Posted on 10/09/2001 10:18:26 AM PDT by Deadeye Division
Police, gun groups may support concealed-weapons deal
10/09/01
Julie Carr Smyth
Plain Dealer Bureau
Columbus
- Some gun-rights and police groups yesterday were considering buying into a concealed-weapons compromise being drafted in the Ohio House.
But Gov. Bob Taft's top lieutenant reiterated that anything short of "a consensus in the law enforcement community" is unlikely to earn the governor's signature on the bill.
"I think the governor's position is pretty well articulated," said Chief of Staff Brian Hicks. "Unless it has the support of major law enforcement - meaning prosecutors, sheriffs, the Highway Patrol and the FOP [Fraternal Order of Police] - those who live day in and day out with the ramifications of this legislation, he will not support it."
The amended bill, still in final preparation for a hearing tomorrow, eases a fingerprinting requirement unpopular among gun-rights groups, strengthens a provision on training and makes concessions to both working and retired law enforcement officers.
But Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Mike Taylor said the new language is unlikely to go far enough to alter his organization's opposition.
He said police statewide want carriers of gun permits to be required to demonstrate proficiency with weapons and to get "serious background checks." They also want provisions in the bill removed that would allow certain violent misdemeanor offenders to eventually qualify to carry handguns.
"It certainly doesn't seem to be going in the direction we would like," Taylor said.
Representatives of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association and the gun-rights group Ohioans for Concealed Carry both said they might reconsider their opposition, depending on the new language. The gun-rights group includes 2,000 law enforcement officers.
Both groups pushed for a provision that wound up in the new bill. It would remove a prohibition against off-duty police officers carrying their firearms, allowing peace officers, corrections officers and federal agents to keep their handguns with them around the clock.
Several Cleveland police officers who asked to remain anonymous said yesterday that they support the bill, despite the stands of their union and the FOP. Others called it a bad idea.
But Taylor said the FOP takes its legislative stands based on the votes of delegates chosen by FOP members in police departments and county sheriffs' offices. That system lends more weight to big-city police concerns, he said.
By contrast, the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association - which supports the bill - decides its legislative agenda based on the votes of 88 elected county sheriffs, Taylor said, meaning its positions more closely reflect sentiments in rural Ohio.
Hicks said that as long as any major law enforcement group remains opposed, the governor will not sign the bill. Taft has said he would veto the measure if it came to that.
"There are members of law enforcement who have very grave reservations about the safety of men and women in uniform out there, and I think the result of that would be that the governor would be very careful in his review of those proposals," he said.
Contact Julie Carr Smyth at:
jsmyth@plaind.com, 800-228-8272
While I would advocate a dynamic balance of powers between government and people, the anti-gun crowd's overt dependence on government for protection is ridiculous given the fact that legal gun owners are in no position to subvert the government in organised manner, nor are they willing to do that.
While this should be a sane discussion of power balance, people make it a safety issue, which is almost irrelevant since liberty is more important than human life. But humanists servile to live humans want it differently.
That's about right. The bitch state is concerned about the safety of it's already armed puppies,while not giving a damn about the safety of "outsiders".
Haven't you ever heard a cop say "*I* AM the law around here!"? I even heard a judge once tell a class graduating from a community college LEO course,"Don't worry about what is Constiutional. *I* am the one who decides if you have a legal right to do or not do something,and I will ALWAYS rule on your side!"
This isn't surprising,since you were 100% wrong with everything in your post that came before this. I just want you to explain ONE little detail to me,ok? HOW is it that unarmed citizens don't "have to deal with a armed populance"? Are citizens somehow exempt from being shot at,stabbed,robbed,raped,or attacked with pipes,chains,knives,etc in your delusional dream world?
If you think cops are the only ones who have to deal with things liket his,how about tell us about the last time you heard of a armed and uniformed cop having his patrol car hijacked,being raped,robbed at gunpoint,etc,etc,etc.
You know, there seems to be a corollary between BALANCED strength and civility: the more opposing sides are equally balanced in the ability to cause damage to the other, the more both sides do their best to avoid confrontation.
Yeah. Ain't it funny how the concept of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' kept another superpower at bay for decades?
I practice this doctrine on a personal basis, and it has saved me twice. I will never go unarmed again.
Looking at statistics from places that allow concealed carry versus those that don't, it seems pretty obvious that concealed carry will reduce violent crime, not contribute to it.
Regarding the rest of my response, I'm not saying they should have to go through a SWAT team range excersize, just that they show that they actually know a few simple safety points. People have to demonstrate at least some proficiency in driving before they get a driver's license.
As far as the restriction for those convicted of violent misdemeanors, I'd love to hear from you why it's a good idea to give people who have committed violent crimes a license to carry a concealed weapon.
Sorry,I disagree with the whole concept that the police or anybody else "allows" citizens to carry guns. The police in this country are supposed to work as our agents,not our masters.
As far as the restriction for those convicted of violent misdemeanors, I'd love to hear from you why it's a good idea to give people who have committed violent crimes a license to carry a concealed weapon.
You can be convicted of a "violent misdemeanor" for fighting back with fists after being attacked. It's more common than not for the cops to charge both parties with assault in these cases. The question also needs to be asked "WHO gets to decide WHAT is violent?" Did you know you can be arrested for being violent by raising your voice to someone who claims this intimidated them?
HERE is going to be the REAL shocker for you. I also think violent former FELONS DO have the same rights to own and carry firearms that YOU do. If they are considered too violent or mentally unstable to be allowed to carry a gun,why were they ever released from prison or the mental institution to begin with? We used to have the concept in this country that once you had served your time,you had paid your debt to society,and you had the right to start over with all the same rights and privlidges as any other citizen.
BTW,would YOU care to explain to me WHY the lives of these people and their family members are of less value than YOUR life of the lives of YOUR family members? Would you really desire to deny these people the tools they need to protect their families?
Another consideration is the legal and political climate we operate in today. These days it's easy for the family member of a victim who was killed by a fellon with a legally licensed gun to sue the city, county, state or whomever they can blame for letting someone with a criminal history have access to a gun. I'm not offering this in support of keeping it illegal, just in explanation of why it probably is this way.
Simply legislate nationwide reciprocity. It's a pain in the neck when I'm travelling to have to unload, field strip and hide my piece through Maryland, Jersey or New York. Then stop the car at the Pennsylvania line to reassemble, lock and load.
Rediculous.
Virginia has strict requirements for CCW issuance. It make no sense to not make permits allowable nationwide.
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.