Letters to Editors: CCW law is best way to protect Ohioans

Anti-concealed carry/self-defense letters to the editor are few and far between these days, but when they are printed, they are always long on emotion, and short on facts. Leave it to the good guys to reply with the facts the gun grabbers left out.

November 13, 2003
Cleveland Plain Dealer

Regarding the Nov. 12 article "Proposed law may hide more than just guns":

Reporter Sandy Theis continues The Plain Dealer's tireless attempt at using any means necessary to keep a concealed-carry law from becoming a reality in Ohio. Theis reports that "a study" (the source of this study is not disclosed) showed that three people in Florida, who shouldn't have received them, were issued concealed-carry permits, due to "loopholes and human errors." The current version of Ohio's proposed CCW law would keep the records of permit holders secret. The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence claims access to these records is necessary "to protect our families."

A look at Florida's own Web site shows that there are currently more than 322,000 concealed-carry permit holders in that state. This works out to a 0.00093 percent margin of error. I don't see the need to make these records readily available to the public.

Ohio is now one of only six states left in the nation that bars law-abiding citizens from carrying a concealed weapon. None of the states that have enacted a concealed-carry law have later decided to revoke them. Why? Because these laws work. You cannot say the same for gun control laws. The Plain Dealer's judicious reporting of criminal activity with guns would support my claim.

Gregory M. Danaher
Willoughby Hills

Click on the "Read More..." link below to read other recent letters.

November 13, 2003
Cleveland Plain Dealer

After two readings of Jackie Spector's* Nov. 5 letter to the editor "Carrying guns in plain view is wiser alternative," I am still uncertain as to whether it is tongue-in-cheek ribbing of concealed-carry advocates or gun-toting participants in various parades, or whether Spector is actually serious. Anyone who took her letter seriously, please consider the following:

If the popularity of "exposed- carry" increased, citizens, with or without children, might not "have the choice to remove themselves from the vicinity of a gun" as Spector professes.

A lone "exposed-carry" person in most any environment could be taken by surprise and have his exposed weapon taken from him by two or more people intent on committing a crime either on the carrier himself or in the immediate area.

The mere existence of a concealed-carry law presents an occupational hazard to any and all people bent on committing a criminal act, because they would have to consider that one or more people in the area might have a concealed gun. Bad people are not fools. They don't want to be shot and possibly killed.

Those who "strap on their guns and parade" do not do it so "no one will bother them." They are really pointing out the sham that Ohio will permit "exposed-carry," like in the days of the wild west, but will not permit the same person from carrying a concealed weapon. It is therefore obvious that the current law is "not the most effective deterrent to violent crime."

John J. Myers
Medina

*Reminder: Jackie Spector was not the author of this letter. The letter, written by a Million Mom March worker, was submitted under her name to circumvent the Plain Dealer's policy on only printing one letter per person per 30 day period.

November 13, 2003
Toledo Blade

Concealed carry isn't 'Wild West'

Another anti-gun piece that holds its own answer at the beginning of its own
text, "criminals will always find weapons; Joe citizen does not to carry a
weapon unless there is a reason." The reason for carry is underlined by the
writer's own words. I, too, speak as a former peace officer. Many peace
officers do not agree with that letter writer.

How many states already have approved concealed carry without the "Wild West" described not taking place in their territory? The fantasy described in a dream does not fit the people who will carry concealed. Those who feel the way this writer did should get a copy of the formation of the Constitution and the Federalist Letters and read them.

Think for a moment. Just how do you suppose the tyrants around the world
keep their tyrannies in place? They have the guns and ammunition. The
peasants do not.

MILTON C. MANN
Luckey

November 13, 2003
Columbus Dispatch

No concealed carry but felons on the loose

Isn't it something: 900 wanted felons are here in Franklin County (Dispatch article, Oct. 19), and a law-abiding citizen can't carry a concealed weapon for protection.

FRED KLOPFER
Canal Winchester

The following was printed in the "Reader's Forum" column in the Oct. 20, 2003 edition of GunWeek magazine (www.gunweek.com):

OH Supreme Court Doesn't Help Victims

Readers of your Oct. 10, 2003 article on the Ohio Supreme Court upholding the state's ban on concealed weapons might believe the ruling fair and proper. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In Ohio no one except a law enforcement officer may carry concealed (ORC 2923.12 (1)). Anyone else caught so doing is immediately arrested. The law makes no distinction between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal. To exonerate oneself at court, the person must show he or she
"was engaged in a lawful activity and had reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack...such as would justify a prudent person going armed." (ORC 2923.12 (C) (2)) This is Ohio's affirmative defense.

The few individuals who have successfully employed this defense have all been prior victims of assault. Their victimhood is what established the "reasonable cause." Absent this, anyone carrying a concealed weapon (i.e., bearing arms) claiming to exercise their constitutional right to
defense and security (State of Ohio Constitution, Art. 1, Sect. 4) would be
found guilty as charged. The law effectively negates the constitutional right.

This law has endured not because, as the court states, it "has been part of our legal heritage since 1859," nor because it has survived "without fundamental modification." It has survived because it bullies the law-abiding citizen into submission. And as a violation of the statute is a felony of violence, no one dares risk losing forever the very right they
sought to exercise.

Contrary to what Justice Paul Pfeiffer calls "a proper exercise of the police power of the state," the law is a humorless master stroke of legislative impudence. It threatens rather than protects; it insults
rather than entrusts. It is a terrible, horrible law. When Justice Pfeiffer states Ohio's prohibition on CCW and its affirmative defenses are reasonable to "maintain an orderly and safe society," he's not only wrong - he's wrong by 144 years.

In ignoring the lower courts' opinions finding these statutes unconstitutional, the Ohio Supreme Court committed a massive abdication of judicial responsibility. But Justice Pfeiffer writes "It is not a court's
function to pass judgment on the wisdom of the legislature..." And neither would we place much confidence in the diagnosis of a physician who believes the Hippocratic Oath a kind of curse."

Greg Wilk
Hinckley, Ohio

November 10, 2003
Marysville Times-Leader

Right to arms

As a subscriber to The Times Leader, I am writing in response to "Title of Article" (concerning Right to Carry) House Bill 12. This important legislation would allow law-abiding citizens, who have satisfied a criminal background check and taken a firearm safety training course, to obtain a permit to carry a handgun concealed for personal protection.

The Ohio House and Senate have appointed a Conference Committee to work out their Differences in House Bill 12. Readers of The Times Leader need to voice their support for the Conference Committee report, which removes the provision requiring all permit holders who are traveling in a car with passengers under the age 18 to secure their handguns in a locked box, thus, rendering their guns inaccessible and useless for self-defense. This provision, approved by members of the Senate, is unacceptable and contradicts the underlying principal of a Right-to-Carry law. The Senate provision, in fact, could put law-abiding concealed carry permit holders in great danger by creating an unnecessary "victim zone."

For the first time in 10 years, Right-to-Carry is on the brink of reality in Ohio. Currently, Ohio is one of only five states that does not have some sort of status allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self protection. Many of Ohio's neighbors have already passed fair, non-discretionary "Shall Issue" permit laws. It is high time the Ohio Legislature passed Right-to Carry and recognized law-abiding Ohioans' right to self defense.

I encourage all Ohio citizens to contact their lawmakers and encourage them to act swiftly on the Conference Committee report, and, if needed an override of the Governor's veto. Further, I urge The Times Leader to report fairly and objectively on this life-saving measure.

William G. Neiswonger
Quaker City