With RINO-Republicans Like Ohio’s Matt Dolan, Who Needs Democrats?

Matt Dolan ohiosenate-gov public domain
Matt Dolan – image source ohiosenate.gov public domain

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Ohio GOP lawmaker introduces gun safety bill; includes red flag law, enhanced background checks,” ABC affiliate News 5 Cleveland video reports. “Cleveland-area state Sen. Matt Dolan proposed bill with mental health in mind.”

That this obvious advocacy piece masked as news relies on assumptions right out of the starting gate is evidenced by repeating the term “gun safety” in the headline, the lede, the body of the “report,” and twice in the crusading reporter’s embedded self-publicizing tweet (embedded below). And curiously, since “red flag” laws are also promoted, you’d think the term “due process” would appear at least once in an unbiased report?

You’d think.

Also of note, no real opposing viewpoints are presented. The single gun owner quoted who appears marginally uncomfortable with what he’s being told isn’t totally against the idea; he just isn’t sure what it would actually do. He said that “most gun owners don’t want to cause issues.”

I suppose asking someone from Buckeye Firearms Association what they thought about it would be too much of an investigative reporting stretch. Besides, they’d probably just throw a wrench in the predetermined narrative and give the video editor much more work to futz around with context. And that’s assuming anyone at WEWS even bothered to look for “Ohio gun rights groups” to see what might turn up first on Google.

For his part, that Republican Matt Dolan is following a time-worn gun-grabber script could not be more apparent, especially when he declares, “[The bill] protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while also…”

Grabbers always sound that way when they feign “I support the Second Amendment” right before showing everyone their big “but.” Remembering that it ends in “shall not be infringed,” what other tyrannical usurpations besides disarming citizens who have not been convicted, let alone even charged, does Dolan intend to “protect” us with?

“If someone aged 18 to 21 wants to buy a gun, they would only be able to buy a rifle or shotgun that holds only a single round of ammunition if they buy the gun by themselves,” the report notes. So evidently double-barrel Fudd guns are out.

Why would he invent such a ludicrous Constitutionally and historically unsupportable and offensive restriction?

“We have to face the fact that not every 18 to 21-year-old has mental maturity and emotional maturity,” Dolan declares. A Texas Judge would disagree.

OK, how many 18 to 21-year-olds? Half? Less? Got validly determined numbers?  Besides, plenty of so-called “adults” don’t have maturity either, genius, and your buddy in citizen disarmament, fellow “Republican” Michael Bloomberg, even wants to raise the age for “minorities” to 25 (he just doesn’t want the general public to know he said that). So, are we to now have “maturity tests” as a prior restraint for all gun owners? In the name of “public safety”?

This will certainly be welcomed by Democrat beneficiaries of Dolan’s bloviating ignorance, who are delighted he is using their talking points while remaining oblivious to their wanting to lower the voting age to 16.

Here is where gun owners typically raise objections based on 18-year-old being old enough to join the military (or be drafted if the need arises again, dependent on how they “identify”). In this case, Dolan’s got it covered—or thinks he does.

You can get an “adult” to cosign, provided he accepts liability for your actions after doing so. And “There is an exception for young people who go into law enforcement and the military.”

Why? Suppose he doesn’t have numbers to prove they are substantially more prone to being law-abiding and less prone to suicide. In that case, he’s just playing to the “rah-rah” and “back the blue” crowd with no legitimate data to support violating equal protection under the law. In fact, if you look at what happens in the real world, that would be a tough case to prove, especially with reports finding:

“Evidence indicates that a substantial proportion of military personnel are involved in high-risk and antisocial behaviors that place them at jeopardy for criminal justice system involvement.”

And research concludes:

“Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh of the rate for police officers.”

In any case, it ought to be a moot point because our rights are supposed to be recognized for individuals, not because we are arbitrary members of a collective that we have no control over, which, if you think about it, pretty much tells us why racists are wrong. And in any case, for a “lawmaker” presuming to tamper with the Second Amendment, you’d think Dolan would at least be cognizant of the U.S. Code section mandating:

“The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…”

Those featured in the story as backing this RINO bill are oblivious, too, and about more than that.

“And as long as law-abiding citizens, their Second Amendment, who are mentally capable, is not being infringed on, then I don’t have a problem,” asserted Donna Walker Brown, who the reporter considered it important (that is, useful) to identify as a gun owner and “former Cuyahoga County Republican Party Executive Committee Chair.”

See, Donna, there is a problem, even if you don’t see it. When red flag laws kick in, it has not been established that those caught in their net are mentally incapable. “Sentence first — verdict afterward” is something that, not that long ago, even children understood to be cartoonishly tyrannical and insane.



We also meet Erick Bellomy, Ohio head of Brady: United Against Gun Violence, who echoes Dolan’s lie that “We can preserve and protect the Second Amendment while also protecting the lives of Ohioans and Americans.”

Sure we can, Erick. Just like you and Brady don’t want to take our guns.

This is another anti-gunner who got into activism due to a terrible personal loss. Still, while we can all feel a natural human sympathy for that, it does not mean we need to sit still while he works to make us and everyone we love more vulnerable through government diktat. Learning that “his father was shot and killed in a drug deal gone bad” and that the perpetrator was “a family member [who] went to his house and tried to rob him and shot and killed him” makes it reasonable to ask if a more effective deterrence might have existed than placing more restrictions on you and me.

And as with Brady, don’t think for a moment that if now RINO-Republican Matt Dolan gets what he wants in this bill (and he won’t, at least not yet) he’ll be satisfied and go away. As I found when I was assessing candidates in the pre-primary Ohio U.S. Senate race:

The sixth, State Senator Matt Dolan, a “moderate Republican,” may as well be a Democrat as far as gun owners are concerned. Described by CNN as a “non-Trump Republican … in the McCain lane, the Romney lane…” Dolan penned an op-ed in support of the state’s proposed STRONG Act, essentially a “red flag” edict that promises due process before gun confiscations without really delivering it, and requires “background checks” on private sales, and adds liability penalties to sellers. And no surprise here, Dolan admits “I understand this bill probably doesn’t go far enough for some and goes too far for others.” Having adopted the language and rationale of the prohibitionists, is there any doubt on whose side he will “err” when new diktats are demanded?

Dolan’s current term in the Ohio State Senate ends in 2024.  If he runs again, for that or any office, Ohio gun owners need to understand that the betrayals will only spread if they don’t make an example of GOP turncoats. With Republicans like him, who needs Democrats? Indeed, an enemy inside the gates is more dangerous than the ones outside.

Other fair weather Republicans will be watching to assess just how much they can get away with.


About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

Subscribe
Notify of
30 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ope

Them OHIO RINOS’s are historically some of the worst ever too. They need to get this fool out of office.

Cruiser

All RINOS have no integrity. At least Democrats show their spots,RINO’s
are the sneakist of political animal.

uncle dudley

An old saying applies to this guy,
You know what to expect from your enemies
It’s your friends you have to worry about.

Ope

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer! (many times they are one in the same)

DDS

Food for thought:

Is it better to be stabbed in the back by a friend or in the chest by an enemy?

GomeznSA

DDS – I guess it depends on if you want to see it coming or not. At least with a frontal attack you ‘might’ have a chance to stop it.

Stag

Remember, folks, without Republicans there would be no arms laws.

Wild Bill

Without democrats there would be not arms laws. With out Congress there would be no federal arms laws. Without the president, the S. Ct., state legislatures, governors, county commissioners and marxist socialist infiltrators there would be no arms laws. You can not put these betrayals at the feet of just one party.

Stag

Oh, but I can and I do. How many federal arms laws were written and enacted by just the Democrats without a single Republican vote? The answer is zero. Which party claims to support the 2A and individual rights? It sure as hell isn’t the Democrats. How many times have arms laws been enacted when Republicans have had complete control of DC and, therefore, had the power to not only stop these bills but possibly repeal arms laws? I can think of two in just the past decade alone. Democrats tell you they are going to violate your rights and… Read more »

Wild Bill

You can not ignore democrat participation. You can not ignore Congressional, presidential, judicial, gubernatorial, or state legislative participation.
The betrayal of the American people requites many complictous actors.

Wild Bill

Well, of course! We all get to believe the nonsense that we want to believe!! I know a guy that thinks 9mm is better than .45.

Last edited 25 days ago by Wild Bill
Ope

Bill, many on this site enjoy trashing Law Enforcement, Military, President Trump, Republican Party, Texas, Gov.Abbott, etc.,etc., etc. but can never back that criticism up when called out on it, except with more nonsense and BS. 45ACP vs 9mm, I like both calibers but would pick 45 every time.

DDS

I haven’t been able to make my mind up, so I have several of each.

But the real answer should be “Better at what?”

Bottom line is, the “best gun” is the one you have with you when you need one.

Last edited 25 days ago by DDS
Ope

DDS, you made some great points.

GomeznSA

Wild – but ‘of course’ 9mm is ‘better’ than .45 (ACP or ‘Long’?) – a noted firearms and ballistics expert recently told us that 9mm blows lungs out!

Ope

GomeznSA, the same POS that said we can’t own tanks? You must be talking about Shotgun Joe Biden.

Wild Bill

Er ah yes, that is what I was trying to say, but you say it better.

Terry

WB;
A 9mm will blow your lungs from New York to San Francisco but an AR15 fires rounds at 15,500 fps. Who needs a 45 when you’ve got Biden certified weapons of mass destruction like these.

BigJim

Don’t forget the Negotiating Rights Away team.

Wild Bill

You are right. They fit right in there, too.

Russn8r

~“except young people who go into military”

Texas bans “Constitutional Carry” for adults under 21, except for military. A clique of high-volume Texas commenters here think that only those who have been in the military can be patriotic and have sacrificed for freedom, and they do not tolerate dissent or discussion on that POV. How they jive that with their worship of folks like Trump, who, unlike John “Lurch” Kerry, never “served”, is unknown. Maybe they fit F. Scott Fitzgerald’s definition of “artist”.

Last edited 26 days ago by Russn8r
Wild Bill

Not a clique. It is a two hundred and fifty year old, nation wide, rebuttable presumption that a person that has laid their life on the altar of freedom for this nation and his fellow citizens he is patriotic. He has demonstrated it.
The separate and individual folks from Texas do tolerate civil discussion and diplomatic conversation. It is ill mannered, and insulting vomit and blasphemy that they do not tolerate.
If one finds themselves with many down votes and no discussion, then perhaps they should look to their disrespectful presentations.

Russn8r

More hypocrisy and self-aggrandizement.

I post, you attack. Continuously. Who do you think you’re kidding?

Ope

Bill, spot on right.

Russn8r

SPOT ON RIGHT, Major!…Major AH!

Now Opevote yourself & your loverboy some more, LOSER

Last edited 25 days ago by Russn8r
Terry

WB;
I think Ammoland should remove the up/down vote tabs. Then maybe people wouldn’t get so butthurt over them.

Wild Bill

Most humorous!

Boom

Well I suppose there is some truth to that… but. I think a lot of people overlook the fact that Trump had never served, because they have to…they don’t have any choice… And let’s face it the people that are in these positions such as trump, at this level, the ones that did serve… A good share of them, would really called their service, serving? For a lot of them, their service would be akin to a summer camp, and a lot of them “serve” with the intention of it being nothing more than a bullet point on their political… Read more »

Last edited 25 days ago by Boom
Wild Bill

Yeah, it sucks. Embrace the suck! Whatever their motives the water purification specialist and the clerk typist run the risk of becoming a rifleman at a moments notice. For most folks, the presumption of patriotism based upon military service is rebuttable by the person’s later actions. As an aside, I had a 71D one time that had to type up a report for me. I showed him where the manual typewriter was, in the field desk, and the carbon paper. He looked at me and said, “But sir, how does it work?” So I showed him how to sandwich the… Read more »

Last edited 25 days ago by Wild Bill
Boom

Oh yeah, and I forgot to say…. How do we know that this bill isn’t putting military and police in there as a clause, so they won’t be in conflict while doing their Duty… SO, meaning that it’s not okay for them to carry off duty, but rather on duty… That would make perfect anti-sense.