''Plain sight'' just plain bad for Ohioans

Now that the dust is beginning to settle following the implementation phase of Ohio's new concealed carry law, people are beginning to settle in and examine the new law: Where is it working? Where are improvements needed?

Indeed, as OFCC indicated upon passage of the bill nearly one year ago, 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.

In an online poll being conducted by the OFCC PAC, one of the most-frequently identified problems OFCC members and supporters say needs attention is the "open carry in a motor vehicle" mandate.

We will begin to address how to move forward on making such improvements in the coming weeks and months, but when considering this specific problem, it is also important to take a look back at how the language made it into the law in the first place.

One of the most egregious changes made by the Ohio Senate in their version of HB12 (passed June 2003), 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.

At the end of the day, 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 (a complete recap of the battle can be found here).

But thanks to Bob Taft's insistence and a few term-limited Senators' unwillingness to override his veto, the OSHP was able to force in language that mandates that CHL-holders keep their firearms in "plain sight" while in a motor vehicle. This ridiculous provision, which exists no where else in the nation, has already created problems for Ohioans: