Media coverage of Supreme Court ruling uniform: A WIN for CCW

No matter what Ohio media citizens are exposed to today, the verdict is clear: Ohio CCW won a huge victory in the Ohio Supreme Court Wednesday.

The most comprehensive story was prepared by T.C. Brown of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. We have prepared a commentary to accompany the story, which is provided in below. Links to other stories are also provided.

Top court widens gun-license path in urgent cases

November 18, 2004
Cleveland Plain Dealer

by T.C. Brown

Columbus -- County sheriffs must process applications for a temporary emergency license to carry a concealed gun from residents with an affidavit that says they or their families are in danger, the Ohio Supreme Court said yesterday.

In its first ruling on the state's new concealed-carry law, justices unanimously said applicants need only the affidavit and no other proof to be eligible for a 90-day temporary license.

Advocates of the law called it a "huge victory" for potential victims.

The case began after Franklin County Sheriff Jim Karnes denied an application submitted by Josephine Lee on April 8, the first day the new law went into effect. Lee was worried about a stalker prowling around her Columbus home.

Karnes said Lee did not provide specific facts of the problem in her statement nor did she give other evidence of imminent danger, such as a police report. The court pointed out that the law does allow an applicant to provide specific facts, police reports or other evidence, but also accepts a sworn statement.

"It does not require underlying facts to support the sworn statement," the court noted. The legislature didn't add that requirement, and "we will not infer one," the court said.

Justices denied Lee's request to order Karnes to issue her a license, saying that she should have appealed Karnes' denial at the Common Pleas court level, not the Supreme Court. Her attorney, L. Kenneth Hanson, was disappointed by the court's denial but he said Lee probably will apply for a permanent license now.

"We won the war but lost the battle," Hanson said. "This is very significant for concealed-carry applicants because all 88 sheriffs in Ohio must now accept those affidavits."

Bob Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association, said he has not seen a similar problem in other counties. In hindsight, stricter requirements could have been added for applicants, but time ran out during the bill's consideration, he said.

"It is a little loose. These were changes made at the 11th hour," Cornwell said. "But there has been no hue and cry that we need more evidence."

Statistics from the Ohio attorney general's office show that only 33 people have applied for temporary emergency licenses, and only three were denied.

The concern, however, is that people issued temporary licenses will not get the training that is required for permanent licensees, said Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence.

"Now you'll have somebody afraid and no training," Hoover said. "They really won't understand what they can or can't do before they use a gun."

Commentary:
It may seem like a nitpick, but the title of the Plain Dealer story (which are typicaly NOT written by the author, but by the news editor) is completely inaccurate. The top court hasn't "widened" anything. Rather, they affirmed exactly what the legislature intended, and interpreted the law exactly the way most Ohio sheriffs have already been doing.

BSSA Exec. Dir. Cornwell's comments, if accurately quoted, are disturbing. Contrary to a statement attributed to him, there HAVE been problems in other counties. In addition to Franklin County, OFCC has received reports of problems with TEL applications being refused for "lack of proof of need" in Columbiana, Mahoning, Medina, Montgomery, and Summit Counties (this list is NOT exhaustive).

OFCC provided a list of "problem sheriff's" to Cornwell in late April, which included data on sheriffs which were reportedly refusing to take TEL applications. We submitted an updated list a month later. Our attempts to work with Cornwell's office to help the complainants bore no fruit, which is why the outcome of this court case has been so eagerly anticipated.

It is unfortunate that, after contacting Cornwell's office to seek resolution, OFCC had to provide support to citizens whose only recourse was to sue two Ohio sheriffs to force them to do their jobs. It is even more unfortunate to read comments attributed to Cornwell, suggesting that the law should have been written so as to make it harder for persons in fear of criminal attack to obtain the legal right to bear arms for self-defense.

The TEL was designed to replace the former affirmative defense provisions that allowed gun owners to carry a firearm for self-defense without seeking prior permission from government officials. The court agreed with what we have always argued, that the clear intent of the General Assembly was that victims in Ohio do not have to divulge specific, embarrassing details of their victimization, and do not have to submit to the intimidation of a discretionary process to exercise self defense.

Statistics used for the Plain Dealer story from the Ohio Attorney General's office are months old, and only cover the first three months of the new law. There is no doubt the number of TEL applications has been suppressed by sheriffs insisting that applicants provide information the law did not require.

As for Hoover: Today she warns that there is a danger from people who chose to obtain a TEL because of a lack of training. But in the past, when arguing against the need for a concealed carry law, anti-self-defense extremists including Hoover have argued in FAVOR of Ohio law which does not require training, using the practice of "open carry".

"Ohioans already have the right to carry guns and other weapons openly but
not concealed. Anyone who believes he is in danger can holster a pistol on
his waist or tote a shotgun around wherever he goes."
- One of many Columbus Dispatch anti-CCW editorials, June 22, 2001

To see Ms. Hoover advocating untrained, unlicensed open carry as an acceptable alternative to passing a concealed carry law in living color, click here to download video from an Oct. 16, 2003 WBGU Bowling Green panel show.

Hoover's sergeant-at-no-arms, Lori O'Neill (the Million Mom March's voice in Ohio), argued in favor of the practice of open carry for self-defense in a letter circulated throughout the state in 2003.

So which is it? Are untrained, unlicensed Ohioans who fear for their lives and take up arms for self-defense dangerous, or are they simply engaging in an acceptable, "legal way to protect themselves", as O'Neill has put it.

Other Ohio media coverage of the decision:

Associated Press: Court: Fear of imminent danger enough for temporary gun permit (versions of this report will be covered in newspapers, on radio & television stations throughout the next hours and days)

Canton Repository: Court says fear of danger enough for gun permit

Columbus Dispatch: Conceal-carry process clarified: No proof necessary when gun owner asks for emergency permit