Guns may now be concealed; AP’s anti-gun bias to remain in plain view

By Ken Hanson

In another exercise of pointing out bias in reporting, lest we all become so used to it we find it acceptable, John McCarthy of the Ohio Associated Press serves up another heaping serving of bias in his “coverage” of HB347 going into effect. As we examined previously with an example from the Toledo Blade, some of the bias is subtle, some of it not so much.

As before, we encourage you to read Mr. McCarthy’s “news” story first. It can be found at the following link:

"Law change will allow motorists to have hidden guns"

The overt bias, the bias in tone and adjective selection, begins with the title . Normally I do not take issue with titles, as headline writers tend to be sensational to sell stories. However, Mr. McCarthy repeats the bias in the body of the story, meaning the prejudice is his and he is not a victim of a headline writer.

The prejudice and bias in the first sentence and headline is through the use of the word “hidden.” The word “hidden” does not appear in any state’s law, any case, any constitution; yet Mr. McCarthy insists on using it several times, as in the law will now allow “people to carry hidden guns.”

You see, the word “hidden” is an inherently pejorative adjective. “Hidden” carries the connotation that the noun form it modifies is something evil, something that should not be subject to public scrutiny lest the actor face some consequence. Guilty people hide things. Be wary of people who hide things.

Turning to the dictionary, we see that “concealed” is used in the definition of “hidden,” but “concealed” is not a proper synonym of “hidden.” Suggested synonyms of “hidden” include secret, veiled, occult. Clearly the dictionary editors feel that “hidden” and “concealed” have separate, mutually exclusive contexts; it is not a proper exercise of substitution to use the one word in place of the other.

Against this background, it is very difficult to think Mr. McCarthy, a writer for the A.P, was simply careless in choice of words. I am aware of the saying “Never ascribe to malice that which is explained by stupidity.” I do not think Mr. McCarthy is stupid; we are left with only malice.

The question and answer format of the rest of the “article” is laughable.

Q: Why did the Legislature feel it necessary to allow people to carry hidden guns in their cars and trucks?

A: Lawmakers, prodded by gun-rights advocates, said the law was inconsistent in allowing permit-holders to carry hidden guns on the street but not in their cars.

Q: What do law enforcement agencies think about guns hidden in cars?

A: Some law enforcement agencies were opposed to the provision because of concerns about officers' safety or were officially neutral.

Darn those lawmakers for knuckling under to “prodding” from gun-rights nuts.

I was in Columbus for most of the meetings, public and private. Gun owners did not feel the law was inconsistent in the treatment of pedestrians versus drivers. I do not recall that proposition ever being advanced. Rather, what was objected to, and is still objected to, is the fact that no other state restricts car carry for persons with a license. Further, due to last minute compromises, all law enforcement agencies were at least neutral. Some had not cared from Day One. In fact, the only live testimony presented by a law enforcement agency was that car carry was not an officer safety concern.

Q: Besides the ban on assault weapons, what other local laws will be wiped off the books?

A: Several communities had banned concealed weapons in parks, playgrounds and other areas.

Q: What was the reasoning behind that change?

A: The National Rifle Association and other proponents of getting rid of the community regulations say the state had a patchwork of local gun laws that varied among communities. A person traveling through the state could be obeying the law in one place but breaking it in the next town.

“Wiped” off the books. Drastic, Hateful, Dangerous, done without due regard to other concerns.

“Community regulations.” Warm, fuzzy collectives merely concerned about safety.

“National Rifle Association and other proponents.” Have to name the boogeyman in any apologist article while omitting the names of 4 or 5 Ohio-based, grassroots groups who also worked on the law.

Consider the following alternative, then consider if the rest of the article was written in similar tone by simple replacement.

Q: Besides assault weapon bans, which also banned handguns used by concealed carry license holders, what other local laws are preempted?

A: All local firearm laws are preempted.

Q: What was the reasoning behind this change.

A: It was clear that some cities were attempting to override the state by passing laws to restrict and prohibit conduct licensed by the state. Primarily, there are two major forces behind the changes. First, there was a desire to provide for “one set of rules” to be followed statewide. It did not make sense to have an unaware person charged criminally for violating a law that he did not know existed, especially when that law only applied for 3 miles of a 100 mile trip. Second, public records requests revealed that the local ordinances are almost never used by cities in the prosecution of people using guns in crime. Anyone committing a crime with a gun is almost certain to commit a felony, meaning the local, misdemeanor ordinances could not be used. The Maurice Clarett case was a prime example.

Gracious, it is so very easy to convey the same information without inserting connotations into the context. Mr. McCarthy must not try too hard.

Ken Hanson is Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair and author of The Ohio Guide to Firearm Laws.