In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Plain Dealer Article of Bias and Lies
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Plain Dealer Article of Bias and Lies Posted by jeff on Wednesday, December 26 @ 16:36:03 EST Cleveland Plain Dealer Reporter Bill Sloat wrote an article that was run on the front page of the Plain Dealer's December 26th issue. The article, titled Gun-case jurist's wife once held by gunman starts off by trying to tie an incident Judge Rhuelman's wife experienced with a violent criminal some twelve years ago with the pending decision in a lawsuit Ohioans For Conceald Carry is a co-plaintiff in. Only Bill Sloat knows If this was an effort to discredit or somehow suggest the Judge is biased. Sloat's article goes on to quote a letter to the editors from a Cincinnati Police Officer and multiple quotes from, you guessed it, Handgun Control Inc who weasled their way into the lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court by bringing in out of state lawyers. (go figure?) Since Plain Dealer Editor (in chief?) Doug Clifton has been promising fair, accurate, and unbiased reporting via commercial radio spots since September 11th I felt it was time to call his bluff. The following letter was submitted to the Plain Dealer, Mr. Clifton, Mr. Larkin, Mr. Sloat, and their editorial page and letters to the editor contacts. (read more below) UPDATE: The Associated Press distributed This Article with comments from a plaintiff and of course, Ohio's local gun-control organization. They feel its "wrong" for us to ask a court to declare a law unconstitutional. Someone should tell them the role of the judicial branch when it comes to declaring existing statues unconstitutional. (Thats their job!) (Click read more)
Dear Mr Clifton, Mr. Larkin, and Mr. Sloat, The following letter is my response to today's frontpage coverage of the Hamilton County lawsuit seeking the delcare Ohio's concealed firearms laws unconstitutional. I am also submitting this as a letter to the editors (or for the Editorial Page) to be considered for publication in the near future. To Whom It May Concern, Since the terrorist attacks on America drastically changed the focus of the news media, Plain Dealer Editor Doug Clifton has used broadcast radio advertising to promise his audience fair and unbiased reporting. Apparently, Mr. Clifton's message failed to reach Plain Dealer Reporter Bill Sloat prior to his December 26th front page story "Gun-case jurist's wife once held by gunman". The article is about a lawsuit in Cincinnati Ohio in which our orgnization, Ohioans For Concealed Carry, joined The Second Amendment Foundation and other grass roots organizations as a plaintiff. Mr. Sloat started his article with the typical visual sensationalism used to put mental images in the heads of people who know very little about firearms. His biased representation of the issue continued by quoting "The Brady Center To Prevent Handgun Violence" which was previously and more appropriatley named "Handgun CONTROL Incorporated". Mr. Jonathan Lowy of HCI was quoted by Sloat saying that should this lawsuit determine Ohio's ban on carrying a concealed firearm unconstitutional, "All of a sudden, anyone allowed to possess a gun in Ohio would be allowed to carry it concealed." Obviously, this statement was used purely to scare the public since Lowy said nothing of the forty-four states that already permit this practice daily. Furthermore, Judge Ruehlman's decision can only be binding in Hamilton County, Ohio. This was yet another lie by the anti-gun extremists who can't fathom law abiding adults being permitted to own or carry a firearm for self-defense. Mr. Lowy switched tactics to scaring the public again when he said "They could bring to it to day-care centers, to bars, carry in football games." The plaintiffs in this lawsuit didn't challenge Ohio's ban on firearms in a liqour establishment (ORC 2923.121), which is yet another false quote Mr. Lowy made in Sloat's article. These lists of places the anti-gunners like to rattle off are aimed at scaring women with children, without cause, and we know it to be true since concealed carry laws exist in forty-four states today without increases in accidental shootings or incidents in day-care centers, bars, on soccer fields, little league games, etc. Mr. Lowy continued his assault in the biased article by stating "This would be the only state in the country with no regulations. There has never been an experiment like that in modern American history, and the people of Ohio would be the guinea pigs." If Mr. Sloat verified his "facts" before printing them he would have realized that the another state, Vermont, allows the carrying of concealed firearms without any license or permit because of a court decision (State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 55 A. 610 (1903)). While Lowy may not consider this decision "modern American history" the original guinea pigs in Vermont have never changed the practice, and Ohio would not be first to declare gun control unconstitutional. More importantly, if this lawsuit prevails and the law is struck down as unconstitutional, as it should be, other Ohio laws that regulate "disability" would still exist in this state. The lawsuit is not as broad in scope as Mr. Lowy, who would have you believe blood will flow in the strees, is trying to portray. Plain Dealer Editor Doug Clifton should question to motive of Bill Sloat once he realizes that none of the plaintiffs, grassroots gun rights organizations, or defendants were interviewed or quoted heavily like the anti-gun propaganda machine Handgun Control Incoprorated. Sloat made no effort to contact our organization, and thats a fact you can take to the bank. Sloat also failed to point out in his article that these lawsuits which were filed in Hamilton County, Ohio never named Handgun Control Incorporated as defendants. They weasled their way into the lawsuit and tangled the issue up in the Ohio Supreme Court by trying to force the plaintiffs to let them represent the defendants. The parties of this lawsuit, the citizens of Ohio, and the readers of the Plain Dealer deserve more from Doug Clifton, Bill Sloat, and every other Plain Dealer reporter. Unbiased reporting is important and sometimes hard to attain, but frontpage disasters such as this justify an appology from the Editor and a massive effort to correct the lies, propaganda, and biased reporting. Plain Dealer readers interested in learning more about the trial and the reason behind it can learn more on Ohioans For Concealed Carry's website, http://www.OhioCCW.org Sincerely, Jeff Garvas, PresidentOhioans For Concealed CarryP.O. Box 25488Cleveland, Ohio 44125 http://www.ohioccw.org/article.php?sid=479
Dear Mr Clifton, Mr. Larkin, and Mr. Sloat, The following letter is my response to today's frontpage coverage of the Hamilton County lawsuit seeking the delcare Ohio's concealed firearms laws unconstitutional. I am also submitting this as a letter to the editors (or for the Editorial Page) to be considered for publication in the near future. To Whom It May Concern, Since the terrorist attacks on America drastically changed the focus of the news media, Plain Dealer Editor Doug Clifton has used broadcast radio advertising to promise his audience fair and unbiased reporting. Apparently, Mr. Clifton's message failed to reach Plain Dealer Reporter Bill Sloat prior to his December 26th front page story "Gun-case jurist's wife once held by gunman". The article is about a lawsuit in Cincinnati Ohio in which our orgnization, Ohioans For Concealed Carry, joined The Second Amendment Foundation and other grass roots organizations as a plaintiff. Mr. Sloat started his article with the typical visual sensationalism used to put mental images in the heads of people who know very little about firearms. His biased representation of the issue continued by quoting "The Brady Center To Prevent Handgun Violence" which was previously and more appropriatley named "Handgun CONTROL Incorporated". Mr. Jonathan Lowy of HCI was quoted by Sloat saying that should this lawsuit determine Ohio's ban on carrying a concealed firearm unconstitutional, "All of a sudden, anyone allowed to possess a gun in Ohio would be allowed to carry it concealed." Obviously, this statement was used purely to scare the public since Lowy said nothing of the forty-four states that already permit this practice daily. Furthermore, Judge Ruehlman's decision can only be binding in Hamilton County, Ohio. This was yet another lie by the anti-gun extremists who can't fathom law abiding adults being permitted to own or carry a firearm for self-defense. Mr. Lowy switched tactics to scaring the public again when he said "They could bring to it to day-care centers, to bars, carry in football games." The plaintiffs in this lawsuit didn't challenge Ohio's ban on firearms in a liqour establishment (ORC 2923.121), which is yet another false quote Mr. Lowy made in Sloat's article. These lists of places the anti-gunners like to rattle off are aimed at scaring women with children, without cause, and we know it to be true since concealed carry laws exist in forty-four states today without increases in accidental shootings or incidents in day-care centers, bars, on soccer fields, little league games, etc. Mr. Lowy continued his assault in the biased article by stating "This would be the only state in the country with no regulations. There has never been an experiment like that in modern American history, and the people of Ohio would be the guinea pigs." If Mr. Sloat verified his "facts" before printing them he would have realized that the another state, Vermont, allows the carrying of concealed firearms without any license or permit because of a court decision (State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 55 A. 610 (1903)). While Lowy may not consider this decision "modern American history" the original guinea pigs in Vermont have never changed the practice, and Ohio would not be first to declare gun control unconstitutional. More importantly, if this lawsuit prevails and the law is struck down as unconstitutional, as it should be, other Ohio laws that regulate "disability" would still exist in this state. The lawsuit is not as broad in scope as Mr. Lowy, who would have you believe blood will flow in the strees, is trying to portray. Plain Dealer Editor Doug Clifton should question to motive of Bill Sloat once he realizes that none of the plaintiffs, grassroots gun rights organizations, or defendants were interviewed or quoted heavily like the anti-gun propaganda machine Handgun Control Incoprorated. Sloat made no effort to contact our organization, and thats a fact you can take to the bank. Sloat also failed to point out in his article that these lawsuits which were filed in Hamilton County, Ohio never named Handgun Control Incorporated as defendants. They weasled their way into the lawsuit and tangled the issue up in the Ohio Supreme Court by trying to force the plaintiffs to let them represent the defendants. The parties of this lawsuit, the citizens of Ohio, and the readers of the Plain Dealer deserve more from Doug Clifton, Bill Sloat, and every other Plain Dealer reporter. Unbiased reporting is important and sometimes hard to attain, but frontpage disasters such as this justify an appology from the Editor and a massive effort to correct the lies, propaganda, and biased reporting. Plain Dealer readers interested in learning more about the trial and the reason behind it can learn more on Ohioans For Concealed Carry's website, http://www.OhioCCW.org Sincerely, Jeff Garvas, PresidentOhioans For Concealed CarryP.O. Box 25488Cleveland, Ohio 44125 http://www.ohioccw.org/article.php?sid=479
Comments