AP: Legislature last hope for gun backers

COLUMBUS (AP) -- The Ohio Supreme Court's ruling last week upholding the state's ban on concealed weapons sent a signal that it will be up to lawmakers, not the court, to decide whether Ohioans can carry hidden guns, a law professor says.

The problem for backers, though, is the Legislature has been struggling with the idea for eight years and seems nowhere close to resolving it. The bill exists in two versions: a Senate bill Gov. Bob Taft supports and a House bill that Taft does not.

The justices made clear they're not interested in resolving the issue, said Andrew Morriss, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland who teaches a course on weapons law.

"The Supreme Court dumped it back in the hands of the Legislature. Both were waiting for the other to act first," Morriss said.

He said Justice Paul Pfeifer's eight-page opinion did little to dissect the ban, which lawmakers enacted in 1859 and the court upheld in 1920.

"The opinion does something that's unusual. It says firearms possession is a fundamental right, but we're not going to protect it," Morriss said. "The only hope for passing conceal-carry is for the House to accept the Senate bill."

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

There seems to be little chance of that. Among the House objections is the Senate's removal of a provision of law, known as an affirmative defense, that allows people arrested for carrying a hidden gun to prove to prosecutors or a judge that the practice is essential for safety reasons.

The Senate took it out at the request of law enforcement groups. The House wants it back in, said Rep. John Willamowski, a Lima Republican who chaired the House Judiciary Committee when it debated a concealed weapons bill two years ago.

Senate President Doug White, a Manchester Republican, said he won't appoint senators to a joint conference committee if it becomes clear the House changes will prevail, because Taft won't sign it.

The State Highway Patrol, which reports to Taft, dropped its opposition to the bill when the Senate removed the affirmative defense and allowed loaded guns in cars only when holstered in plain view or locked away. The House wants those provisions removed, but that would cost the patrol's support, along with Taft's.

White has said the House should negotiate a compromise with Taft, then bring it to the Senate, which likely would concur. He said he cannot find the votes for the two-thirds majority the Senate would need to override Taft's veto of the House-preferred plan.

Sen. Eric Fingerhut, a Cleveland Democrat who opposes any form of conceal-carry, said Taft made a mistake in throwing his support behind the Senate version so early.

"When governor caved in and said he would sign a bill under the pressure he's been under, that marked a turning point that's going to be hard to come back from," Fingerhut said.

Taft said he was only laying out conditions for his support.

"We're not involved in negotiating a compromise. We're spelling out very clearly the bar that this bill must meet in order for me to sign it. That (publicly supporting the Senate version) actually helped us to set that out very clearly," Taft said.

Willamowski and Speaker Larry Householder said the two chambers should negotiate the bill themselves, then take a chance on Taft.

"I don't understand why we've got to negotiate with the Highway Patrol," Willamowski said. "Let's put it on the governor's desk and find out where the governor's at."

Householder agrees. The Glenford Republican said he's got 67 votes in favor of the House version -- one more than needed to override*. He suggested that White should test the Senate's will to override Taft.

"It would be worth the exercise to find that out," Householder said.

Taft said he's not concentrating on the issue. He said he's busy trying to get Ohio's economy back on track and winning passage of job-creation ballot issue in November.

"We've got a legislative agenda and priorities that are different than the concealed-carry bill," Taft said.

Commentary:
There is a significant error in AP story, as there has been in recent stories on this subject from that news organization.

To state that the affirmative defense language was removed by the Senate at the demands of "law enforcement groupS" is incorrect. As we have repeatedly reported on this website and in media statements to the AP, both the BSSA and FOP want the language back in. Only the OSHP/Taft endorsed removal.

And while we disagree with the headline, and with Mr. Morriss' premise that the only option left is for the House to accept the Senate's "unsafe" (according to Sheriffs and FOP) amendments, the fact remains that it IS (and always has been) the General Assembly's duty to act.

In leu of that, however, the Court has just ruled that Ohioans have a right to self-defense via "open carry." Many Ohioans are likely to be arrested while trying to carry openly, as fellow citizens, unaware of the law, phone police to report a "woman with a gun." Some local municipalities try to limit this open carry right, and Ohio's improper transport law limits this right to "open carry" in one's personal vehicle. The net result is, the Court has removed one Constitutionality case off the table, and is likely to be replacing it with hundreds.

Click here to read the Associated Press story.

*The AP has this wrong - it takes 3/5 majority to override, not 2/3. 60 Votes in House, 20 in Senate.