Plain Dealer editorialists find Ohioans they DON'T want to disarm

July 27, 2004
Cleveland Plain Dealer

Don't disarm police anywhere

Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro issued an opinion last week that defines the places where off-duty officers may not legally carry a concealed weapon.

The ruling is welcome only in that it clears up confusion as to whether police officers are subject to the same restrictions civilians face when it comes to carrying concealed weapons.

Petro says the same rules apply to all, which is fair, but is it wise?

The attorney general's ruling is likely to prove problematic because it strips officers of access to their firearms in places where they might be needed.

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

Many police departments consider their officers to be on duty 24 hours a day, so to deny these officers full access to their weapons compromises their ability to protect and serve as fully as their superiors and their fellow citizens expect.

Civilians licensed to carry concealed weapons may not bring them into bars, schools, courthouses or on private property where restrictions are posted. That is defensible.

But to similarly restrict police is to ignore what should be an obvious distinction: A private citizen may carry a weapon for his own protection, but a law officer carries his for the protection of all. If citizens are required to be unarmed in certain settings, they have a right to expect that policemen in the same setting will be armed in order to protect them.

"Our police are always on duty, and they should be allowed to carry a gun," says Parma Mayor Dean DePiero, who as a legislator unsuccessfully sponsored a bill to let officers carry guns in establishments that serve liquor.

Petro has interpreted the law as he reads it, but that should not be the last word on the subject. The legislature should modify Ohio's gun laws to permit those officers always considered on-duty - even when out of uniform - to carry their firearms. It's a matter of public safety.

Commentary:
Attorney General Petro's finding that off-duty officers face the same restrictions as permit holders in motor vehicles, "gun-free" zones, etc. has certainly produced some unlikely proponents for improving House Bill 12.

Ohio's law enforcement officers are now about to experience just what it is like to have to attempt to observe the provisions inserted by the Ohio State Highway Patrol and Bob Taft. At every step of the way during the lobbying phase, the Plain Dealer supported these egregious restrictions.

The twisted logic that law-abiding citizens deserve armed protection in gun-free zones where they are disarmed admits two principles that Plain Dealer has ever-before denied:

1) Citizens deserve the right to self-defense.

2) Danger does not stop threatening at the threshhold of a "gun-free" zone.

The Plain Dealer has it half-right - reforms ARE needed. But the reforms should benefit everyone.

We understand that, due to certain liberal law enforcement groups and other factors, there is a perceived chasm between law enforcement and the general population. OFCC is committed to closing that gap. We also believe that law enforcement officers and private citizens largely share the same goals.

One of the ways to start closing the gap is to end the preferential treatment afforded to any group/entity. If private citizens and law enforcement officers are asking for the same changes, the law will be improved much sooner.

Related Story:
Petro: Off-duty officers must obey ''plain sight'' requirements; certain others