Ohio's House Bill 62 Response to Douglas Rogers of Columbus Ohio

Subject: Ohio's House Bill 62 Response to Douglas Rogers of Columbus Ohio
From: David Stutzman of Vincent Ohio
Date: 1 Mar 2021

Douglas Rogers,
You stated, “Columbia v. Heller that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on … laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” It is time to call out those who sprinkle a little truth to conceal deception.

From HB 62, “what sort of arms and accessories law-abiding Ohioans may buy, sell, exchange” is not the same thing as DC v. Heller “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Those conditions and qualifications are placed on the individual buyers and not on design features.

Further, the Bill (House Bill 62) hopefully will become law of which the courts would be required to defend. It is the people who decide what laws they want in this nation not the government created by the people. So there is no change in court’s function and there must be no change in individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, which existed before the U.S. Constitution and later defended by the U.S. Constitution.

Your use of the recent unrest of January 6 seems likely to have been instigated by a relatively small number of people and if current standing law had been enforced would not have occurred.

Your arguments above are non sequitur and illogical against Ohio becoming a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary State.

I cite the riots and destruction of businesses and homes caused in 2020 across this nation and the greater loss of innocent lives, as the need for citizens to have freedom in the arms they bear for protection of life, family, home, property, and…

tyrannical government as decided in Columbia v. Heller …(citizens fearing) "that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Further, “The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.”