In the Cleveland Plain Dealer there's an article about an important and fascinating ruling. It seems the Ohio Supreme Court has decided that local municipalities cannot ban guns from public parks. Naturally, as with any gun legislation, this is an extremely controversial ruling. From the juridical standpoint, it's all about local legislators being subject to the larger government, in this case the State government. The fact that the ruling favors gun owners makes it somewhat ironical, I think. Aren't the gun owners the ones who usually disparage big government? Aren't they the ones who usually support individual rights to self governance? I'm really not being sarcastic with these questions; I find this situation somewhat complicated.
Two of the local residents summed up the opposing viewpoints pretty well, though.
"People should be able to carry guns wherever they like, as long as they're registered and within the limits of the law," Mike Marx, 42, of North Royalton, said while eating lunch at Lakewood Park. "Parks, public places - if someone feels the need, they should have one."
Across the table, Lisa Herhuth, 28, had the opposite view. "I don't believe anyone should carry guns at all," the North Olmsted resident said. "I don't want to see them in public places or parks, either, especially where children are playing."