(Ohio) Attorney General Jim Petro Releases 2005 Concealed Carry Annual Report

[cuchulainn]

The full report is at: http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/concealcarry/docs/05_cc_annual_rpt.pdf

The press release is at: http://www.ag.state.oh.us/press/06/02/pr060215.asp

Attorney General Jim Petro Releases 2005 Concealed Carry Annual Report

February 15, 2006
COLUMBUS – Nearly 23,000 Ohioans received licenses to carry a concealed handgun from their county sheriffs in 2005, Attorney General Jim Petro announced today in a report to the governor and leadership of the Ohio General Assembly.

“My office has worked diligently the past two years in helping the public and law enforcement understand Ohio’s concealed-carry law,” Petro said. “We’ve answered countless questions, processed thousands of criminal background checks, provided in-person and online training to sheriffs and created and maintained publications, a Web site and electronic databases filled with information pertaining to the law.”

The report for the first full year of the state law that went into effect in April 2004 was compiled by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission (OPOTC) based on statistics provided by county sheriffs, who are responsible for processing the license applications and issuing the permits.

A total of 22,487 regular licenses were issued by the 88 sheriffs in 2005, down sharply from the 45,497 licenses issued in 2004. The number of temporary emergency licenses issued in 2005 held steady at 76, just 11 more than in 2004.

The concealed handgun law allows citizens with proper firearms safety training to apply with their county sheriff, or a sheriff of an adjacent county, for a license to carry a concealed handgun.

Citizens who apply for a license are required to undergo a criminal history background check to ensure that they are not prohibited by law from carrying a concealed handgun. For persons who have lived in Ohio for five years or more, the sheriff submits the applicant’s fingerprints electronically to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for an in-state criminal background check. Applicants who have lived in Ohio fewer than five years are required to undergo a national check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Under the law, sheriffs must immediately suspend a concealed handgun license upon notification that the licensee has been arrested or charged with certain offenses, or if the licensee is the subject of a protection order issued by a court. The concealed-carry law also requires the sheriff to revoke licenses of persons who no longer meet eligibility requirements.

In 2005, sheriffs suspended 219 concealed handgun licenses. In the previous year, 78 licenses were suspended by Ohio sheriffs under the law. Sheriffs revoked 75 regular licenses in 2005 because the licensee was no longer eligible to hold a concealed carry license. In 2004, Ohio sheriffs revoked 42 regular licenses. Suspensions and revocations in 2005 include licenses that may have been issued in 2004.

It is important to note that the reasons for revocation vary from the death of the licensee to no longer being a resident of Ohio to a disqualifying criminal conviction to becoming subject to the law’s restrictions on mentally ill person or persons considered drug or alcohol dependent. Sheriffs are not required by the law to report the specific reason for the revocation to OPOTC.

The full report is available online at Attorney General Petro’s Web site: www.ag.state.oh.us.

For Additional Information on this Press Release:
CONTACT: Kim Norris, Attorney General Jim Petro’s Office, (614) 466-3840

 

[Vex]

The most common excuses for people not getting the licenses are:

"The law needs re-worked."

and

"What's the point? I can't carry where I go anyway."

A friend of mine (who is also on this forum) hasn't gotten his yet, and there's really no good reason for not having it. What all Ohioans need to understand is that the more people who get their licenses, the more the legislature will pay attention to the crummy law.

 

[1911 guy]

Agreed.

The CCW law here in Ohio is in dire need of rework, but at least we got the Goobernor to sign any kind of CCW law. I suspect a revised and less restrictive law will follow shortly after next election. Taft seems to be a major stumbling block to anything resembling personal responsibility.

 

[Fastlane]

It's not just Taft it is also DeWine and Voinovich. Taft can not serve as governor again. Dewine is up for election this year, hopefully it will be his last term in office.

 

[Igloodude]

Does the report have any numbers on how many CCW licensees actually committed any firearm-related offenses?

I'm assuming the number is zero, or close to it, but it'd be nice if the report cited it...

 

[screwman]

I took the course about 3 weeks ago, and have yet to apply for my permit. I don't know if it's the idea that you can be stopped by LEO at any time and be checked, or the fact that you a definitly guilty until you can afford to prove your innocense. I'll probably apply soon but I really think the law needs a rehab. Especially the motor vehicle part of it.


Mike

 

[k_dawg]

Does the report have any numbers on how many CCW licensees actually committed any firearm-related offenses?

I'm assuming the number is zero, or close to it, but it'd be nice if the report cited it...

The proper citation would be:


"Attorney General Jim Petro’s Office was unable to cite or verify any firearm-related offense by a CCW licensee. "

 

[Coronach]

I don't know if it's the idea that you can be stopped by LEO at any time and be checked,

Uh...

or the fact that you a definitly guilty until you can afford to prove your innocense.

Ok, I'll bite; what the heck are you talking about?

Mike

 

[Henry Bowman]

I don't know if it's the idea that you can be stopped by LEO at any time and be checked, or the fact that you a definitly guilty until you can afford to prove your innocense.

What do you mean by this? LEOs cannot do random stops without at least reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. If you are stopped and your are carrying, your must show your CHL and inform the officer. I have no idea what you mean by being "definately guilty until you prove you'rr innocent."

Yes car carry and other aspects are really messed up and it is very hard to carry and go about "normal" activities without breaking a law. But if you have your course behing you, the rest is totally painless to get your CHL.

 

[Coronach]

Does the report have any numbers on how many CCW licensees actually committed any firearm-related offenses?

I'm assuming the number is zero, or close to it, but it'd be nice if the report cited it...

Define "firearm related offense". A few CCW licensees have been charged with violating the in-car carry provisions uhoh: Yes, they're stupid, but the ones I know of were also doing other things wrong, see below), and at least one was CCWing a stolen gun.

However, if you mean shooting someone, none that I know of.

Mike

 

[CAS700850]

My take on all of this is that the people who opposed the law because there would be blood on the streets were simply wrong. This supports the argument, made many times here and many other places, that those who seek a permit are not the ones you need to be concerned about. The criminals who use fireamrs to commit offenses aren't going to apply for a permit or comply with the law. Only the law abiding will jump through the hoops.

 

[Vex]

I took the course about 3 weeks ago, and have yet to apply for my permit. I don't know if it's the idea that you can be stopped by LEO at any time and be checked, or the fact that you a definitly guilty until you can afford to prove your innocense. I'll probably apply soon but I really think the law needs a rehab. Especially the motor vehicle part of it.


Mike

Yeah, first off, LEOs can't stop you just because you have a CCW license. They can see it on the LEADS computer, but it's not a stoppable.. um..."offense," for lack of a better word.

Second, the guiltiness thing is something that should be the last thing on your mind, as long as you understand the usage of deadly force. If you shoot someone while defending yourself, and IF you are charged by the state (which sometimes doesn't happen), then it's YOUR burden of proof to show innocence. The state does not have to prove guilt... unless you deny ever shooting the guy.

 

[eagle45]

I took the course about 3 weeks ago, and have yet to apply for my permit. I don't know if it's the idea that you can be stopped by LEO at any time and be checked, or the fact that you a definitly guilty until you can afford to prove your innocense. I'll probably apply soon but I really think the law needs a rehab. Especially the motor vehicle part of it.
Mike

The law is not perfect, hopefully changes are on the way. In the meantime, get your license now. If you don't want to carry then don't, but the number of licenses speak to those that can make those changes.

As far as carrying in a motor vehicle, I use an elastic thigh holster from holstersrus.com, or a belt holster and do the 'Ohio tuck' so it is visible. Not a big deal really, and the thigh holster is very accessible and very much "in plain sight" from any direction an officer would approach. If I'm in my truck, no one else can see it anyway.

Apart from that, I think you may be a little confused about being stopped by a LEO, but even if that were true, it would apply whether you are carrying or not. As far as "definitly guilty until you can afford to prove your innocense", I agree with others that some clarification on that statement is needed.

You could probably benefit by spending some time on OFCC's web site to get some of your questions answered and stay updated on current changes. Get that license!

 

[screwman]

"Further, if an officer has reason to
believe an individual is carrying a concealed handgun, they may stop
the person to determine if they are complying with the concealed
carry law."
The above is from the publication, Ohio Concealed Carry Law, page 15. I received this book at my course and it is also the publication on the AG's webpage. The following is page 19.

"Self-Defense
Depending on the specific facts of the situation, an accused
person may claim that use of deadly force was justified to excuse
his or her actions, which would otherwise be a crime. Self-defense
or the defense of another is an affirmative defense that an accused
may assert against a criminal charge for an assault or homicide
offense. The term “affirmative defense” means the accused, not
the prosecutor, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
he acted in self-defense or in defense of another. In other words,
the defendant must prove that it is more probable than not that his
use of deadly force was necessary due to the circumstances of the
situation."

 

[screwman]

BTW I am going to apply. I've decide it's still a responsible gun owners duty,which is why I took the course in the first place. I appreciate the insight. I tried to make the appoinment today but the deputy that takes care of it wasn't in.


Mike

 

[Vex]

"Further, if an officer has reason to
believe an individual is carrying a concealed handgun, they may stop
the person to determine if they are complying with the concealed
carry law."

They do this with ANYONE that has a gun in the car, not just CCW holders. What I'm saying is a LEO isn't going to run your plates randomly, see you have a CCW license, and pull you over to see if you have a gun and if you're complying with the law. The posession of a CCW license alone does not justify reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop.

If someone reports you have a gun, and they saw it, then it depends on the context. If it's "he has a gun, i saw it on his side in a holster" and they run your plates, they'll see on LEADS that you have a CCW license. If someone says "hey he pointed a gun at me," then you're going to get pulled over whether you have a CCW license or not.

 

[Coronach]

No matter what the pamphlet says, the law does not allow random stops of CCW permit holders. What I believe that is trying to say is that if an officer is flagged down by someone who saw your gun, you should fully expect them to make contact with you and ensure that you are, in fact, a permit holder and are complying with the law. Nothing more. Since CCW is a felony without a permit, one should expect the police to investigate this, assuming you're able to view the political aspect of the situation impartially.

Mike

 

[jazurell]

The law does not necessarily allow random stops of CCW permit holders. However, and I'm not sure if the bill is passed yet or not, but HB 151 states an LEO can stop anyone if they have committed a crime, are committing a crime, or he thinks they may be going to commit a crime.
Section 1. That section 2921.29 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:
Sec. 2921.29. (A) A law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place if the officer reasonably suspects the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense. A law enforcement officer who stops a person under this section may demand the person's name and address and an explanation of the person's actions.
(B) A person who fails to provide the information requested pursuant to division (A) of this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information. Except as otherwise provided in this division, failure to disclose one's personal information is a misdemeanor of the second degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to any person, failure to disclose one's personal information is a felony of the fifth degree.
I had an e-mail discussion with Rep Calvert about this bill and he promised me that he would remove the part about "explanation of actions". I told him what I was going to do was between me, God, and maybe my wife, and unless I was caught doing something illegal, there should be no basis for questioning me in that nature. Name and address is more than adequate information to be given. Like many politicians, he said one thing and did another as we spoke many months ago.
AFAIK the bill is still in comittee and hasn't yet become law. Will LEOs use this bill, if it becomes law, to harass CCW permit holders? That's anyone's guess and will probably vary by LEO/department and that day's mood. Some will be jerks and most won't, would be my guess.

 

[Michael Courtney]

The proper citation would be:


"Attorney General Jim Petro’s Office was unable to cite or verify any firearm-related offense by a CCW licensee. "

There have been some arrests and indictments. No convictions yet that I am aware of. My wife was on a jury which rendered a not guilty verdict for a CHL holder charged with aggrevated menacing for drawing his gun in defense of some of his guests.

Michael Courtney

 

[dpesec]

As far as carrying in a motor vehicle, I use an elastic thigh holster from holstersrus.com, or a belt holster and do the 'Ohio tuck' so it is visible. Not a big deal really, and the thigh holster is very accessible and very much "in plain sight" from any direction an officer would approach. If I'm in my truck, no one else can see it anyway.

Eagle,
I have one of those too. I don't use it because I have to move the weapon from it to my carry holster. How do you do that without being "made". I keep having a fear of LEO's showing up in full battle mode because "Man with a gun" was reported.

 

[eagle45]

Eagle,
I have one of those too. I don't use it because I have to move the weapon from it to my carry holster. How do you do that without being "made". I keep having a fear of LEO's showing up in full battle mode because "Man with a gun" was reported.

dpesec - In a word, discreetly. I typically carry in an IWB or belt holster with a cover garment. I get the garment out of the way, then make the change as quickly and safely as possible. Sometimes I use the larger elastic holster, the one that goes around the chest. That change takes a little longer, but with practice it still isn't too bad, you just have more clothing to move.

I understand what you mean as far as being "made". The way the Ohio law is written now, the 'in plain sight' appears to be at the discretion of the LEO. The thigh holster does have the advantage of being seen from any possible location an officer would approach. The 'Ohio tuck' works well, but it really only makes the weapon visible from the passenger side, some officers may like that and others may not depending on their personal view of CCW.

I have seen the cross draw holster for in vehicle use also. It fastens around your belt right in front. It is good for 'in plain sight' also but I think the thigh holster is faster to get on/off.

Again, when I'm in my truck it's not a big deal anyway. In my little compact car, it's easier to be seen and I just try to park where I can't be observed as easily. I really think most folks don't pay much attention anyway.

HB 347 will be discussed again this coming Tuesday, let's hope a better law is on the way.

 

[eagle45]

BTW I am going to apply. I've decide it's still a responsible gun owners duty,which is why I took the course in the first place. I appreciate the insight. I tried to make the appoinment today but the deputy that takes care of it wasn't in.


Mike

Good decision!

 

[screwman]

Good thing about Ottawa Co. is that they will take your picture and everything. They're pretty much CCW friendly.

Mike

 

[Stoney]

Having obtained my Ohio CCL in the last six weeks. I choose to keep my pistol in a small locked made for a gun box on the passenger seat of my truck. I don't like this option, but untill the legislature makes changes in this very stupid part of Ohio's Concealed carry law. It's the way I'll transport in car, and the best way ( I think ) to keep a law enforcement officer who doesn't care for us mere citizens exercising our rights from giving me a hard time.

The metal box uses a simple key lock, and opens quickly.The box that can be purchased at most any gun store.