Drizzt
March 19, 2003, 05:00 PM
Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio)
March 16, 2003 Sunday, Final / All
SECTION: FORUM - LETTERS; Pg. H4
LENGTH: 649 words
HEADLINE: Thieves are the problem, concealed carry is not
BYLINE: Special to The Plain Dealer
BODY:
A recent article by Julie Carr- Smyth suggested that concealed- carry reform legislation that cleared a House committee Wednesday would cost Ohio taxpayers nearly $5 million over the next two years - and up to $5.7 million annually by 2007. The headline was incredibly misleading: "Concealed-handgun bill clears House panel despite its costs."
Despite its costs? A little bit of journalistic magic pixie dust must have been used here, because the truth is that the concealed carry aspect of House Bill 12 isn't going to cost the state anything.
These budget estimates from the Legislative Services Commission come from the fact that House Bill 12 has language in it that makes theft of a firearm a more serious crime. It calls for longer incarceration, which results in a financial burden on the state.
Proponents of concealed-carry reform didn't ask for that, but we're not necessarily opposed to it, either. Theft is a crime, and responsible firearms owners have constantly argued that gun laws should target the criminal instead of the law-abiding. But does this language have anything to do with concealed carry, or was it just attached to a "gun bill" so it would pass?
Is it any surprise that The Plain Dealer blamed this cost on allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense instead of making it perfectly clear that it had absolutely nothing to do with that? Opponents of concealed carry are running out of issues.
Putting criminals in jail costs money. Blaming it on law-abiding citizens who would bear the entire cost of a concealed carry license shows how far The Plain Dealer will go to discredit this long-overdue legislation. Shame on you.
Garvas is president of Ohioans For Concealed Carry.
Jeff Garvas Cleveland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your less-than-neutral article about concealed carry presents a specious argument in opposition to the bill - that of increased costs to the state. If it becomes law, the projected costs to Ohio are based on the supposition that more people would be "going to prison" under the bill's toughened theft penalty. If this is submitted as reason to oppose the bill, then I suggest that theft penalties and all other crimes have reduced sentences, thereby reducing the number of criminals in prison. In fact, let's have no sentencing for crimes and release everybody who is incarcerated, immediately creating a huge surplus for the state.
Bruce Tomcik North Olmsted
March 16, 2003 Sunday, Final / All
SECTION: FORUM - LETTERS; Pg. H4
LENGTH: 649 words
HEADLINE: Thieves are the problem, concealed carry is not
BYLINE: Special to The Plain Dealer
BODY:
A recent article by Julie Carr- Smyth suggested that concealed- carry reform legislation that cleared a House committee Wednesday would cost Ohio taxpayers nearly $5 million over the next two years - and up to $5.7 million annually by 2007. The headline was incredibly misleading: "Concealed-handgun bill clears House panel despite its costs."
Despite its costs? A little bit of journalistic magic pixie dust must have been used here, because the truth is that the concealed carry aspect of House Bill 12 isn't going to cost the state anything.
These budget estimates from the Legislative Services Commission come from the fact that House Bill 12 has language in it that makes theft of a firearm a more serious crime. It calls for longer incarceration, which results in a financial burden on the state.
Proponents of concealed-carry reform didn't ask for that, but we're not necessarily opposed to it, either. Theft is a crime, and responsible firearms owners have constantly argued that gun laws should target the criminal instead of the law-abiding. But does this language have anything to do with concealed carry, or was it just attached to a "gun bill" so it would pass?
Is it any surprise that The Plain Dealer blamed this cost on allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense instead of making it perfectly clear that it had absolutely nothing to do with that? Opponents of concealed carry are running out of issues.
Putting criminals in jail costs money. Blaming it on law-abiding citizens who would bear the entire cost of a concealed carry license shows how far The Plain Dealer will go to discredit this long-overdue legislation. Shame on you.
Garvas is president of Ohioans For Concealed Carry.
Jeff Garvas Cleveland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your less-than-neutral article about concealed carry presents a specious argument in opposition to the bill - that of increased costs to the state. If it becomes law, the projected costs to Ohio are based on the supposition that more people would be "going to prison" under the bill's toughened theft penalty. If this is submitted as reason to oppose the bill, then I suggest that theft penalties and all other crimes have reduced sentences, thereby reducing the number of criminals in prison. In fact, let's have no sentencing for crimes and release everybody who is incarcerated, immediately creating a huge surplus for the state.
Bruce Tomcik North Olmsted