Editorial: Taft, Senate blocking rights

Gov. Bob Taft and Ohio Senate President Doug White stubbornly are blocking Ohioans' right to carry concealed weapons. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Criminal Justice last week altered a bill passed by the House of Representatives, and now White refuses to name conferees to iron out differences in the bills until the House and Taft resolve their differences.

So much for political leadership from the Senate.

The Ohio House on Thursday rejected changes the Senate Judiciary Committee on Criminal Justice made to House Bill 12, which would allow Ohioans to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons. The Senate made changes to the bill that would keep Ohioans from defending themselves and their families. The House rightly rejected the changes the Senate made to appease the Ohio State Highway Patrol, which then changed its stance on the concealed-carry legislation from being opposed to being simply neutral. That was enough to guarantee a signature from Taft, who has vowed to veto any bill that Ohio's law-enforcement community opposes.

It is refreshing to see at least those in the Ohio House are trying to restore a basic right. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not vague about citizens' right to arm themselves. The Second Amendment is about freedom and property rights. It is about the freedom to protect oneself and one's family from violence. It is about the freedom, when all else fails, to protect oneself from a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment is about the freedom to do what one pleases with one's property, provided these actions do not infringe upon other people's rights, namely harming them or their property.

It is the concern about harm to others and their property that keeps the gun debate so muddy. If we allow people to have guns, antigunners argue, they will have the ability to rob, to murder, to do all sorts of nasty things to innocent people. Thus, we have to limit who can have guns so we'll all be safer.

That argument is bunk. Those who would use guns for evil purposes already do so. And, even if the antigunners got their way and took away all the guns from all the people, what's to prevent someone from picking up an ax or a hammer to use for the same reason? Nothing. No law or government restriction is going to prevent those intent on robbing or killing others from doing so.

However, the potential of an intended target of such an attack being armed might give an attacker pause.

It is along these lines that the Senate version - which Taft said he will sign, while also vowing to veto the House version - is most flawed. The most alarming aspect of the Senate version is the requirement that a gun be locked in the glove box or a gun case in plain sight if a child is in an automobile. In other words, the Senate intends to allow people to transport their property freely in automobiles, provided that property is in plain sight, right up until a child is in the car. Then, the Senate and Taft would make those with children the easiest pickings for criminals. "We believe that children should be protected, not singled out to be victims," said Jim Irvine, a spokesman for Ohioans for Concealed Carry.

Irvine is right. A mother or father driving the kids from the playground or to McDonald's shouldn't be singled out for criminals to attack - in the name of protecting children. The intent is noble, but it is severely short-sighted. Irresponsible parents will find a way to let their children harm themselves; preventing other parents from protecting their children will not make the children of irresponsible parents any safer.

We disagree with the Ohio State Highway Patrol's objections to the House bill. Law-abiding people will not shoot police officers if those law-abiding people have guns. People who have no regard for the law already have guns and will shoot patrolmen and patrolwomen. No new law is going to stop them from doing so. Law-enforcement officers who don't consider every traffic stop a potentially dangerous one are living in a fantasy land.

The House was right to reject the Senate version of the bill. It's now time for the two bodies to meet and work out their differences. That is the reason each house of the state Legislature appoints members to a committee. It isn't up to the House and Taft to reach compromise. The Senate has to involve itself, too.

Click here to read the editorial in the Lima News.