Editorial: Aim for a sensible concealed carry law

Note: the Conference Committee meeting, scheduled for the day this piece was first published, was delayed for one week due to the death of a former colleague. The committee will meet on Wednesday, November 19, and would do well to keep the ideas reiterated this Cincinnati Enquirer editorial in mind.

Click on the "Read More..." link below to read the entire editorial.

Cincinnati Enquirer
November 12, 2003

Ohio: Concealed carry debate

Today, an Ohio House-Senate conference committee is scheduled to begin reconciling differences between two versions of a bill allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms.

A contentious issue for nearly a decade, it has taken on greater urgency in light of the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in September upholding a poorly written, confusing law that leaves gun-carrying citizens in legal limbo and forces them to prove their innocence in court. The committee should work out the few remaining differences and get a reasonable bill to Gov. Bob Taft quickly.

Ohio is one of only six states that do not allow citizens to carry hidden weapons; 35 have right-to-carry laws, and nine have highly restrictive laws that do permit some citizens to carry.

A group of Cincinnatians sought to challenge Ohio's law in Klein vs. Leis. The case went to the Supreme Court, which chose to leave the existing law in place. The only way to find out if it's OK for you to conceal a gun for job or safety purposes is to be arrested and prove your innocence at trial - a backward process the court's majority somehow insisted is constitutional.

It is a perverse vision of what should be a fundamental right under the constitution. "This is as offensive as a statute allowing the arrest of anyone who speaks in public, but permitting the speaker to prove at trial that the speech was constitutionally protected," the dissenting justices wrote.

The court did recognize state lawmakers' right to regulate the carry of weapons. Now it's up to them to end the legislative stalemate. Taft hasn't helped the process. He's said he would veto a bill opposed by any of the major statewide law-enforcement groups. The Ohio Highway Patrol balked at the more permissive House bill, but was neutral on the more restrictive Senate version. According to the House sponsor, Rep. Jim Aslanides, R-Coshocton, progress has been made in working out the language, but two major issues remain:

• Guns in vehicles - The Senate bill says weapons in a car must either be holstered in plain sight or locked in a box or glove compartment, but must always be locked away in a car carrying persons under age 18. House members say that would give criminals the green light to go after cars carrying kids.

• Affirmative defense - The House wanted to make it easier for Ohioans without permits to claim they need a gun for their jobs or for personal safety. The Senate would eliminate an "affirmative defense."

As we've said before, whether the Ohio law is more or less restrictive than others is secondary to the need to institute a permit system that's fair, consistent and sensible.

Most other states, including Kentucky and Indiana, have crafted concealed-carry systems that balance the rights of individuals with the safety of society. They have done so in the past decade while decreasing, not increasing, rates of violent crime.

There's no reason why Ohio cannot join them. But first, it must remove the uncertainty and absurdity of its current law.

Click here to read the editorial in the Cincinnati Enquirer.