College Student Takes OSHP Spt. Paul McClellan to School

Letter writers began copying us on advice they've sent to Ohio State Highway Patrol Superintendant Paul McClellan immediately following our first report that the Buckeye State Sheriffs Association and Ohio Fraternal Order of Police were calling for a meeting with the OSHP to address the unsafe language which the patrol bureaucracy is endorsing in HB12.

They've all been excellent, well-thought out, polite and proper letters. The following, from a student writing for his Composition II course at Owens College, gets an "A+" from the all-volunteer 'professors' at OFCC PAC.

September 9, 2003

Dear Col. McClellan,

I am writing this email to inform you as to my opinion regarding the current debate concerning concealed carry in Ohio. I have attached a copy of a research paper I wrote last year for a composition class.

As a citizen and taxpayer of Ohio I am concerned with my safety and the
safety of my fellow citizens, including your troopers. I have reservations regarding the OSP's stance regarding the stipulations as to when a law-abiding citizen may be permitted to protect themselves. As I
am certain you are aware, criminals often tend to pick their targets based on the threat level to themselves. This is one reason why those "gun free safety zones" are anything but safe. And this is just one more reason why law-abiding citizens must be free to protect themselves, inside a car or otherwise. It is not always possible for a driver to "just drive away" when confronted by a violent individual.

I hope you find my report insightful and educational. I have included all references for your convenience. Any comments, pro or con, would be appreciated.

Thank you for your attention to this correspondence.

Sincerely,

Jay Newland
Bascom, OH

Click on the "Read More..." link below to read Newland's research paper.

Click here to read the rhetoric-filled form letter Senate President Doug White (and nearly everyone else who contacts the OSHP about HB12) received in response.

The author of this paper, Jay Newland, retains all rights to ownership of the following. Used with permission.

Setting Sights on Concealed Carry

On March 27th, 1999, a 27-year-old Phoenix police officer named Marc Atkinson was following a suspected stolen vehicle. It was not a high-speed chase and Officer Atkinson was waiting for backup units before attempting to pull the vehicle over. The car turned a corner and Officer Atkinson momentarily lost sight of the vehicle. When he turned the corner he saw the vehicle stopped along the side of the road. Two of the three men from the car were now standing next to it with guns drawn on him. Immediately they opened fire, mortally wounding Officer Atkinson.

According to Robert Waters of The Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed, Rory Vertigan, an apartment manager, had been driving behind Officer Atkinson and as he turned the corner saw the suspects ambushing him. He then saw the suspects get back into their car but instead of leaving the scene they next attacked Vertigan. When two of the suspects started shooting at him, Vertigan reached for his 9mm pistol. The suspects continued firing at him and backed their car into his at which time Vertigan leaned out the window of his car and began retuning fire, firing fourteen rounds in all.

Their car disabled and one of the suspects seriously wounded, the three men leapt out of the car and ran from the scene. The one man who was wounded did not get far as Vertigan tackled him and held him for police before he could escape. Rory Vertigan later released a statement. “When I confronted the individuals in the white vehicle,” he said, “they turned their guns on me. I was given no choice but to defend myself.”

The Phoenix Police Department labeled Mr. Vertigan a hero, for not only capturing one of the murderers, but for also disabling their stolen vehicle and preventing their escape across the border (Waters).

A hero in Phoenix, had the same tragic scenario occurred in Cleveland, Mr. Vertigan would have been deemed a criminal. Why? Ohio is only one of six states in the Union that does not permit its citizens to protect themselves by carrying concealed weapons. With events such as these becoming seemingly more commonplace, Ohio must empower its citizens with the legal means to protect themselves if they choose to do so.

In the past several years there has been an explosion of states permitting the carrying of concealed weapons by their citizenry. There has been much debate and much controversy regarding the subject, but given the crime statistics recorded after implementation of such laws, little can be offered to refute their successes.

There have been many objections to allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons for self-protection. There have been concerns that our society would surely regress to the days of the Wild West with gunfights in the streets at high noon, or that vigilantism would run rampant with people taking the law in to their own hands or that an influx of weapons into society would lead to more weapons falling in to the hands of children. Another argument against concealed carry legislation is the idea that victims of crimes should call police if trouble should arise and let them deal with the situation. On July 16, 2000, a woman in an apartment complex did just that. At 8:40 PM she dialed 911 but was unable to speak when dispatchers answered. Because the apartment’s telephone number did not show up on their dispatch screen, it took eight minutes for police to find the apartment. When they did, they also found a man with a bloody knife standing over the lifeless body of the woman. The killer turned out to be a rejected lover and killed her sometime during the eight minutes it took for police to arrive on the scene (Waters 2). The only difference between Mr. Vertigan and the unfortunate woman who died is that Vertigan took a proactive step to keep from becoming a victim.

Sometimes where concealed carry laws were eventually implemented, political leaders chose to make hay by attempting at every opportunity to limit the areas one would be permitted to carry a concealed weapon to protect one’s self or family. According to a story by CNN, during the last presidential election, then Vice President Al Gore called repeatedly for weapons bans at churches and school events. He went on to make the most incredibly brilliant statement, “I believe we need to seize upon the growing consensus that it is time to get guns away from those who should not have them.” Unfortunately, Vice President Gore would have happily substituted the word “citizen” for the phrase, “those who should not have them.” Gore added that, “America can not afford another Columbine, or another Paducah, or another Jonesboro,” referring to the then recent school shootings. In a related story by CNN, on the same day at a news conference with then Senate Minority Leader, Tom Daschle, Senator Joe Lieberman stated, “We can respect the rights of hunters and legitimate gun owners while also acknowledging that bullets and Bibles don’t mix.” Lieberman later acknowledged that the proposal he wished to put forth had more symbolism than substance when he admitted, “This is a first step. It is a statement of policy” (Bash & Black).

The concept that Gore, Lieberman and many other politicians seemingly fail to grasp is that if law-abiding citizens had had the opportunity to carry concealed weapons at the time of these tragedies, they could have possibly been minimized or prevented altogether. Honestly, if someone had the goal of killing as many people as possible, would they not choose to attack when and where there would be the least resistance?

On September 11, 2001, why did those hijackers not choose to hijack airplanes from a military base? Obviously they chose the avenue providing the least resistance with the greatest impact. If law abiding American citizens had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on those planes, who knows how many lives might have been saved. Personally, I would imagine a number approaching three thousand. As Ari Armstrong of The Colorado Freedom Report notes, “It is no coincidence that petty thugs who want to kill lots of people select targets where nobody is likely to be able to fight back.”

Obviously the case supporting concealed carry legislation is a strong one. The case is strengthened by the evidence, which demonstrates that incidents of violent crime dropped markedly in every category when concealed carry legislation was implemented. As John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws notes,

“There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent. Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.”

Mr. Lott also compared multiple victim shootings from 1977 through 1995. The incidents he studied included scenes where two or more people were killed or injured in a public setting. “The effect of ‘shall-issue’ laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.”
When Mr. Lott uses the term “shall-issue” laws, he is referring to one of the two broad categories governing the licensing of private citizens to carry concealed weapons. “Shall-issue” licensing systems are often referred to as “presumptive right to carry laws.” These laws require authorities to provide licensure to any applicant who meets the specified criteria to carry a concealed weapon. On the other side of the coin are “may-issue” licensing systems. These are also referred to as discretionary permit systems. These systems allow licensing authorities to grant licensure to those citizens who establish or demonstrate a “compelling need” to carry a concealed weapon (Cleary & Shapiro). Many Ohioans might believe that if someone had a desire or need to carry a concealed weapon they would be able to simply obtain a permit from some state agency. The Ohio Revised Code prohibits this however by defining an arbitrary affirmative action clause which can only be used before a judge. Incredibly, this law also imposes felony restrictions in obvious violation of Ohio’s own constitution (Ohioans).

Other state concealed carry statistics are quoted as reducing murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assaults by 7 percent. Following this analytical, statistical reasoning, had concealed carry been implemented throughout the country, 1600 fewer murders, 4200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults would have occurred between 1977 and 1992. One interesting side note, the deterrent effect of concealed carry laws in counties with populations of 200,000 or more (where there is usually significantly higher rates of violent crime), produced the highest drops in occurrences of crimes with a 13 percent drop in murders and a 7 percent drop in rapes (Center-Right).

Of course, more guns in the hands of citizens would require more responsibility on the part of those carrying the weapons. The payoff however would be an obviously safer society.

Perhaps the best case supporting concealed carry legislation comes from the state of Vermont. Vermont has had the least restrictive firearm carry laws and allows its citizens to carry weapons either in the open or concealed without any permit or registration papers. Vermont citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission, paying a fee or going through any government imposed waiting period (Gun Owners of America). Vermont has also consistently maintained one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country. In 1980 when murders and robberies in the United States had increased to an average of 10 and 251 per 100,000 citizens respectively, Vermont’s murder rate was 22 percent of the national rate and its robbery rate was 15 percent. This low rate was maintained and in 1996 Vermont was at 25 percent of the national rate for murders and 8 percent of the national rate for robberies (Center-Right).

Vermont is one of a handful of states which recognize that carrying a firearm for protection is a “right” and not a “privilege”, and as such, free citizens should not be required to be photographed, fingerprinted and registered before exercising their Second Amendment rights. Criminals already carrying concealed weapons for the purpose of depriving one’s freedoms certainly should not have the upper hand compared to the average citizen who only wishes to preserve his own life, safety and freedoms. The recent introduction of terrorism to our shores reinforces the stance that we as a people must be permitted to take a proactive stand against violent criminals who are intent on harming us or our families and friends.

Recently, Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge, Robert Ruehlman noted in a decision that Ohio’s concealed carry restrictions, “are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to the plaintiffs in that said (laws) deny to plaintiffs, in particular, and the law-abiding citizens with in Hamilton County, in general, the right to carry a concealed firearm for their defense and security, contrary to their Ohio Constitutional right.” In the ruling, Ruehlman noted that people must have the right to protect themselves.

“Amidst all of the baying from gun opponents is the irrefutable fact that there will always be people in our society who refuse to follow any rules and who can never be reasoned with or rehabilitated. These people have no conscience and no qualms about doing harm to innocent persons,” he wrote (Perry).

Unfortunately, violence is a part of our society and more than likely, here to stay. When others would chose to do us harm, we as citizens must have the means to protect ourselves when the government and police are unable to. The statistics prove that persons who hold concealed carry permits are consistently many times less likely to be arrested for a violent or non-violent offense, including murder (PR Newswire). They are much more law-abiding than the average citizen. Unfortunately, armed criminals are not. It is for this reason we as citizens, not subjects, must not be made criminals for choosing not to be victims.

Annotated List of Works Cited

Cleary, Jim and Emily Shapiro. “The Effects of “Shall-Issue” Concealed Carry Licensing Laws: A Literature Review.” Minnesota House of Representatives, Research Department Feb. 1999. 9 Mar. 2002. .

Armstrong, Ari. “Liberalize Concealed Carry.” The Colorado Freedom Report Web Site 22 Jan. 2002. 9 Mar. 2002. .

Perry, Kimball. “Judge strikes down concealed carry ‘ban’.” Cincinnati Post Web Site 10 Jan. 2002. 9 Mar. 2002. .

“Why adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law?” Gun Owners of America Web Site Apr. 1999. 9 Mar. 2002. .

“Texas’ Concealed Carry law Works, Says NCPA Report.” PR Newswire Association, Inc. 26 May 2000. 9 Mar. 2002. .

Bash, Dana and Chris Black. “Democrats propose Senate gun-control resolution.” 14 Apr. 2000. 9 Mar. 2002. .

“Gore calls for weapons ban at churches, school events.” Cable News Network Web Site 14 Apr. 2000. 9 Mar. 2002. .

“An interview with John R. Lott, Jr. author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Second Edition.” University of Chicago Press Web Site nd. 9 Mar. 2002. .

Burnett, H. Sterling and Morgan Reynolds. “No smoking Guns: Answering Objections to Right-to-Carry Laws.” Center-Right Web Site 2 Mar. 1998. 9 Mar. 2002. .

Waters, Robert A. “Keeping Secrets.” Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed Web Site 20 Sep. 2000. 9 Mar. 2002. .

Waters, Robert A. “How Long Does it Take to Die?” Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed Web Site nd. 9 Mar. 2002. .

Ohioans for Concealed Carry Web Site nd. 9 Mar. 2002. .