OFCC Victory: Ding, Dong, ''Carjacker Protection'' Is Dead

Now that the dust is beginning to settle after the rapid-fire passage of House Bill 12 last week, people are beginning to settle in and answer the question: just what type of concealed carry law did we wind up with in Ohio?

In many respects, the answer is not all too pretty. There are many aspects which, by diminishing the number of licenses obtained, will lessen the downward pressure on crime, and which must therefore be fixed with future legislation.

But in a victory which contradicts critics like Senator Eric Fingerhut, who charged that the gun lobby was willing to accept anything to get a law, many are just now learning of some of the very best news about HB12 - the fact that Ohioans For Concealed Carry was successful in getting the now infamous "carjacker protection" provision, as well as the "off-person" provision, removed from language addressing how licenseholders may carry in motor vehicles.

Following is a history of these provisions, and for news on how our (your!) efforts were successful in getting them removed.

Taking the "reform" out of concealed carry reform

One of the most egregious changes made by the Ohio Senate in their version of HB12 (passed last June), was a provision that quickly became known as the lockbox, or "carjacker protection" provision. The language mandated that if a minor was present in the vehicle, a license-holder would have been forced to lock up their firearm, rendering it unavailable in an emergency, when seconds can mean the difference between life and death.

Senators had also added language insisting that licenseholders, even if alone in their vehicles, place their firearms "off of their person" and in plain sight while in a vehicle.

The most disgraceful part of these provisions was that no anti-self-defense extremist had demanded them. Nor were the provisions inserted to win any Senator's crucial vote. Rather, they were inserted only at the insistence of Gov. Taft and the Ohio State Highway Patrol.

At first they argued that a carry-in-a-car ban was necessary to protect the lives of law enforcement officers:

"We do not want a loaded firearm readily accessible to the driver of a car. If there's a dangerous situation and you're in your car, you can drive off." - Capt. John Born in the Columbus Dispatch, 2/16/03, explaining why the OSHP opposes allowing citizens to carry firearms for their own defense.

But when OFCC told Senators about a study by University of Georgia professor David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, backers of the "carjacker protection" provision were forced to change their tune. Mustard's study deals with the issue of risks to police from concealed handgun laws. His research indicated that concealed carry laws are the only gun laws associated with reduced police fatalities.

In order to promote their anti-self-defense agenda and convince Senators to adopt the amended language, Taft/OSHP resorted in an old, familiar trick: they claimed they were trying to save the kids.

Doing it for the kids

Senate leaders quickly jumped on board with Taft's save-the-kids excuse. Steve Austria, who chaired the committee which added Taft's "carjacker protection" provision in the Senate, testified on the floor that the language was necessary to protect children from accidents. "...Of all the changes made by the Senate, as a father, I am most proud of the work we did to ensure the safety of Ohio children under this bill." Senate President Doug White said "the bill as passed by the Senate gives law-abiding citizens the opportunity to protect themselves by carrying a concealed weapon, while protecting the best interests and safety of all Ohioans."

When commenting on Taft's "carjacker protection" provision, economist and research John Lott pointed out that "no other right-to-carry state has any remotely similar provisions on carrying guns in cars. I know of not one single case where a child in a car has been accidentally shot or shot someone else with a permit holder's gun. For that matter, I can't even think of a case where a child has been accidentally shot to death by a gun held by a permit holder. It is possible, but I would like them to point to one case." (emphasis added)

The Senate's Republican leadership had fallen into a clever trap, by adopting restrictive language designed to "prevent" a problem that does not exist anywhere in the nation.

The Taft Effect: How the "Carjacker Protection" provision would have endangered Ohioans

As amended in the Senate, HB12 would have created a situation in which vehicles with children could be profiled by criminals for attack, aware that the adult occupants of those vehicles are rendered defenseless by Ohio law. Precedent for this type of profiling exists in Florida, where tourists where singled out by criminals because that state's concealed carry law excluded them from the right to self-defense that Floridians enjoy.

This prompted us to ask: just what did these leaders, Bob Taft, and the OSHP have against innocent children? We didn't really think they intentionally wanted to further endanger kids, but their actions made it hard not to wonder.

Neither Taft, the OSHP, or the Senate provided anecdotal evidence to back up their claims of protecting lives by banning self-defense in a vehicle when children are present. Yet, as we pointed out at the time, a great deal of anecdotal evidence was available to prove the fact that this amendment was a very bad idea. Tragically, it wasn't long before more evidence presented itself in Ohio.

Man dies following OSHP Capt. John Born's advice

On August 5, James A. "Tony" Gordon, 27, of Dayton, was shot by a carjacker as his 13-year-old nephew, a passenger in Tony's collectible T-bird, watched. The car was stopped for a red light on North Main Street at Fairview Avenue when a gunman approached the driver's side, Lt. John Huber said.

"It's an innocent motorist who was robbed," Huber said. "The owner of the car, Mr. Gordon, tried to drive away and was shot for it."

What the media failed to point out (despite our repeatedly pointing it to them) is that Tony Gordon was killed trying to follow the "just drive off when attacked" advice of the Ohio State Highway Patrol. And they failed to note that even had the Senate's version of HB12 been law at the time of Tony's death, Tony could still not have been able to access a firearm for his defense, because his nephew was in the car.

Both the OSHP and Taft's office refused to comment on the Gordon carjacking.

Had the Senate's version of HB12 been allowed to become law, this tragedy would have become the sad legacy of the "carjacker protection" provision, to be repeated over and over and over.

Hardball

In the weeks following Gordon's murder, OFCC released a study entitled "Ohio - The Heart of All Defenselessness", which detailed the numbers of violent crimes in Ohio which were preventable via passage of a concealed carry law.

Soon thereafter, OFCC reported that both the Buckeye State Sheriffs, as well as the Fraternal Order of Police, disagreed with two car-carry restrictions demanded by OHSP bureaucrats. Yes, language inserted by the Senate, supposedly to protect law-enforcement, had actually set the two largest police organizations in the state against the provisions.

OFCC also carried the exclusive news that the BSSA and FOP had called for a law enforcement summit meeting with the OSHP in late September, in order to urge them to reconsider their stance on these two issues, which they deemed to be "unsafe". The OSHP at first agreed to attend, then backed out at the last minute, upon news that the Ohio State Supreme Court had ruled that a concealed carry ban was constitutional.

Gun ban extremists were quick to declare victory, not only with the ruling, but because they believed it would slow incentive for the legislature to act. But they soon realized they should have read the ruling a bit closer. The Justices had in fact ruled that Ohioans had a "fundamental individual right" to carry a firearm for self-defense (something the City of Cincinnati's attorney had argued against), and that the method for doing that in Ohio was to be determined by the legislature. Thus, they ruled, at present, open carry was acceptable, but that the legislature could change that if they wished.

That's when the Ohio Open Carry 'Defense' Walks began. In all, twenty Walks were held, including the Tony Gordon Memorial Defense Walk in Senate President Doug White's hometown. White, who had been refusing to appoint conferees to a committee on HB12, announced appointments two days later.

Behind the scenes, there were other signs that our efforts were having an effect. By early November, rumors began circulating that the OSHP had agreed with the Conference Committee to a compromise which would remove the language requiring the firearm to be "off-person" while in a vehicle, and would remove the "carjacker protection" provision entirely. And that's when Gov. Taft tossed his newly created, never-before-seen-in-five-years public records demand into the arena. Coincidence? Only those who haven't been following Taft's anti-CCW antics for the past five years could think so.

On December 10, just days after a 'Defense' Walk at the Governor's mansion, the House and Senate passed amended language which removed the "carjacker protection" and "off-person" provisions in vehicles, and which addressed the Governor's latest roadblock, while not meeting his terms completely. Although the OSHP was no longer opposed (a long-time MUST for Taft), the Governor insisted he would veto the bill if it reached his desk.

Term-limited Senators put themselves ahead of their constituents

Upon news of the veto threat, Speaker Larry Householder announced that he had the votes to override a veto. Senate President White, on the other hand, insisted that although 25 Senators voted for the bill, he did not have the 20 votes needed to override.

White, himself term-limited, explained that there were several term-limited Senators who were concerned that overriding Taft might hurt their chances of getting job appointments in the Taft administration.

And thus, Gov. Taft wielded power in the Senate which eventually led Speaker Householder to accept a compromise which would earn Taft's signature. On January 8, 2004, Governor Taft signed HB12 into law.

Reforming the Reform

In the wake of HB12's passage, Sen. Fingerhut said he expects gun advocates to immediately start trying to change the bill. On this point, Fingerhut is correct.

Many of the other amendments adopted by the Senate, and accepted by the House as a means of avoiding a veto, will result in reduced impact on crime and/or additional harm to Ohioans. OFCC plans to begin immediately to address the need for improvements to Ohio's concealed carry law, on issues such as:

• The compromise carry-in-car language discriminates against women, whose clothes often do not readily allow for a "holster to be worn on the persons' person" while in their personal vehicle.

• The long list of ''Victim Zone'' exclusions is bad for law-abiding Ohio citizens.

• The right of a law-abiding citizen to choose to carry a firearm for self-defense, without a license, when they believe they are in danger (affirmative defenses), has been stripped from all but the fraction of citizens. A temporary permit system was inserted instead.

• Multiple media outlets are conspiring to abuse the public records license-holder database. Law-abiding citizens do not deserve to be treated like convicted sex offenders.

• And on, and on...

At the same time, OFCC PAC will work to ensure that candidates more friendly to law-abiding citizens, and less concerned about job appointments, are elected to Ohio's Senate, while also working to ensure that the conservative pro-CCW majority remains strong in the Ohio House.