Concealed Carry In Ohio.....

[UMB]

There is an ongoing effort by some to pass some sort of legislation to permit concealed carry in the state of Ohio. Other than the governor, some of the police and particularly the Ohio Highway Patrol object. They state that the possibility of having drivers armed would put them in danger.
 In the last few months I've been pulled over once by a Patrolman for a warning and once by a county Sheriff for speed. On both occasions, out of the clear blue sky each officer said something like" We never know when someone may have a loaded gun in their car".  These coments were made right along with things like "Seat belts save lives and Speed kills".
 I wonder ..... is there something going on here with law enforcement here in Ohio trying to sway opinion while they're out there to enforce the law? I wonder! If you've ever driven through Ohio you probably are aware that our Highway Patrol is more visible than in most states around us. This may just have gone a little too far.
 It's something to think about. Any one else in Ohio heard these coments when talking with law enforcement officers?

[Mikey]

UMB:  being from NYS I haven't ever experienced that problem.  I think our NY State Troopers know full well that if they ever needed backup or assistance and none of their fellow officers were around to help, that the armed citizenry would fall out in mass to help them out.  

I get the indication that your State Police are either sadly, and badly, mis-informed, trying to play politics, or the type of people who feel they should control people, not crime.  Either way, it is their loss.  Any Police force that alienenates itself from the people it is supposed to 'serve' finds itself at a terrible loss when the need arises to count on their support, and that is the tradegy.

I have been licensed to legally carry concealed weapons in NYS for over 35 years.  I have been stopped bunches of times for normal routine stuff, not for breaking the law.  I have never been asked if I have a gun in the car.  I don't post NRA stickers or Support Your Local Police banners on the car, so there might not be any indication that there are guns around or invitations to someone to bust my windows looking for one.  Even when I have been coming back from the range and have rifles or shotguns, in guns cases in the back seat, with all sorts of shooting stuff all over the back seat and in plain sight, and have been stopped, the question has never arisen.  

There is an agenda here, alright, but one item on that list should be providing information to your Police forces on the benefits of supporting an armed citizenry.  It sounds like your Police have been informed by the likes of schumer and klinton.  Lord help'em.  Mikey.

[msmith]

I hope that it will eventually pass. Living right on the border and frequenting Ohio quite often, I would like to get a non resident license if they will offer it. I used to travel the Ohio side of the river but find myself avoiding Ohio altogether anymore because I am usually carrying.

[coltfan]

UMB: After reading your post, I can’t help but wonder how much of the police support for not allowing concealed carry is actually tied to the political ambitions of some of those police chiefs, especially in the case of the highway patrol. I’m not familiar with the inner workings of the specific departments involved in your situation, but I would think that the highest ranking officer for the Highway patrol, chief or whatever title this person holds, might be appointed by the Governor, or at the very least would be closely tied to the politics of the governor. Even some of the higher-ranking officers of local departments may base their decisions on their aspirations for life after retirement. I had a neighbor who was a retired Pennsylvania State Trooper. After retirement from the State Police he worked for the local county district attorney’s office. I would be willing to bet that politics helped him land that position. I do recall him telling stories of how regimented life in the State Police was when he joined (circa 1948) and wonder if the same might hold true today. This could also account for the lower ranking officers not wanting to break ranks with the department’s “official position”.

Looks like the governor's opinion might carry too much weight to overcome. Ohio might have to wait for a more "gun friendly" governor to take office, to get this legislation passed. Good luck.

[jcsabolt2]

I found the article in the Springfield News-Sun while cruising their site.  They also had a very good editorial this past Sunday (6-29-2003).

According to the first article, Sheriff Gene Kelley is all for the the CCW law.  However, I don't like the provision that you have to have it locked in the glove box or in plain site while driving.  I'm afraid if I were to be pulled over and a cop saw a handgun on the seat adjacent to me I'd be S.O.L.  I think carrying a firearm like that in an automobile is just screaming for trouble and cranking up the heat on a situation where there is no just cause in it.

[Mikey]

Fellas:  I believe a lot of those Police Chiefs who advocate gun bans are tied closely, politically, with the ruling demicraptic parties that don't like or can't stomach the notion of an armed citizenry capable of defending itself, especially against 'agents of the law' that would seek to confiscate thier guns.  

You read a lot about the 'average joe in blue' who supports gun rights but he or she isn't the politico in a chief's uniform who is looking for his own public agenda.  And even if an individual officer did believe in gun rights, he isn't going to refuse to perform his job when told to do so, so you must consider them an adversarial element.

In fact, and regrettably, I think we just need to factor the Police out of the arguement and go on the legal merits and rights of lawful gun ownership.  After all, even a cursory reading of the Constitution of the United States adequately demonstrates that organized law enforcement was never authorized.  Personal protection was always the right of the individual and those who capitulated to give that right away to organized law enforcement,  lost that right.  Just my 2 cents.  Mikey.

[Ron T.]

The 2nd. Amendment of our Constitution states that "... the RIGHT of the People to keep and bear arms shall NOT be ABRIDGED".

"Abridged" = "interefered with in ANY way".

Yet, there are HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS, of "laws" on the books across the USA that "interefer with" or ABRIDGE the RIGHT of honest, law-abiding citizens to "keep & bear arms" including their "right" to carry concealed weapons which is included in the "BEAR" part of "keep and BEAR arms.

Since the U.S. Constitution is the "law of the land" and the 2nd. Amendment is part of that Constitution, and no local or state laws can defy the Constitution... ANY law which, in ANY way, "interferes with" an honest citizen's RIGHT to "keep and bear arms" is ILLEGAL and should be removed from the law books.

The additional requirement that forces an honest, law-abiding citizen to obtain a "license" from the State in order to be able to exercise his or her Constitutional RIGHT to "bear arms" by carrying a concealed weapon also ABRIDGES our right to "keep and bear arms"... and are, thus, illegal "laws".

Therefore, a "law" requiring honest, law-abiding citizens to get a "permit" to carry a concealed weapon (something they ALREADY have the RIGHT to do under the 2nd. Amendment) is a SECOND "abridgement" of the 2nd. Amendment.

The FIRST "abridgement" was the law which initially made it illegal for honest, law-abiding citizens to exercise their RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms which INCLUDES concealed carry.

Also note that there is a "fee" (aka "tax") attached to Ohio's proposed "shall issue" law for CCW.  This "fee" is also an ABRIDGEMENT of our right to "keep and bear arms" since, like the Poll Tax of the old South which was struck down as "illegal", it is a government "tax" on citizens who are attempting to EXERCISE their RIGHT to "keep and bear arms"... just as the Poll Tax attempted to "tax" citizens who were attempting to exercise their RIGHT to vote.

As you can see by following the "chain of illegal laws"... all of the above government restrictions (aka "requirements" or "laws") "ABRIDGE" the 2nd. Amendment and are, therefore, illegal laws and should NOT be obeyed.  

Peaceful civil disobedience is a most accepted way to challenge and eventually change illegal or questionable laws and has been used since the very birth of our Nation in that capacity to accomplish the removal of such illegal laws.

Give a politician an inch... and they'll try to take 1,000 miles.  Politicians have passed these laws over the years and these laws have not been properly challenged.  It is time to put this question to rest by FORCING the States to start OBEYING the 2nd. Amendment by recinding all restrictive State anti-gun laws which are in direct conflict with the 2nd. Amendment of our United States Constitution.

Anyway... that's my  :money:  worth...


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.