"do me a favor, don't email me again..."

The full email I received was:

“Mr. Currid, Please do me a favor, don't e-mail me again. I really don't have time for your foolishness. Sincerely, David B. Miller”

What would cause South Euclid’s City Council President, a professor at CWRU, to send such an email? What could I have said to cause him such harm to ban a constituent (Mr. Miller is At-Large Councilman and I am a resident of South Euclid) from contacting him? 

Well let me share. Below is an email I sent Mr. Miller (and to which he responded with the ban) in regards to his recently passed resolution regarding House Bill 203.

Good Morning!

Curious as to what facts you might be referring sir! Is it the fact that you were quoted as saying :

"...Miller is also against another portion of the bill that would allow concealed gun permit holders into bars provided they do not consume alcohol.

Were you misquoted? You certainly are misinformed, but were you misquoted?

How about this quote:  'Guns and liquor don't go together'

Although a noble statement, it only makes sense when you combine the CONSUMPTION of liquor and guns, and since existing Ohio law prevents conceal carry while consuming or previously consumed I can't for the life of me understand why you would make this quote in the context of disagreeing with the CCW law. Was it because you were ignorant to the law or because it didn't fit your agenda so you ignored it and hoped the public would too?

Since I hear that you are big on bragging that you are a “Researcher”, let me guide your research along so you don't make such misstatements in the future:

Ohio Revised Code Sec. 2923.12 (B)(c)
(e) Any person who is carrying a valid license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun… issued to the person under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code or a license to carry a concealed handgun that was issued to the person by another state with which the attorney general has entered into a reciprocity agreement under section 109.69 of the Revised Code and who possesses the firearm in a retail food establishment or food service operation with any class liquor permit issued for that location under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code, or in a retail store with D-6 and D-8 permits issued for that store under sections 4303.182 and 4303.184 of the Revised Code or a D-8 permit issued for that store under section 4303.184 of the Revised Code, as long as the person is not consuming liquor or under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse.

Let's move on, shall we....

Let's talk about what HB 203 actually does...

1) Stand Your Ground...You are quoted as saying you agree with the Castle Doctrine as it stands  but disagree with Stand Your Ground. Your main disagreement I gathered was that it allows someone to pick a fight and then turn to deadly force once you begin to loose that fight; is this accurate or were you misquoted!?

Did you bother to read the proposed amendments to existing law that HB203 attempts to make? Had you, you would have noticed that all the new text does is remove the restriction of "a persons home, vehicle, or vehicle of an immediate family member" and replaces it with "any place a person is lawfully". So tell me Sir...should I take your stance as an endorsement for someone to have the ability to start a fight with someone else and then turn to deadly force once they being to get "their butt whooped" so long as that person was in their own home when they began the fight? Per your statement, that is EXACTLY what you are saying!

Where you are mistaken however, is that the Castle Doctrine DOESN'T provide blanket immunity once someone enters one's home. There needs to be a reasonable threat of great bodily harm or to yours or anther's life before the duty to retreat is waived. All the proposed change grants is the same duty waiver anywhere you stand legally and not just the restricted areas of your home or car! 

2) The proposed changes, among other things, change the background check requirements for attaining a CCW. Now ALL Ohio permit applicants will be required to have a federal background check from the beginning, placing Ohio in line with a majority of other states that automatically require this. Do you disagree with the expansion of background checks? I find it funny that you don't point this out, nor did you offer a resolution PRAISING the legislation. I must take that to mean that you either don't agree with the expansion or you didn't think it was a big deal. This is 180 degrees opposite to your party and to Mayors Against Illegal Guns (an organization our city is UNFORTUNATELY ALINED) and is exactly what they are looking for in "common-sense changes".

John J. Currid

South Euclid uses the phrase "College Town for All Ages", isn't higher education about enlightenment, discussion, & debate? Shouldn't a city that wants to embrace an environment of high-learning act in accordance with those guidelines? Shouldn't a man who is a professor act in such an environment and embrace discussion and debate?

Further, what does Mr. Miller consider “foolish”? Is it our rights or is it him having to bring himself down to interacting with one of his constituents? What he probably finds most "foolish" is that his words and actions are being contrasted with facts!