|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Regulating hidden weapons
Of all the arguments that can be made about Ohio's concealed carry laws, this is perhaps the most eloquent: they have worked pretty darned well for a long, long time. We hope the Ohio Supreme Court gives that fact ample consideration as it wrestles with the thorny question of whether the law is unconstitutionally vague.
The court heard oral argument Tuesday in a case brought by a group of Cincinnati residents who assert that the existing law denies them what they believe is their right to carry concealed guns without the risk of being arrested.
To be sure, Ohio's Constitution explicitly says "the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security.''
But since 1859, the General Assembly has had a law of some type on the books that bans carrying concealed guns. law now being challenged makes it illegal to carry or have close at hand any concealed "deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance,'' but it also provides several exceptions. Among them: law enforcement agents; people in a business or occupation that makes them susceptible to attack; weapons kept in the home; unloaded weapons carried in a vehicle for a lawful purpose. Breaking the law is a first-degree misdemeanor, but it bumps up to a fourth-degree felony if the weapon is loaded or ammunition is at hand.
The Cincinnati plaintiffs complain that this statute requires them to run the risk of arrest, and bear the cost and other burdens of mounting a defense in court, to exercise their rights under the exemptions granted in the law. Moreover, their attorneys argue, carrying guns openly can also subject them to arrest. That combination, they say, violates the constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms.
But -- as several justices noted Tuesday, according to press accounts -- the state clearly does have the right to regulate guns. And the existing law, whatever its warts, has worked reasonably well. People who have a genuine need for hidden weapons generally have been able to carry them without getting hauled into court at every turn, and in the main the law has helped dampen the proliferation of concealed weapons. (We exclude criminals from this analysis; law or no law, they're going to carry guns.)
The State Highway Patrol and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police have opposed efforts in the Legislature to enact a concealed carry permitting system, mainly on grounds that it would put officers at greater risk. Ohio House last month, however, approved just such a bill.
The Senate should sit on the measure until the court rules on the Cincinnati case. If, as we hope, the court upholds the existing law, the Senate should shelve the bill. If, however, the high court joins two state appeals courts in declaring the existing concealed carry law unconstitutional, the Senate should take up the House measure with an eye toward strengthening the training required of those seeking permits to carry concealed weapons.
Publication Date: 04-16-2003