Handgun legislation heads to Ohio Senate

Ohioans who want to carry concealed handguns for their protection will turn their attention to the state Senate now that the House again has voted to allow county sheriffs to issue permits to qualified individuals 21 or older.

Virtually repeating its action of a year ago, the House voted 69-28 to authorize undercover handguns for Ohioans who pass a criminal-background check and a certified course in handling, shooting and storing weapons.

"I expect to handle it expeditiously,'' Senate President Doug White, R-Manchester, said. "We had a full, honest, open, aggressive debate on it late last year. I expect we'll be able to move pretty quickly on it.''

Bill sponsor Rep. James Aslanides, R-Coshocton, said he wanted a bill that would draw overwhelming support in the Senate, perhaps anticipating the need to override a veto by Gov. Bob Taft. He has pledged to veto any measure not supported by a majority of the law-enforcement community.

The Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association backs the bill; the State Highway Patrol opposes it because it would allow loaded weapons in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle.

Rep. William J. Seitz, R-Cincinnati, led the charge for the bill. "This bill is about putting Ohio in step with the 43 other states that have this law,'' he said, adding that Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia permit concealed weapons. "We are trying to stay in step with the states that are our neighbors.''

Rep. Lance Mason, D-Shaker Heights, said the bill was well-intentioned but full of loopholes. He said it would not require permit-holders to re-qualify when they renew their permits every four years, nor would it require a refresher course on gun-handling and safety.

"More guns are not the answer,'' Mason said. "I fear catastrophic consequences in Ohio, especially in the urban areas.''

Rep. Keith L. Faber, R-Celina, said rural Ohioans favor the right to carry concealed weapons. Law-enforcement officers need be concerned only with criminals, not with law-abiding citizens, he said.

Faber said his father, a state trooper for 35 years, told him the legislation would not place law-enforcement officers in jeopardy.

But Rep. Joseph F. Koziura, D-Lorain, said: "This is the year 2003, and if we call ourselves a civilized society, we ought to vote 'no' on this bill.''

Rep. Tom Brinkman Jr., R-Cincinnati, tried without success to eliminate the training requirements and the criminal-background check, which includes fingerprinting. Concealed weapons should be allowed "with the least amount of hassle,'' he said. "Law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms for their defense and protection.''

Aslanides warned that the state could wind up with unregulated concealed weapons, as Vermont has, if the Ohio Supreme Court rules the current ban on concealed weapons is unconstitutional. The high court will hear arguments April 15 on an appeal from a Hamilton County ruling on the law.

Mason said. "I fear catastrophic consequences

Excuse me, but when concealed carry laws are considered, doesn't some joker like this one say something almost identical even though there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate it? Those promoting these laws ought to hand out a press kit to opposers, saying this has been said before and to make you feel good you, too, should say this to the press if you believe it; but first, before you say it, look at the experience that other states have said.

I like the idea of training people to use their weapons safely and effectively. Also, I agree with the criminal background checks. I concede those two "controls" to the gun-grabbers but they better concede their ridiculous ban on so-called "assault weapons".

The problem with a "training" requirement is that it leaves the door open for the legislature to turn the screws on you - If 12 hours is good, 16's better! Why not 40 hours of training like the TSA is doing for the pilots? Why not a 9 month police academy equivalent? - and needlessly increases the cost of the permit, potentially denying it to people who can't easily afford to cough up the $200 for the class and take two days off work to attend it.

The training class should be likened to the poll tax or the literacy tests that were designed to keep Black people from voting in the South. Both are legislative obstacles to the exercise of a fundamental right.

The state of Washington has had a CCW system for the past 70-odd years or so, and they have no training requirement, only a criminal background check and a pamphlet. I got my application put in within about 45 minutes during lunchtime while I was attending a conference in Seattle, and most of that was taken up by the fingerprinting process and walking to the Sheriff's office from the hotel. Their rate of questionable defensive shootings or misuse of firearms by permitholders is no higher than many states with onerous training requirements, and lower than some.

I also seem to recall that the crime-reduction benefit of CCW is reduced proportionate to the total costs and hassle of obtaining the permit.

The odds would OK for passage, except for one thing. The Ohio Highway Patrol's requirement to keep weapons non-available to the driver of passengers is being called a "show stopper" just like last time.

Perhaps one of the good guys needs to add a counter-amendment which titles the above-mentioned amendment the "Carjacker Protection Act". Really, I can see no other purpose for it.

This should be preceeded by a yawn alert. At a time when the Ohio government is swimming in red ink, the legislature wants to set up a new bureauracy to collect license fees for a right guarenteed by the state constitution.

If Rino Taft were to sign the bill, he will get blamed and no one will be happy with the outcome. The anti's will get their feathers ruffled, screaming Taft has turned the state into the wild West. Gun Owners will not line up by the droves for CCW if it passes, the hurdles that the bill errects insure that.

The pols that vote for this are not going to collect any votes from gun owners for their efforts. Some pols will be viewed as sellouts having trashed hopes that Vermont style or shall issue type of CCW would pass. The law as written has no teeth in it since certain municipalites will ban CCW.

No thanks Bob, I'll take a rain check on CCW. Its far easier to avoid and not do business in areas where a concealed weapon might actually be required for your own personal safety. Ahem, like downtown Cincy for example.

Isn't downtown Cincy in Hamilton County? The stay of enforcement was lifted, but the stay against the ruling of unconstitutionality of the CCW law was left in place - in Hamilton County at least, the cops can still arrest you for carrying, but they can't prosecute you, according to the details from the attorneys on the SAF's Ohio page.

And in order for the cops to arrest you, they have to know you're carrying, and it's not called concealed carry for nothing.

Wow. You sure do have a bunch of weak-kneed Republican wimps over there. Is the state GOP completely compromised this way (like New Jersey) or is there hope?

The rural Republicans in the State legislature and senate have a better handle on the politics of Ohio Republicans. Taft, Voinvich and DeWine are statist, taxist, arrogant RINOs.

Its a sad state of affairs in Ohio politics. Basically just a stroke from one establishment figure to another and the regular folks be damned!

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.