A Nov. 15 editorial (“Advice to retreat”) cited testimony by John Gilchrist, legislative counsel to the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, in its reasons for encouraging legislators not to support House Bill 203, which would eliminate Ohio’s “duty to retreat” from a life-threatening encounter.

Gilchrist claimed that “repealing the duty to retreat will result in more violence, including gun violence particularly by those who are hot-headed or violently aggressive.” What the editorial did not mention is that Gilchrist made similar testimony five years ago about Ohio’s Castle Doctrine law.

When asked by committee member Rep. Andy Brenner for proof that his predictions about that legislation have come to pass, Gilchrist could not provide any. Opponents of good firearms-related legislation have always filled their testimony with “sky is falling” rhetoric, but it never comes true.

When such wild claims of pending mayhem are made, a responsible journalistic organization should follow up. The claims didn’t come true about concealed carry, they didn’t come true about the Castle Doctrine, they didn’t come true about carrying a gun into a restaurant and they won’t come true if the “duty to retreat” is removed under H.B. 203.

Chad D. Baus


Editor’s note: The writer is vice chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association.

For shopping, ?not camping

Since when has Best Buy, or any other retail establishment, suddenly been rezoned as a camping ground (“Lines already forming,” Nov. 20)?

If city officials of Cuyahoga Falls were willing to do their jobs, Best Buy would receive less-than-friendly visits from the departments of health, safety, fire, police and zoning, explaining that if this doesn’t end immediately, the store will be closed, its business license suspended and guests arrested on charges of trespassing and vagrancy.

No retail establishment should be permitted to allow customers at its doors, or the beginning of a sale, more that two hours beforehand.

Dana Pratt


Nothing beats ?police presence

If those “cop in a box” cameras are really about slowing drivers down, why aren’t they better identified? Shouldn’t they have two flashing white and blue lights just like a real police cruiser?

Now, imagine this scenario: You’re driving 40 mph through a school zone. The camera takes your picture. You continue along still doing 40 mph.

Two weeks later, you get a ticket (actually a bill) for $100.

But what the camera failed to notice was that you were legally drunk, driving on a suspended license, in a car so full of pot smoke it looks like a fire every time you open the door and you have no auto insurance.

A real police officer would’ve spotted all of these things.

Maybe we should change the policy on these tickets, to $20 if paid in person or $100 if paid by mail. Nothing will ever replace having to talk to a real, live police officer and judge.

Ray Crim