Ohio didn't have conceal and carry in 1990, so naturally the regulations she okayed back then should have been revisited after the 2004 law which allowed certified persons to do so. The state law takes precedence. Of course, any politico or lawyer knows that...Nate is a business man... Not that there is anything wrong with that...Congress could use a business man or two, but it helps to understand that laws need to be changed from time to time and that there is a process to do that.
Question: If Jean Schmidt is anti-gun for having supported Conceal and Carry, which requires people to go through training and be certified, doesn't that mean anybody who voted for coneal and carry is anti-gun? I say no...
UPDATE FROM THE COMMENTS:
Nate Noy: "For the record Matt I do have a JD."
ME (not in the comments): That doesn't exactly make this any better for you...
