Editorial (?): One year later: Concealed Carry law's impact

We’re not sure whether it’s a news story or an op-ed, but since Medina County Gazette reporter “Gladden” ends this story by expressing his personal opinion and referring to himself in the first person, we’ll take a gamble this was published as an editorial, even though it is not so delineated on the newspapers’ website. OFCC PAC Commentary provided in blue:

Remember all the hype when concealed-carry went into effect in April 2004?

Remember how opponents claimed it would make our streets more dangerous while proponents insisted it would make them safer?

To the extent such things are measurable, one year into the law that gives permit-holding Ohioans the right to carry hidden handguns in public, there is little appreciable impact on public safety — for better or for worse.

"I can't see where it's helped or caused a problem," said Medina County Sheriff Neil Hassinger.

The sheriff said he knows of no instance in which a permit-holder has used the privilege inappropriately or tried to carry a weapon where it's not allowed, such as school grounds or government buildings. Neither has there been any report of a crime deterred by a hidden handgun.

As newspaper after newspaper reports that they know of no crime having been deterred by a CHL-holder, there is a consistent pattern emerging. While they appear to be referring to information given to them from the county sheriff’s office about their own county, they don’t bother to point that out. Since there have indeed been documented incidents involving CHL-holders protecting themselves from attack this year, it is at least misleading, if not absolutely false, to say “Neither has there been any report of a crime deterred by a hidden handgun” without specifying the area the statement is referring to.

Some argue that's the whole idea: Criminals are less inclined to approach someone with the intent of robbing or attacking them if they think the potential victim may be armed. We'll never know how many deterred crimes there were because, well, they were deterred.

Advocates say crime has diminished in Ohio since the law went into effect. That may be factually correct, but U.S. Department of Justice figures show violent crime has been on the decline nationally since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2003. State sources report Ohio historically has enjoyed a lower crime rate than states of similar population.

Crime has been on the decline for a long time, for a lot of reasons. To credit one year of concealed-carry with a role in a decade-long trend may be an overstatement. Unfortunately, Hassinger said, because Medina County is one of the state's fastest-developing counties, crime rates here are likely to rise with the population, not fall.

The author doesn’t say who these “advocates” are who are pointing to crime reductions and claiming they prove OhioCCW is a success. They certainly never contacted OFCC before writing this story. If they had, we would have pointed out that FBI Uniform Crime Reports for the second half of 2004 (when CHL-holders finally were able to begin carrying) aren’t even out yet. Still, might the author also have mentioned that in direct correlation with those crime rate declines since 1994 has been a steady march of new concealed carry laws being passed in states across the nation?

Click on the “Read More…” link below for more.

Some opponents of the law feared the paperwork associated with issuing the permits — background checks, record-keeping — would be expensive and time-consuming for law enforcement. That's not been the case, Hassinger reported. His office added a staff member, but that individual also handles the department's WebCheck service and other administrative duties.

WebCheck allows churches, schools and others to conduct background safety checks on prospective workers. So far in 2005, Hassinger has issued a total of 273 concealed-carry permits and performed 197 WebChecks.

As the concealed-carry law stands, only members of the news media may see the list of permit holders. The Gazette so far has not published the list, but other newspapers have. Hassinger said he disagrees with the media-only aspect of it. Either the list should be public or it shouldn't be. No in-between.

Perhaps the most interesting administrative point is Medina County has turned out to be a popular destination for out-of-town permit-seekers. The law says citizens can obtain a license from any county adjoining the one they live in. Before being allowed to carry a hidden handgun, applicants must pass a background check and complete a 12-hour training course.

While Hassinger has issued 136 permits to Medina County residents from January through April, he's issued another 126 to Cuyahoga County residents alone. So far this year, the department has denied three permits, suspended five and revoked one.

It might have been interesting to readers for the author to say why so many Cuyahoga Co. residents are coming to Medina County (Sheriff Gerald McFaul had to be sued before he would start taking applications, and even now enforces a restrictive appointment scheme).

In 2004, the sheriff issued a total of 1,172 permits — 623 to local citizens, 426 to Cuyahoga, 105 to Summit, and a smattering to Ashland, Wayne and Lorain county residents.

The sheriff guessed the average age of those who seek a permit is about 50. He gets the impression many permit-holders are citizens simply exercising their rights according to the law and don't intend to carry a weapon on a regular basis.

"It really becomes a burden to carry a weapon. It's a lot of responsibility to carry a weapon," said Hassinger. The average person doesn't know what it's like to look down the barrel at another human being and decide whether or not to pull the trigger, he added.

With all due respect, Sheriff Hassinger, neither does the average police officer. On the other hand, far too many Ohioans know exactly what it feels like to be looking at the business end of a gun or blade in the hand of a criminal and not have the ability to protect themselves. Before OhioCCW became law, only police officers were able to enjoy the peace of mind that comes with the knowledge that if trouble finds you, you will have a fighting chance.

Hassinger said he supports the Constitution, but does not take a position on the law. I follow his lead.

I'm not against it because I support the right to arms and have no problem with properly handled guns. I was not among the alarmists who thought we would see a bunch of armed Bernard Goetzes walking our streets.

But I can't say I saw any practical need for the law, precisely for the reason that it's proven to have relatively little impact. I would rather see the state legislature tackle a higher-impact issue, like school funding reform, or look for ways to make the work of the law-enforcement professionals, like Hassinger, easier.

Herein lies the reason why gun control extremists try so hard to push the “zero impact” claim. While we have not spoken with this reporter, the material he has provided thus far, on balance, lends to the idea that he truly was concerned about maintaining a balanced perspective in this article. Yet because he is convinced this law has had “little impact”, he figures legislators could have done better things with their time in Columbus. On a grand scale, one of the arguments for passing concealed carry laws was that it has had a proven downward effect on crime. But to ignore one of the other major reasons for passage of this law – the personal one – is to be completely unfair in evaluating the law’s success. Tell store clerk Habib Howard, who shot and wounded a criminal who robbed his store and attempted to shoot him before exiting, that this law has had “little impact.” Tell road rage victim Dr. McAdoo, who was able to diffuse an angry motorist in a road rage confrontation simply by revealing his firearm that this law has had “little impact”. This law is about the individual right to bear arms for self-defense, as recognized in the Ohio state constitution. And on an individual level, there is NO ONE experienced with the personal protection it offers who will tell you it has had “little impact” on their lives.

"I don't have a problem with it," the sheriff said. "The people who violate the law are not going to get a permit … The people who handle weapons improperly — the bad people — are going to continue to handle them improperly."

Perhaps the corollary would be if you are a law-abiding citizen who always handled weapons properly and got your hidden handgun permit, you're probably going to continue to handle weapons properly and be a law-abiding citizen.

Small point, but is there no end to journalists who are so completely unconcerned with using correct terminology when it comes to firearms? According to Ohio Revised Code, it is a Concealed Handgun License, not a “hidden handgun permit”. Would this same writer make this kind of embarrassing error (some will suggest using terminology that comes directly from gun ban extremists’ rhetoric can be no accident), in such consistent fashion, if he were writing about a student driver with a learner’s permit vs. a truck driver with a commercial driver’s license?

Concealed-carry may be one of those issues that made better politics — for the gun lobby, gun opponents and the politicians who love them — than policy.

Stay tuned, “Gladden”, we’re just getting started.