Only Half Right: Pro-CCW newspaper editors call for Am. Sub. HB12 passage

Several traditionally pro-self defense rights newspaper editorial boards have recently published editorials calling upon passage of Am. Sub. HB12 (as amended by the Senate). While noble in their intent, it seems these opinions are based on a lack of familiarity with just how egregious the Senate's amendments are (especially the Taft "Car-jacker Protection" provision), and just how many more law-abiding citizens would be threatened with arrest and prosecution - and violent attack - as a result of the Senate's changes.

Going negative on affirmative defenses

The Marietta Times is the latest pro-CCW media outlet to join the "take what we can get" crowd*.

Some editors now contend that HB12 should not be held up over the Senate's removal of the legal right to choose to carry concealed, which is currently provided for under existing Ohio law. While we are appreciative of these newspapers' ongoing support for the self-defense rights of Ohioans, we continue to warn all interested parties against making the mistake of accepting Am. Sub. HB12 as a means of "taking what we can get". The bill's sponsor, Rep. Aslanides, has said that he is "not interested in taking away rights that citizens already have." We heartily agree, and wish there were a few more like him (and like Sen. Lynn Wachtmann) in the Senate.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry is part of a lawsuit which has been successful in getting the existing "affirmative defense" law declared unconstitutional. Some may now wonder why pro-self-defense groups are clinging to that same law as a must-have when it comes to passage of HB12. The reason is not because we like existing law. Indeed, we believe the only intellectually honest course of action the Ohio Supreme Court can take when ruling on the constitutionality question is to agree with the unanimous rulings from lower courts.

Banana Republic

Existing law recognizes a person's right choose to carry a firearm for self-defense. The intent of the legislators that originally passed it may have been to follow the constitution, but in practice it acts as a de facto ban. One of the most egregious and unconstitutional aspects of Ohio's current ban on bearing arms for self-defense is the fact that one is guilty of a CCW violation until proven innocent. That's why we sued.

If a person chooses to carry a firearm for self-defense now, and if they are discovered by law enforcement, the officer technically has the discretion on whether or not to arrest, or to send the citizen on her way. In testimony before the Hamilton County Common Pleas court, a witness for the Ohio Highway Patrol testified that they let people go like this all the time. Our attorneys proved otherwise.

The truth is, the most likely result from carrying concealed in Ohio today, for whatever reason, is arrest and prosecution. At trial, a person may assert an "affirmative defense", i.e. their reason for choosing to exercise their right, and a judge may drop the charges. Seneca Co. Judge Kelbley recently dismissed CCW charges against a rape victim who began carrying for self-defense, citing the law's unconstitutionality.

We believe any law which finds someone guilty until they prove themselves innocent should not stand. Three courts and five judges have unanimously agreed with us. So why the insistence in keeping the affirmative defense law on the books if Am. Sub. HB12 passes?

Because the intent for the Hamilton County lawsuit was to make the law less restrictive. Am. Sub. HB12 would be anything BUT less restrictive.

We didn't think it possible, but there is something worse than existing Ohio law

At the insistence of Gov. Taft, the Senate made Am. Sub. HB12 so bad that the law we sued to have declared unconstitutional would actually become the only stop-gap measure preventing tens and tens of thousands more Ohioans from loosing ANY right to choose to exercise their Article I, Sec. 4 rights.

Under Am. Sub. HB12 as passed by the Senate, no parent traveling with children under 18 could have a firearm ready-at-hand for self-defense if attacked in their vehicle. If they chose to break the law, deeming defense of their family as a greater priority, and if they were discovered by a law enforcement officer, the officer would no longer have any choice but to arrest them. And the penalty for the violation has been increased to a felony!

In addition, a person who, upon learning that their life is in jeopardy, immediately chooses to exercise their self-defense rights during the span of time it takes them to obtain a restraining order, would be arrested and suffer felony prosecution if discovered.

"Taking what we can get" = a larger, tougher unconstitutional CCW ban"

Marietta Times editors remark, "some want the existing law to stay on the books. We have to ask why. It makes sense to us that if the state legislature is going to pave the way for people to carry concealed weapons, everyone should have to get the required permit and the required training. It should be expected that responsible gun owners would do that anyway. We see no reason for the existing law to remain, leaving a loophole for some who didn't see fit to follow the law."

During deliberations in both the House and Senate, OFCC called upon legislators to reverse the burden of proof problem that exists in current law. In other words, we encouraged them to amend the Ohio's CCW law to more appropriately place the burden of proof on the state, rather than on the citizen. Had representatives in either chamber done so, and had the Senate not bowed to pressure from Bob Taft to insert his "Car-jacker Protection" provision (which would effectively paint targets on vehicles carrying children), then we would wholeheartedly agree with the Marietta Times that the unconstitutional affirmative defense law could be eliminated.

As Am. Sub. HB12 is written, however, and flawed as the existing "affirmative defense" law is in practice, the Senate's amendments, as dictated by Bob Taft and Ohio Highway Patrol, would serve to enforce an even more stringent ban on tens and tens of thousands of defenseless, law-abiding Ohioans. For that reason, we encourage Speaker Householder, Rep. Aslanides and the entire Ohio House to continue to resist pressures to pass Am. Sub. HB12 in it's current form. And we call upon the Senate to stop enabling Gov. Taft by it's refusal to form a conference committee to iron out differences before sending the bill to the governor's desk.

*Both the Findlay Courier and the Canton Repository have also recently called upon Speaker Householder to agree with the Senate's poor amendments, and to send Am. Sub. HB12 to the Governor. While we are appreciative of these newspapers' ongoing support for the self-defense rights of Ohioans, we continue to warn all interested parties against making the mistake of accepting Am. Sub. HB12 as a means of "taking what we can get".

If all we can get is a law which will grossly endanger families, and those who do not have time to obtain a restraining order when they realize they are in danger, then "all we can get" it is not worth taking. We are thankful Speaker Householder (and the House, which voted 94-5 against the Senate's amendments) agrees.

UPDATE!: On Friday, July 11, 2003, the Findlay Courier published a guest opinion editorial based on this story, by OFCC PAC Vice Chairman Chad Baus. The Courier is a consistent pro-self-defense advocate.

UPDATE!: On Wednesday, July 16, 2003, the Van Wert Independant published the same guest opinion editorial. The Independant is another consistent pro-self-defense advocate.