Sponsor: Senate should worry about Constitution, not worry about a veto

Last year, the House approved the bill after 17 hearings and nine months of debate. Then the Senate waited until after the Nov. 5 election to act on it, finally passing its version in December just before adjourning for the session.

The result was a bill with changes that the House would not accept and the bill died when the session ended at year's end.

Sponsoring Rep. Jim Aslanides doesn't want to see that happen again.

Aslanides, a Coshocton Republican, said lawmakers should come up with a bill that would be acceptable to the court and not worry so much about a veto from Taft.

Click here to read the entire story from the Association Press, or click on the "Read More..." link below for an archived version.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The Senate should take its time considering the latest concealed weapons bill if the House approves it as expected, the bill's sponsor says.

The House Criminal Justice Committee recommended passage of the bill Wednesday on a party line vote with majority Republicans prevailing. The Senate should get the bill later this month.

Last year, the House approved the bill after 17 hearings and nine months of debate. Then the Senate waited until after the Nov. 5 election to act on it, finally passing its version in December just before adjourning for the session.

The result was a bill with changes that the House would not accept and the bill died when the session ended at year's end.

Sponsoring Rep. Jim Aslanides doesn't want to see that happen again.

"I would encourage them (senators) to work on the bill, give it the kind of time that we in the House did," Aslanides said after the committee's vote. "I would urge them to work the bill to get the most amount of votes that they can."

The Senate passed its bill 20-11 last year.

Gov. Bob Taft won't support the bill while it is opposed by the state's police chiefs and the State Highway Patrol. Both groups repeated their concerns Wednesday in testimony before the committee.

However, the Ohio Supreme Court could change the course of the legislation. The court is considering a Hamilton County case in which several citizens have challenged the constitutionality of Ohio's ban on concealed weapons. A judge in that county and another in Seneca County have ruled the ban unconstitutional.

Supreme Court hearings in the case are scheduled on April 15.

Aslanides, a Coshocton Republican, said lawmakers should come up with a bill that would be acceptable to the court and not worry so much about a veto from Taft.

"I think we have a greater threat and that is the constitutional question of the current law, which we have a duty as legislators to fix," Aslanides said after the vote.

The vote came after the committee adopted several minor Republican amendments and rejected all 10 amendments offered by Democrats. Republicans said Democrats, who represent more high-crime urban areas than Republicans, wanted to place too many restrictions on the permit seekers.

The proposal would allow Ohioans who pass background checks and complete 12 hours of training to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons.

Currently, those caught carrying hidden guns must convince a prosecutor or judge that they needed it because of their job, such as someone who carries a large sum of cash, or for security, such as a person who has been threatened.

John Gilchrist of the police chiefs' association said allowing drivers to carry loaded weapons could escalate the severity of confrontations between motorists. He said motorists could use the law as a defense if they are charged in a confrontation.

"It goes to the concern of road rage and people cutting other people off," Gilchrist said.

Rep. Bill Seitz, a Cincinnati Republican, said current assault laws would cover such confrontations.

"It seems to me in the typical road rage case that the defense wouldn't be upheld. ... I just don't understand your concern," Seitz told Gilchrist.

The new bill retains some of the proposals added by the Senate in the previous attempt to pass a bill. It would require written and physical safety training courses for people who apply for permits. However, a requirement that all applicants be fingerprinted is missing.