Drizzt
Member
Columbus Dispatch (Ohio)
May 26, 2003 Monday, Home Final Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL & COMMENT; Pg. 09A
LENGTH: 788 words
HEADLINE: CONCEALED-CARRY DEBATE EVOLVING INTO BATTLE OVER RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS
BYLINE: Lee Leonard, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
BODY:
The debate over whether to allow concealed handguns in Ohio has always been about constitutional rights and individual liberty, but recently it has taken a turn toward property rights.
Some conservatives may be torn between supporting the right to carry concealed weapons and the right of a private-property owner to ban them.
That doesn't mean that a gun-rights advocate would drop his or her support of concealed carry just because a small portion of the proposed law may violate property rights. But it does set up an interesting conflict.
The House-passed bill is sitting in a Senate committee and is expected to emerge in several weeks.
One of the provisions would allow private-property owners to ban concealed weapons by posting a conspicuous notice at the entrance or entrances. The provision is mainly for stores and other businesses; residential-property owners may ask visitors to disarm, and if they don't, cite them for trespassing.
However, in what has become known as the parking-lot exemption, permit-holders could bring their weapons onto the business property as long as they leave the guns in a locked compartment of the vehicle. This provision is for employees who feel they need to protect themselves while traveling to and from work.
Gahanna Police Chief Dennis Murphy, who favors concealed carry, said last week that requiring people to store their weapons would draw more attention than if they just carried the weapons under cover.
Murphy said thieves would be drawn to cars if they saw the owners transferring their weapons to a locked location in the cars, such as the trunks.
Business groups are lobbying for elimination of the exemption, claiming it violates the right of a business owner to control the behavior of employees on the site of the business.
There are plenty of well-publicized examples of employees "going postal" and bringing weapons to the place of business to do harm. The business groups don't want to add to these instances.
They reason that employers should have the right to regulate what comes onto the business property, and that it should be the subject of employer-employee contract, not state law.
Once you get into handgun policies in places of business, the concealed-carry issue becomes more complex than ever.
For example, will insurance companies start charging higher premiums to cover businesses that allow concealed weapons?
Will employers' handgun policies generate more lawsuits, putting concealed carry into the category of medical malpractice, where insurance costs threaten to drive folks out of business?
Although House Bill 12 bars lawsuits against business owners for deaths or injuries resulting from a failure to ban handguns, there could still be legal challenges to a store owner's policy, whether it allows or bans weapons.
Proponents of the bill would argue that this has not happened in other states with concealed-carry laws. In fact, there may be some individuals in Ohio stores with concealed weapons right now. We don't know because the weapons aren't visible, no one challenges the carrier and, fortunately, nothing happens very often.
At the most recent hearing, Eleanor W. Helper of Columbus provided compelling testimony about how her daughter narrowly escaped with her life in early May by retreating to her office on the campus of Case Western Reserve University and slamming the door as a gunman fired through it.
Although House Bill 12 would prohibit guns on college campuses, this gunman probably wouldn't have heeded that ban. But gun-rights advocates argue that the disgruntled former university student, who killed one person, might have been stopped by a concealed-weapons carrier, perhaps even Helper's daughter.
Curt Winzenreid, an Ohio University sophomore from Martins Ferry, told the panel he'd like to see the proposed campus ban on concealed guns dropped. He said the ban is an advertisement for rapes, muggings and assaults, because the perpetrators don't worry about facing firearms.
The argument could still be made for a weapons prohibition on the Ohio State University campus, because many of the rapes, muggings and assaults take place in the off-campus areas.
Those who want the unrestricted right to carry prefer no bill at all to the restrictive House Bill 12. Sen. Teresa Fedor, D-Toledo, asked those testifying how the bill could be fixed, but got little help. "We as public officials are responsible for public safety," she said. "I'm trying to put you into our shoes."
The Second Amendment advocates say individuals are responsible for their own safety and should be allowed to carry concealed weapons.
Lee Leonard covers the Statehouse for The Dispatch.
May 26, 2003 Monday, Home Final Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL & COMMENT; Pg. 09A
LENGTH: 788 words
HEADLINE: CONCEALED-CARRY DEBATE EVOLVING INTO BATTLE OVER RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS
BYLINE: Lee Leonard, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
BODY:
The debate over whether to allow concealed handguns in Ohio has always been about constitutional rights and individual liberty, but recently it has taken a turn toward property rights.
Some conservatives may be torn between supporting the right to carry concealed weapons and the right of a private-property owner to ban them.
That doesn't mean that a gun-rights advocate would drop his or her support of concealed carry just because a small portion of the proposed law may violate property rights. But it does set up an interesting conflict.
The House-passed bill is sitting in a Senate committee and is expected to emerge in several weeks.
One of the provisions would allow private-property owners to ban concealed weapons by posting a conspicuous notice at the entrance or entrances. The provision is mainly for stores and other businesses; residential-property owners may ask visitors to disarm, and if they don't, cite them for trespassing.
However, in what has become known as the parking-lot exemption, permit-holders could bring their weapons onto the business property as long as they leave the guns in a locked compartment of the vehicle. This provision is for employees who feel they need to protect themselves while traveling to and from work.
Gahanna Police Chief Dennis Murphy, who favors concealed carry, said last week that requiring people to store their weapons would draw more attention than if they just carried the weapons under cover.
Murphy said thieves would be drawn to cars if they saw the owners transferring their weapons to a locked location in the cars, such as the trunks.
Business groups are lobbying for elimination of the exemption, claiming it violates the right of a business owner to control the behavior of employees on the site of the business.
There are plenty of well-publicized examples of employees "going postal" and bringing weapons to the place of business to do harm. The business groups don't want to add to these instances.
They reason that employers should have the right to regulate what comes onto the business property, and that it should be the subject of employer-employee contract, not state law.
Once you get into handgun policies in places of business, the concealed-carry issue becomes more complex than ever.
For example, will insurance companies start charging higher premiums to cover businesses that allow concealed weapons?
Will employers' handgun policies generate more lawsuits, putting concealed carry into the category of medical malpractice, where insurance costs threaten to drive folks out of business?
Although House Bill 12 bars lawsuits against business owners for deaths or injuries resulting from a failure to ban handguns, there could still be legal challenges to a store owner's policy, whether it allows or bans weapons.
Proponents of the bill would argue that this has not happened in other states with concealed-carry laws. In fact, there may be some individuals in Ohio stores with concealed weapons right now. We don't know because the weapons aren't visible, no one challenges the carrier and, fortunately, nothing happens very often.
At the most recent hearing, Eleanor W. Helper of Columbus provided compelling testimony about how her daughter narrowly escaped with her life in early May by retreating to her office on the campus of Case Western Reserve University and slamming the door as a gunman fired through it.
Although House Bill 12 would prohibit guns on college campuses, this gunman probably wouldn't have heeded that ban. But gun-rights advocates argue that the disgruntled former university student, who killed one person, might have been stopped by a concealed-weapons carrier, perhaps even Helper's daughter.
Curt Winzenreid, an Ohio University sophomore from Martins Ferry, told the panel he'd like to see the proposed campus ban on concealed guns dropped. He said the ban is an advertisement for rapes, muggings and assaults, because the perpetrators don't worry about facing firearms.
The argument could still be made for a weapons prohibition on the Ohio State University campus, because many of the rapes, muggings and assaults take place in the off-campus areas.
Those who want the unrestricted right to carry prefer no bill at all to the restrictive House Bill 12. Sen. Teresa Fedor, D-Toledo, asked those testifying how the bill could be fixed, but got little help. "We as public officials are responsible for public safety," she said. "I'm trying to put you into our shoes."
The Second Amendment advocates say individuals are responsible for their own safety and should be allowed to carry concealed weapons.
Lee Leonard covers the Statehouse for The Dispatch.
<mutter>
