LTE: Concealed-carry law needs some tweaking

March 7, 2006
Columbus Dispatch

I respond to the Feb. 21 Dispatch editorial "Aiming to please whom? " I am certain The Dispatch would rally against any issues limiting free speech, yet it prefers to limit, if not forbid, a citizen’s right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution and Ohio’s concealed-carry law.

The editorial failed to point out that the purpose of House Bill 347 is to correct several obvious problems with the law in its current form. It is important to note that these flaws are unique to Ohio and not present in the laws of 45 other states with concealed-carry.

As for the editorial’s comments on municipalities not having the right to make their own laws regarding concealed-carry, consider the confusion created if cities regulated the age of drivers within city limits, which days odd or even license plate numbers would be allowed to travel, or the color of traffic lights. This is a license issued by the state and should be regulated only by state laws.

Obviously, it is easier to throw together an opinion than to report on the hearings that have been held on the bill.

Of course, that would be publishing facts; opinions are easier!

Ed Killoran
Canal Winchester