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
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.