Media joins the club - whines about poorly worded HB12 year after OFCC

Warning: There are glaring inaccuracies in this story which, if followed, could present legal trouble for CHL-holders. Please see commentary which follows.

April 15, 2004
Dayton Daily News

Concealed-carry law triggering questions
But answers hard to come by

SHARONVILLE | For the students at the Great Oaks Police Academy, the biggest challenge won't be passing the test needed to get a concealed-carry permit, or firing a gun at the range, or passing the state-imposed background checks.

The biggest challenge: Understanding the ins and outs of a new law that's confusing even to instructors.

Thirty students — including the academy's first two females — have enrolled at Great Oaks because they're considering applying for a permit to carry a concealed gun. The three-day class ends tonight with a shooting course at a nearby range, and those who pass could get a permit within 45 days.

In the first two, classroom-based sessions, students tried to make sense of a law that in many places "isn't well defined," said Dennis Lengle, a Great Oaks concealed-carry instructor.

For example, the law says a gun in a vehicle must be locked in a glove compartment or steel box, or must be in plain sight.

But, students asked, what's "in plain sight" — especially if you're left-handed? Southpaws would holster their gun on their left side, which would be against the driver's-side door — not necessarily in plain sight to an approaching officer.

"That's a good question," Lengle said, without offering any more.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

Among the other questions:

• If police pull me over, will they know that I'm a permit holder? (Yes, they'll find that out when they check your plates)

• Can I take my concealed gun into a place that has a wine tasting? (No. Guns aren't permitted in any establishment that dispenses alcohol, including beer and mixes, for consumption. Some thought the rule applied only to bars or places that sold hard liquor.)

The answers still left some of the students scratching their heads.

"It's confusing," said Jerry Shipp, 53, of St. Bernard, a Cincinnati suburb. "Like the one about being in the car. How can it be in plain sight and concealed at the same time? That doesn't make any sense."

Deer Park police Lt. Milton Proctor, also an instructor at Great Oaks, acknowledged what became obvious to students: The new law could use some tweaking.

"It's got some bugs in it here that need to be worked out," he said. "I'm sure it will be revised down the road."

Students signed up for the class for different reasons. James Rickenbaugh, 28, also of St. Bernard, enrolled because he said thieves tried to get into an open garage while he was home. Rickenbaugh turned on a light in his home, and the thieves fled.

"I just want to go through all the steps I have to, so if I have to use it, I can do it legally," he said. "I've never been a big gun owner."

Jackie Gardiner, 56, of North College Hill near Cincinnati took the course because she's interested in awareness and safety. But she also believes people have the right to carry a concealed gun.

"I don't want the right taken away from me," she said.

Whatever the reasons, hundreds have paid the $45 application fee for a permit. Sheriff's offices expect to take up to 45 days, the legal limit, to process the applications. As many as 100,000 Ohioans are expected to apply for licenses to carry concealed handguns in the first six months, Attorney General Jim Petro said.

After two nights of four-hour classes, students left Great Oak more informed about the law and anxiously awaiting Wednesday night's live shooting.

"This is a really good course and I think everyone who handles guns should take it," Gardiner said. "It's been very informative."

Commentary:
Perhaps if the media had been more interested in discussing the various versions of the bill that had been presented before Jan. 8, instead of spending all their time blasting the concept, the law would have fewer such problems.

Gov. Taft and a few term-limited Republican Senators are responsible for many of the exact provisions the media is now identifying as problematic or confusing. And since Taft admitted to have made his decision to force the public records provision into HB12 after reading various newspaper editorials, certainly a few articles like this could have done wonders last year.

Following is an excerpt of a letter OFCC PAC Senate District 10 Coordinator Larry Moore sent to the DDN today:

Two mistakes that should be corrected:

The article states "For example, the law says a gun in a vehicle must be locked in a glove box compartment or steel box or must be in plain sight".

This is well short of what the law says and misleads people. Line 2548 of the law states:

(1) Knowingly transport or have a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle unless the loaded handgun either is in a holster and in plain sight on the person's person or it is securely encased by being stored in a closed, locked glove compartment or in a case that is in plain sight and that is locked;

1. If the gun is in plain sight it must be in holster on the person of the permit holder. Your sentence says ".. or must be in plain sight" implies it could be lying on the seat or dashboard. That will get you arrested.

2. There is nothing in the law about a "steel box" or what kind of material the case might be. The law says "or in a case that is in plain sight and that is locked". That case could be a molded plastic case or nylon case (so long as it is locked and in plain sight) that many shooters already use to transport handguns to the firing ranges.

The locked glove compartment is correct.

I respectively request that you clarify these points as this could further confuse and mislead people about carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle.

I understand how confusing the law can be. I have spent considerable time and effort helping to get this law passed. I have assisted with seminars in Greene County regarding the law. I will be glad to help clarify any sections, refer you to the proper sections of the law, or refer you to others who also know the law.

It is critical that the correct information is disseminated regarding this law. I am sure the police and prosecutors will not accept a defense "But I read it like that in the Dayton Daily News!".

A recent Marion News story featured the ironic complaint of an Ohio State Highway Patrol commander complaining that "plain sight" isn't defined in the new law. The irony comes because OSHP bureaucrats are solely responsible for this language being inserted by the Senate as a "compromise". Compromising the integrity of the bill to a point that the OSHP would not oppose it was a specific demand of Gov. Bob Taft.

Related Story:
Marion Star: Officials, advocates say vehicle provision may be first to come under fire