Lowy Statements Prove Ignorance and Extremism

Josey1

Lowy Statements ProveIgnorance and ExtremismThe recent rhetoric from Jonathan Lowy from the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence proves both his ignorance and extremism.He apparently doesn't have a problem with the current legal carry ban scheme that prohibits all forms of carrying a firearm for defense, either unconcealed, concealed, or in a vehicle. In addition, he has not shown concern about how the current law requires a person to first be arrested, taken to jail, strip-searched, forced to post bond, and then endure the threat of a felony conviction trial and the costs of legal defense just to find out if they had a valid "affirmative defense" which is undefined and unknown to even long-time veteran police officers. No other fundamental individual rights under the Ohio Constitution are treated as poorly as Article 1, Section 1 [inalienable rights to defending life, liberty and property] and Article 1, Section 4 [bear arms for defense and security].And finally, Lowy showed no concern that during the trial, it became clear that enforcement of the current laws are arbitrary and capricious. Police testimony fell into three categories: 1) Everyone is arrested (this was confirmed by Field Interrogation Report (FIR) cards); 2) Officers use their personal discretion which varies from officer to officer in making an arrest, but no concrete, specific incidents were cited at trial of releasing any private citizens; or 3) Officers call prosecutors to find out if the person stopped has an affirmative defense since the police are uncertain as to what a valid affirmative defense is. This last option was questioned strongly by the Judge as he was a former prosecutor and had never heard of this being done.A retired officer reading about the trial wrote a letter to the editor stating that options 2) and 3) are not utilized, yet Lowy and the defendants claim this is the norm in their briefs and don't seem to care about the strong inconsistencies in all of these stories. And if all three are true, then that merely proves that the law should be ruled unconstitutional for arbitrary and capricious enforcement.See the police letters here:Another Pro-Carry LEO Letter-to-the-editor. (Cincinnati Enquirer 12/24/01)Clermont County Sheriff Endorses Lawsuit Victory. (Cincinnati Enquirer 12/19/01) So what is Lowy concerned about if he doesn't care about the damage the current laws cause innocent people?Read his ignorant statements in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on 12/26/01, where he stated that:"If he [Ruehlman] were to strike down this law, it would be overturning more than 100 years of Ohio history. The impact would be huge," said Jonathan Lowy, a senior lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington. "All of a sudden, anyone allowed to possess a gun in Ohio would be allowed to carry it concealed."They could bring to it to day-care centers, to bars, carry in football games. This would be the only state in the country with no regulations," Lowy said. "There has never been an experiment like that in modern American history, and the people of Ohio would be the guinea pigs."Much in these statements are not factual.1. VERMONT ALLOWS CONCEALED CARRY WITHOUT A LICENSE/PERMIT SINCE 1903! This is because of a Vermont Supreme Court decision, State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 55 A. 610 (1903). Vermont has a very low crime rate compared to the rest of the country! Maybe Ohio should follow Vermont's example, making it THE SECOND STATE, Mr. Lowy, and you should know better.The truth about VERMONT is also on LOWY'S SISTER ORGANIZATION'S WEBSITE, and repeatedly so! http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/1998/98archive/conceal.htm http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/1999/hci/082799-2.html http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/ccwfaq.asp (These are only a few examples found using their own site's search engine)Read the State v. Rosenthal decision here: http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/state/55a610.html or, http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/state_v_rosenthal.txt 2. Mr. Lowy claimed that people could carry into bars and numerous other locations, but the lawsuit does not challenge the two Ohio laws preventing the carrying of weapons into bars and school zones, so it is uncertain as to what exactly Mr. Lowy is talking about. Could he be fear-mongering?? 2923.121 Illegal possession of firearm in liquor permit premises.(A) No person shall possess a firearm in any room in which liquor is being dispensed in premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303 of the Revised Code.......? 2923.122 Illegal conveyance or possession of deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance or illegal possession of object indistinguishable from firearm in school safety zone.(A) No person shall knowingly convey, or attempt to convey, a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance into a school safety zone.(B) No person shall knowingly possess a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a school safety zone......It seems clear that Mr. Lowy knows very little about Ohio law, (in addition to his sister group's website) so I can't understand why it was so important for this outsider to represent Ohio Governmental agencies fully staffed with their own taxpayer-funded Ohio attorneys. After all, the Second Amendment Foundation only had two, outstanding Ohio attorneys. And the defendants already had some 400-600 attorneys in total??In future interviews, any good reporter should make sure that the next time Mr. Lowy tries to deceive the people of Ohio, he is questioned about the accuracy of his statements before they are allowed in print or on air. If his statements can't be confirmed as accurate, they should not be allowed to be disseminated.In addition, if we prevail, ask him if his organization will now seek a licensed concealed carry system to remedy the problem. The Second Amendment Foundation predicts he will not endorse any carry law proposals, as his group represents the fringe element.The fact is that there are 42 states with concealed carry licensing systems in place, and if the new NM concealed carry law is upheld in that state's Supreme Court, there would be 43 licensing states. (Add Vermont, and there are either a total 43 or 44 legal concealed carry states depending on the NM decision.)And as for the remaining 6 or 7 states, only Ohio has the undefined affirmative defense language with the burden of proof on the person prosecuted. In Nebraska, the burden of proof is on the state to show criminal intent.Knowing that Ohio stands alone with its draconian provisions, who is the real extremist? http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/news/ChallengeLowy.htm