Posted on 10/09/2001 10:18:26 AM PDT by Deadeye Division
www.ofcc.net
However, for those qualified to receive permits, all the CCW laws do is create two classes of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Those who jump through the bureaucratic hoops, and those who don't.
There is no public safety benefit to all the fingerprinting and data collecting, except as makework for bureaucrats in law enforcement.
I agree with the police wanting demonstrated proficiency as a requirement for license. This keeps Joe Schmoe from just buying one on a whim one Saturday. People who are serious about carrying firearms will go to the necessary lengths. Those who are content to keep it in the nightstand won't bother.
I must say I completely agree with Taft's decision to look for consensus amongst law enforcement since they are the ones who have to deal with the having an armed populace.
Politically, CCW should be a no-brainer.
Absolutely not! Shall-issue is not measurably different from may-issue, and is even arguably worse, from a liberty advocate's point of view.
Both schemes involve the government licensing a fundamental human right as a revocable privilege.
Both schemes involve giving up liberty and privacy (giving all the information, submitting to all the background checks, taking all the tests, being put on all the lists, paying all the money the government requires) in exchange for a little temporary safety (from being arrested and imprisoned for carrying a concealed weapon).
The only difference is that with shall-issue schemes, the government pretends that it's respecting the rights of its citizens, and that it has no choice in the matter, when it ought to be perfectly clear that it can revoke anyone's license anytime it wants, for any reason or no reason. Therefore, people under shall-issue schemes are less likely to recognize the degree of encroaching enslavement they're under than people under may-issue or no-issue schemes.
Imagine arguing about whether shall-issue or may-issue schemes are better for licensing the practice of religion, or the operation of a printing press, or public speaking.
All you folks out there who are in favor of shall-issue concealed-carry licensing had better not start complaining when the antigun newspapers start insisting on publishing lists of your names and addresses. Once you have a license to carry, that information is public, you know.
Published Wednesday, October 10, 2001, in the Akron Beacon Journal.
Gunning for compromise
Many in law enforcement still say no to concealed carry Crime rates have been falling for years, but the events of Sept. 11 caused a sharp upturn in concerns for personal safety among many Americans. It is against this shifting backdrop that an Ohio House subcommittee headed by Rep. Ann Womer Benjamin, R-Aurora, is considering amended legislation that would allow Ohioans to carry concealed weapons. A substitute bill is expected to be ready for a hearing today.
The compromise would impose background checks, including some fingerprinting requirements for newer state residents, as well as training specifications. A hunting license would count, but only if held for three years in a row. The bill would ban concealed weapons in certain locations, including college campuses. Yes, the right to buy gas masks and stock up on antibiotics would remain undisturbed.
Ohio's streets would not suddenly resemble those of the Wild West under such legislation, with citizens blazing away at each other or turning their fire toward terrorist hordes. In fact, the state law currently prohibiting concealed carry allows a person whose business could place them in danger to carry a pistol, which they would have to justify to a judge or prosecutor. Hunters, target shooters and other gun enthusiasts already travel about with weapons in plain view.
Nevertheless, the compromise worked out in Womer Benjamin's House Commercial and Civil Law subcommittee fails to surmount the concerns of all law enforcement groups, even as it continues to aggravate those with a literal-minded interpretation of the Second Amendment.
As things stand, the Ohio Highway Patrol and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police strongly oppose any form of concealed carry, fearing for their members' safety when approaching suspects, while the Buckeye Sheriffs' Association publicly supports the bill being hashed out in Womer Benjamin's subcommittee. That leaves the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, which could support a concealed carry bill, depending on the training requirements. A spokesman says the group is not opposed to the ``concept'' of concealed carry.
Despite the split, opposition by the Ohio Highway Patrol (a state agency) and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police should give Ohio Gov. Bob Taft the rationale he says he needs to veto a concealed carry bill. Here are Taft's own words on the subject: ``If the men and women who are on the front lines of public safety are saying this will not enhance public safety, this will put their lives in danger, this will make it more difficult for them to do their job, then I'm opposed.''
So what we're left with is basically as you say: Criminals will carry and break the law. Law abiding citizens, who try to do the right thing, end up not carrying half the time because of the STUPID restrictions on concealed carry. Finally, the second part of the otherwise law-abiding citizens will carry and break the law. Of course, when they are caught, they will be prosecuted and then, they too become certified as criminals.
Best PRACTICAL solution: Once you pass a background check and prove proficiency, you get a license to carry everywhere that a peace officer carries when on duty.
Since about 90 percent of the rank and file officers in this country support RTKBA, I WONDER JUST HOW LARGE A CONSENSUS HE'S LOOKING FOR.
The rank and file have always overwhelmingly supported the right of self defense. The LE Leadership are simply parroting the political line they've been fed for many years.
Having just moved from OH to TN, I haven't noticed any appreciable gain in blood on the streets. As well, people are just more polite down here. :^)
Welcome to God's Country!
...What part of "...Shall NOT Be Infringed..." is so difficult to understand ???
I think that I'll move to Vermont...as I understand their 'Gun Laws'...As long as you're a bonified American Citizen, and not been arrested/convicted of anything, you can "Carry" whatever you like.....
But, I reckon that makes too much sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.