The biggest gun control myth is trotted out again in debate over restaurant carry in Ohio

by Gerard Valentino

Whenever gun reform bills are debated around the country the anti-gun leaders are quick to trot out the same tired predictions that the next step to looser gun laws will lead to mayhem. The fact that none of the predictions come true isn't enough to dissuade them from making the same predictions when the next gun reform legislation is introduced.

In Ohio, restaurant and car carry rules fix legislation (HB45/SB17) is the next gun reform legislation, and as usual the anti-gun forces are promising a huge increase in gun-related crime if it passes.

The biggest issue with this legislation is whether concealed carry license holders should be able to carry guns in places that serve alcohol for consumption. In this case, as in every other, those opposing the bill have all but guaranteed that blood will run in the streets if it passes. When backed into a corner, tired old excuses are the best the anti-gun establishment can come up with to oppose pro-gun reform.

These bills also eliminate the restrictions on how license holders can carry guns while in a car. A fact that was used by the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police union to claim that Ohio's gun owners will use "quick-draw" holsters as a means of attacking police officers during traffic stops.

The fact that the F.O.P. predicted the streets would be littered with dead law enforcement officers if legal concealed carry was allowed in cars has to be ignored to buy into their current arguments. Just as they promised more dead law enforcement officers when concealed carry license holders were allowed to carry the gun in a glove compartment or center console.

For six years, Ohio's license holders have largely acted responsibly, but, if the F.O.P. is to be believed, a slight change in the law will turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into cop-killing thugs.

Claiming that a pro-gun law will lead to dead law enforcement officers is yet another consistent prediction used by anti-gun forces that never materializes. The tactic was used as far back as 2005, when Republican Betty Montgomery assured voters that legal concealed carry would lead to "dastardly" crimes against the police.

But, as usual, the anti-gun side was deceitful when trying to push the fallacy that Ohio's gun laws are just like other states. The F.O.P. claims that various states have car carry restrictions similar to Ohio's, but, they also conveniently leave out that 26 states allow citizens to carry a gun in the car without a concealed carry license, background check or training without it causing a risk to law enforcement.

The F.O.P. also wants to force concealed carry license holders to be subject to breathalyzer tests, in the same manner that citizens give implied consent to submit to a breathalyzer as a condition of getting a driver's license.

Such a statement makes it clear that the F.O.P. leadership sees owning a gun as a privilege like driving a car, instead of seeing it as an inalienable constitutionally protected right.

There is no right to drive a car, so limitations on such a privilege have a lower standard when compared to the right to bear arms -- a distinction that is lost on the F.O.P., and that should give all Ohioans pause. A police organization that sees our rights as merely a privilege clearly crosses the line and becomes tyrannical.

Ohioans need to remember that the government needs to give a compelling reason to infringe rights affirmed in the Constitution. The burden of proof in these cases is with the state, not the other way around. That means if the legislature bans concealed carry in establishments that serve alcohol for consumption, there has to be a legitimate reason to do so.

The cliché that "guns and alcohol don't mix" does not meet that standard, no matter how many times the anti-gun forces repeat their mantra, or how many times they wail about blood running in the streets.

Unless there is definitive proof that guns in places that serve alcohol for consumption are a serious public safety risk the legislature has a duty to lift such a restriction. Such a duty is based on the oath of office that compels them to defend the Constitution.

The simple fact is that despite the anti-gun forces' claim to the contrary, the burden of proof falls on them; they have to prove a public safety risk exists. Buckeye Firearms Association doesn't have to prove Ohioans are safer if allowed to carry a gun without restriction.

Gun groups merely have to prove there isn't an increase in the risk to public safety.

Since 41 states allow legal concealed carry in restaurants and none of them are repealing their law, it shows there is no risk to public safety. Currently, more states are seeing that the laws are successful everywhere else and are passing similar laws.

Sadly, Ohio's legislature seems to see issues with passing the laws in Ohio which can only mean they distrust their constituents. Otherwise, the proof that these laws are successful in other states would assure their passage in the Buckeye State.

Regardless of whether the anti-gun groups, and anti-gun legislators, are willing to admit the burden of proof is on them, that is how our legal system works. By falling short of proving that there is a legitimate threat to public safety, the anti-gun crusaders have failed to prove there is a need to ban legal concealed carry in restaurants.

Fortunately for gun rights groups, the evidence does show that crime rates decrease when law-abiding citizens have fewer restrictions on their right to carry guns. John Lott's groundbreaking book, "More Guns Less Crime," now available in an updated third version, remains the definitive research on the issue. The anti-gun groups have tried to discredit Lott, but even with the help of a complicit anti-gun establishment media, every attempt to do so has failed.

If the issue were free speech, the anti-gun groups are taking the position of government censorship. If we were debating freedom of religion, groups trying to destroy gun rights are, in essence, taking the side of allowing the government to dictate how people worship. They will never admit they are fighting to destroy a civil right, but that doesn't mitigate their actions.

Ohio's legislature needs to realize that the burden of proof falls on the anti-gun forces during the debate over HB45/ SB17.

Since there isn't definitive proof that such laws have led to an increase in gun-related crime in other states, the anti-gun groups have failed to meet that standard.

In the end, that is all that matters.

Gerard Valentino is a member of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Board of Directors and the author of "The Valentino Chronicles – Observations of a Middle Class Conservative," available through the Buckeye Firearms Association store.