Posted on 10/19/2001 6:40:31 AM PDT by Deadeye Division
Conceal/carry bill advancing in House
Friday, October 19, 2001
Jon Craig
Dispatch Statehouse Reporter
A bill that would allow Ohioans to carry guns in public buildings was passed yesterday by a House subcommittee. But the conceal/carry proposal still lacks the support of Gov. Bob Taft and is not expected to go to a full committee until early next year.
Yesterday's discussion centered on why House Bill 274 would allow people to carry weapons in such locales as the Statehouse, preschools and private stadiums but not in bars, public schools or religious institutions.
Rep. Edward S. Jerse, D-Euclid, offered several amendments to ban handguns in more places, but they were tabled.
Jerse was the only lawmaker to vote against the bill; it was sent to the full Civil and Commercial Law Committee by a 4-1 vote.
Rep. Joseph Sulzer, D-Chillicothe, supported Jerse's failed amendments but voted for the bill. The others who supported the measure were Reps. Ann Womer Benjamin, R-Aurora; Timothy J. Grendell, R-Chesterland; and Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati.
House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, has said he will let the bill work its way to the floor, even though the governor remains opposed to it. Householder's spokeswoman, Jennifer Detwiler, said it's unlikely the House will vote on the bill this year because no legislative sessions are planned in November and there'll be only one -- if needed -- in December.
Taft has said he will veto any conceal/carry bill that does not have the backing of Ohio's law-enforcement community.
The Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association, whose members would conduct background checks and issue the permits, supports the bill. But the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police and the State Highway Patrol oppose it. The Ohio Fraternal Order of Police is neutral.
Fraternal Order of Police Secretary Mike Taylor said law-enforcement officers have several concerns.
"The training in this bill is stealth training,'' he said.
Taylor fears the training won't be adequate and that people will easily be able to fake proof of their experience. Those who have a military background or have hunted for three consecutive years don't need to take the required training.
"Allowing guns in public buildings like this undermines security,'' Taylor also said.
Several amendments that would have banned guns in day-care centers, preschools and stadiums with more than 5,000 seats were tabled or defeated.
"Either we are for the right of law-abiding citizens to carry guns or we are not,'' Seitz said.
Taylor also wondered why, for example, someone who ignores a court appearance on a drunken-driving charge could still get a conceal/ carry permit. The new bill says outstanding warrants won't affect a person's eligibility.
Grendell said, "There's a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.''
Some stipulations in the bill:
No handguns would be permitted in bars or restaurants that serve alcohol, but the owner and employees may have them. The earlier version of the bill allowed carrying in restaurants where most of the sales were food and the bar was separate.
Gun owners won't be able to get a conceal/carry permit if they're under court order to stay away from a relative or an acquaintance.
Business owners may ban handguns from their property. The earlier version of the bill banned them altogether. "I think it's a better bill,'' said its sponsor, Rep. James Aslanides, R- Coshocton.
He said the changes balanced the rights of business owners to ban guns on their property with the desire of Ohioans who want to carry concealed weapons.
The revised bill also strengthened the training requirements without making them so stringent that people such as the elderly or the handicapped would be excluded from carrying a weapon, he said.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
www.ofcc.net
Be prepared, and be vigilant. You will get it done.
Locations mixed in Ohio handgun proposal
Statehouse to allow concealed weapon
By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU
COLUMBUS - A bill approved by a House subcommittee yesterday allowing Ohioans to carry concealed handguns would permit private property owners to prohibit them but would not extend the same right to public property.
The measure, which now goes to the House Civil and Commercial Law Committee, establishes a patchwork of locations where Ohioans given permits to carry could and could not take their guns.
They could carry them into the Ohio Statehouse or a government office center, but they’d better not be packing in a county courthouse or prison. A private day-care center could prohibit such weapons, but a similar center operated in a public building could not.
Guns might be permitted in a restaurant like McDonalds that does not serve alcohol, but definitely would not be welcome in another like Fridays that does.
"We ought to put a beer stand in the Statehouse," said state Rep. Edward Jerse (D., Euclid), whose amendment to outlaw guns in government buildings failed.
The laundry list of do’s and do-not’s results from the special subcommittee’s attempts to provide a legal means for citizens who meet certain eligibility requirements to carry guns without treading on the rights of private property owners who don’t want them on their land.
The bill would allow law-abiding Ohioans who’ve lived in Ohio at least 45 days to apply for permits to carry hidden handguns if they pass criminal, mental health, and domestic violence background checks, and complete firearms training.
Ohio is one of six states that do not have some law permitting the carrying of concealed weapons.
The bill is opposed by most law enforcement and anti-gun violence organizations on one side and by more adamant gun rights groups, who believe it hurts their cause more than helps, on the other.
Under the latest version of the bill, private property owners could post signs indicating that guns aren’t welcome in their establishments. Guns would be prohibited in any building serving alcohol, whether it’s a bar, restaurant, or professional sports stadium.
Guns generally would be prohibited on college campuses, but they could be locked inside cars in their parking lots. The same would be true for private businesses who post "No Guns Allowed" signs.
"If you can’t take a gun in a car with you, then conceal carry is useless," said state Rep. John Williamowski (R., Lima), chairman of the Civil and Commercial Law Committee.
I don't understand that comment. Granted you can't carry concealed in your car now, but wouldn't passage of such a bill permit CCW in your car? Why did the state rep make that comment? Does the new bill propose that your car is one place you can't carry?
Agreed. This CCW bill sucks: I'd rather see it defeated than signed.
But then, I think all may-issue and shall-issue CCW laws suck, arguably even worse than no-issue laws; so my reaction is just as predictable as the absence of an NRA membership card in my wallet.
...Or enhance it.
Some stipulations in the bill:
No handguns would be permitted in bars or restaurants that serve alcohol, but the owner and employees may have them. The earlier version of the bill allowed carrying in restaurants where most of the sales were food and the bar was separate.
Well, given that about everything other than fast-food places serves alcohol, that revision seems kinda silly.
Hey--it's not my fault liberals are stupid enough to fear the NRA. The NRA is far more scared of them than they are of it; and once they discover that, perhaps the NRA will be replaced by an organization that opposes gun control rather than inventing it.
And yes, I am doing something to defend my rights. Several things, in several categories. One of the categories, for example, is measured in hundredths of an inch (generally thirty of them, in my case). Another is measured in thousands of rounds. Another is measured in letters per month. Another in dollars per year. Another in minutes of angle. And so on.
The NRA is a lost cause, though, I'm afraid. Before you send your next dues payment to the NRA, at least check out groups like GOA, JPFO, and SAF. They may have fewer members, but at least they don't invent new victim-disarmament schemes or support old ones.
(By NRA, of course, I mean the NRAILA, which is the political arm of the organization. The sporting arm is nowhere near as corrupt or wussified.)
Oh. goody. you own a gun.
Before you send your next dues payment to the NRA, at least check out groups like GOA, JPFO, and SAF.
And which group do you send your money to?
Or at least that's what I'd like the government to think.
I'm reminded of a horrified look and a gasp I got from one of the older ladies in my congregation: "You mean you...you...you own a...a GUN??"
I said, "A gun? I suppose that would be safe to say, yes. Why?"
She backed away from me a bit and said, "You don't keep it in the house, do you?"
And which group do you send your money to?
All of those groups, and a few others. Not the NRA, though: I'm an opponent of gun control, and the NRA is a moderate advocate of gun control.
I'll admit that for a day or two I was seriously considering joining the NRA back when LaPierre made those comments about "a certain level of killing," because I thought perhaps he had grown a pair of cojones. But then he fell all over himself apologizing and retracting and bragging about how the NRA had been one of the chief proponents of the assault-weapons ban and the standard-capacity magazine ban and a bunch of other gun-control legislation, so I assumed he had merely accidentally eaten something with an unusually high testosterone content.
It's a simple fact that when the votes are against you, you compromise the he!! out of it. When you're winning, you take everything you can, you end their resistance and you make sure they never, ever come back. It's called winning and we haven't won for a long time because of the so-called duck hunters who kiss their unions @sses by voting for their pocketbook and not their freedom.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry joined a lawsuit to be filed on Tuesday, October 16th, 2001 by the Second Amendment Foundation. Other parties included The Peoples Rights Organization and Mr. Patrick Feely, whose story you can learn by reading the original Hamilton lawsuit page here. Pat Feely is a long time member of Ohioans For Concealed Carry and one of the many individuals who helped us pull off the 2000 Cincinnati Rally on Fountain Square.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry joined this lawsuit on behalf of their Hamilton County membership and the unknown thousands of supporters from Hamilton County who have signed the petition.
For more information you can download a PDF of the press release from our website, follow this link to the SAF website, or click on the Read More link below to read the release.
News Release
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 • www.saf.org
For Immediate Release 10/15/01 Contact: Dave LaCourse (425) 454-7012 Attorney Bill Gustavson (513) 621-4477
New Cincinnati/Hamilton County Lawsuit Filed to Allow Carrying of Firearms for Self-Protection
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) will file a new lawsuit to overturn the unconstitutional laws that bar self-defense through legal concealed carry of firearms by law-abiding adults on Tuesday, October 16th. The new lawsuit features new plaintiffs but is otherwise identical to the original Cincinnati lawsuit that initially won a temporary injunction but has since stalled in the Ohio Supreme Court on minor procedural issues.
"The current law is unconstitutional. It is long past time to present our case before a fair and impartial judge to have it tossed out," proclaimed Dave LaCourse, SAF Public Affairs Director. "We hoped our original Cincinnati lawsuit could go forward to resolve this issue by now, but our opponents have kept us in procedural appeals for over a year. Hopefully this new suit will be heard on the merits, rather than needlessly delayed in endless technical motions."
Plaintiffs include Pat Feely, who was previously arrested and tried under the gun carry ban scheme. Both the prosecutor and the judge in that case stated that the law should be changed or repealed. While Feely was acquitted at trial, he could face the same charges again if found carrying a concealed firearm in the future. The threat and costs of repeated prosecutions is another reason for declaring the current law unconstitutional.
Mr. Feely is returning to a job where he will carry large sums of cash again as part of his employment, and this job change prompted this new lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include: Ohioans for Concealed Carry, People's Rights Organization and the Second Amendment Foundation on behalf of their members in Hamilton County.
SAF's new suit exposes the current scheme as a violation of the Ohio Constitution (Article 1, Section 1 [inalienable rights to defending life, liberty and property], Article 1, Section 4 [bear arms for defense and security], Article 1, Sections 2 [equal protection] and Article 1, Section 16 [due process]). In addition, as Judge Ruehlman found in the original suit in Cincinnati, the current law treats people as if guilty until proven innocent!
The Ohio laws in question, R.C. 2923.12, bans all concealed carry of firearms with felony penalties for any violations while R.C. 2923.16 bans loaded guns in a motor vehicle. Only after a person is caught violating either of these provisions, and the person incurs the costs and stresses of a criminal trial, does the current law allow the possibility of an "affirmative defense" to be made. Such an unjust system must be replaced with reasonable and prudent legislation, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.
If a temporary injunction is issued, this does NOT mean that criminals, juveniles and other prohibited persons could carry firearms since many gun laws will remain enforceable. If there are any questions about this fact, please call either of the numbers above, or visit our website at http://www.saf.org/Ohio.htm
The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate and its consequences. SAF previously has funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners. Current projects include a damage action lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers, an amicus brief in support of the Emerson case holding that the Second Amendment is an individual right and a lawsuit against the Clinton gun and magazine ban.
-END-
The Student Newspaper at Ohio State University
Monday, October 22, 2001
Perilous Prospects
Concealed carry bill raises concerns
A bill that would allow Ohioans to carry concealed handguns in public was passed last week by a House subcommittee.
Although proponents of this legislation, House Bill 274, subscribe to the gun lobby’s rhetoric “an armed society is a polite society,” the prospect of thousands of people surreptitiously bringing guns into public and common places does not give us comfort.
We believe the state’s existing laws adequately address legitimate concerns raised by citizens whose jobs likely warrant such measure of self-protection. After all, we still may bear firearms in full view.
The law prohibiting citizens from carrying concealed weapons already sets a reasonable balance between giving law-enforcement authorities another crime-prevention tool and allowing citizens to use guns for protection.
Statistics can be found to support arguments on each side of this contentious issue. We recognize so many variables go into increasing or decreasing crime rates that claiming one factor as the sole influence is impossible.
Proponents of concealed weapons fallaciously argue only law-abiding citizens go through the trouble of obtaining the required permits. The statistics do show, however, once residents start secretly packing heat in public places, no one can guarantee that they will be used only for defensive purposes, that they won’t fall into the hands of a child or that an otherwise sane person won’t pull the trigger in a moment of rage.
An August 2000 study by the Violence Policy Center, License to Kill III: The Texas Concealed Handgun Law’s Legacy of Crime and Violence, detailed arrests of concealed handgun license holders for a number of different crimes including homicide, attempted homicide, aggravated kidnapping, rape, child molestation and numerous other serious offenses. The VPC also found that since the license law went into effect, an average of more than two license holders a day were arrested.
Not surprisingly, similar problems have emerged in other states as well. The Salt Lake Tribune revealed there has been a 241 percent increase in carrying concealed handgun license revocations in Utah.
The Buckeye State Sheriffs Association, whose members would be responsible for conducting the background checks and issuing the permits, supports the bill. But the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police and the State Highway Patrol oppose it.
A definitive statistical study, sponsored by those for and against the proposed concealed weapons bill, would only clarify this issue. As yet, we can only consider carefully the views of these law-enforcement authorities.
Ultimately, though, those Ohio lawmakers who appear so eager to ensure the quick passage of this legislation, must focus on the larger issue.
Laws help to define a civilized society. Reasonable restrictions on guns help to shape a society whose idea of freedom does not require the vast majority to walk around with pistols in their pockets.
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.