Ohio: "Procedural gap cleared on hidden-handgun bill"

Status
Not open for further replies.

cuchulainn

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
No bias in that headline, eh? :rolleyes: ("Hidden handgun" is a Brady/VPC scare phrase.)

from the Toledo Blade

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/NEWS24/110220109
Procedural gap cleared on hidden-handgun bill

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU


COLUMBUS - Proposed legislation allowing some Ohioans to carry hidden handguns cleared a procedural hurdle yesterday, paving the way for a conference committee to work on a compromise.

In nonvoting session, the Senate insisted on changes it made months ago to a House bill that were designed to win the approval of Gov. Bob Taft. A joint House-Senate conference committee, consisting of four Republicans and two Democrats, will try to strike an agreement that still could get the governor’s signature.

Republican conferees expected to be formally named later this week are Rep. Bob Latta of Bowling Green, Senate President Doug White of Manchester, Sen. Scott Nein of Middletown, and Rep. Jim Aslanides, the bill’s sponsor from Conshocton.

The Democratic conferees are expected to be Sen. Marc Dann from suburban Youngstown and Rep. Lance Mason of Shaker Heights.

The bill has bogged down repeatedly in recent years in a battle between gun-rights advocates and law-enforcement groups that have insisted on a series of training requirements and other restrictions.

The Ohio Supreme Court last month upheld the constitutionality of Ohio’s current ban on carrying concealed firearms, saying its restrictions do not infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms. Ohio is one of five states that does not have some system to allow the carrying of hidden handguns.

© 2003 The Blade.
 
The bill has bogged down repeatedly in recent years in a battle between gun-rights advocates and law-enforcement groups that have insisted on a series of training requirements and other restrictions.
Oh, really? I thought that the split was between gun-rights advocates on one side and local and national anti-self-defense groups on the other. I ask merely in order to find out. :rolleyes:
 
A little of both acutally...in addition to the anti-self defense groups, we have also had to deal with interferrence from the state patrol who has been leading our "esteemed" governor around by the nose on the issue.
 
The problem with this bill is that it is a permission-based system.

It will be a cold day in hell before I ask my servant "permission" to carry a concealed weapon... :rolleyes:
 
W/ the us v. LEO, it sounds like we are wrong because they have this annoying habit of portraying the LEOs (as a group) as benevolent and completely without political agenda. Anyone who believes that any group is compeletly without an agenda should look into the beach front property I have for sale in Arizona.:D

Got to love the unbiased reporting.
 
To be fair, the LEOs that I have spoken with have no objections to a CCW law. They don't care if we carry in our cars, though the ones I've talked with like the idea of notification if you are stopped for some reason...just to eliminate any misunderstandings. The problem lies with the upper management of the Ohio Highway Patrol...Here's Colonel McClellan's most recent letter re: CCW from the OSHP website.

September 17, 2003

For the first time in recent history, the Ohio State Highway Patrol took a neutral stance on pending legislation which would allow loaded handguns in motor vehicles for qualified and trained permit holders. The Ohio Senate version of pending legislation to change Ohio’s firearms laws, Substitute House Bill 12 (HB12), addressed our major concerns in regards to officer and public safety. With only three Ohio troopers shot and killed in the last 70 years, we certainly do not want to jeopardize officer safety.

We opposed the less stringent House passed version of HB12 which allowed both permit holders (who complete training and background checks) and non-permit holders to carry loaded guns in cars. Because the House version of HB12 expanded current affirmative defenses, it also created a major new loophole for criminals who carry loaded guns in motor vehicles. The Senate version closed this loophole by allowing qualified permit holders to carry loaded handguns in motor vehicles while imposing serious penalties for criminals who are caught with loaded guns in motor vehicles.

Another significant change in the Senate version of HB12 requires permit holders who transport loaded handguns to secure the handgun in a locked compartment or in plain sight of an officer conducting a traffic stop. While we would prefer handguns, like rifles, to be unloaded while transported in a motor vehicle, the Senate version is similar to current law for the transportation of rifles and shotguns. It provides reasonable safeguards for law enforcement officers while maintaining the right of citizen self-defense.

Unfortunately for a number of officers each year in our country, concealed loaded handguns (CCW) in vehicles prove deadly. Twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, Ohio’s troopers put their lives on the line for the public we serve. There are few agencies in the country that interact more with motorists than the Ohio State Highway Patrol. While public safety has been at the forefront of HB12 proponents’ concern, Ohio’s troopers and other law enforcement officers are on the front lines of public safety. We hope that officer safety is placed at the forefront of future CCW debates.


Sincerely,

Colonel Paul D. McClellan
Superintendent
Ohio State Highway Patrol

So just how many of those handguns that prove deadly are weilded by citizens who go to the trouble of obtaining training, getting fingerprinted, passing background checks....blah, blah, blah, more drivel from the OSP.
 
mrtgbnkr, that text you highlighted should have read: "Unfortunately for a number of officers each year in our country, concealed loaded handguns (CCW) in the vehicles of criminals, who would conceal lawfully or unlawfully, prove deadly." But, that would be giving an unbiased or slightly pro-gun stance, depending on how you look at it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top