We often point out that the debate over reforming the concealed carry laws
in Ohio should not be this difficult, given the experience in 44 other
states. But the truth about banning legal self-defense was known far before
Bob Taft and other "enlightened legislators" took their try at "remedying
evils."

The founder of criminology, 18th-century scholar Cesare Beccaria of Milan, once wrote:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty — so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator — and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson (another 18th century scholar and politician from whom Taft could learn much) enjoyed these observations - they are quoted in his "Commonplace Book."

align="center">

Those who are currently standing in the way of passing true concealed carry reform in Ohio are fond of saying that despite doubling the size of the House version of HB12, the Senate's laundry list of terrible amendments still produced a bill that is "similar to other states' concealed carry laws" - Sen. Doug White.

At the very center of the HB12 battlefield is the issue of allowing citizens defend themselves in their personal vehicles.

OFCC has been warning Senators for months to resist efforts by Taft and the OSHP to restrict self-defense in vehicles, since it would effectively gut the bill. But they chose to put politics ahead of safety.

So do other states restrict carry in a car for CCW license-holders, as Senate leaders have suggested in floor debate?

NO.

In fact, quite to the contrary, 20 states allow a loaded handgun in a car without any license whatsoever (including Kansas, which like OH does not issue licenses).

25 states allow CCW in cars with a CCW license.

Only five states do not allow self-defense in a vehicle for anyone (all five have effective bans on any CCW, not just in cars, and one of the five is, of course, Ohio).

Click on the "Read More..." link below for a synopsis of state laws regarding carry of a loaded handgun in a vehicle as reported by J. Scott Kappas, Esq. in the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States." 2003, 7th edition.

National Review Online
August 13, 2003
By John R. Lott Jr.

After a city-council member was recently killed at New York City Hall, Mayor Michael Bloomberg questioned why James Davis, the murdered councilman, would want to carry a gun. Davis, a retired police officer, had a permit to carry a gun, but Mayor Bloomberg found it very troubling: "I don't know why people carry guns. Guns kill people…"

Bloomberg's new solution: Ban off-duty and former cops from being able to carry guns in city hall. Davis was blindsided by the attack and was unable to use his gun to protect himself. The attack was stopped by an on-duty police officer. Yet, it is hard to see why it is possible for New Yorkers to trust an on-duty officer but somehow minutes after he goes off-duty to no longer trust him.

It would seem that the ban has only one possible outcome: Criminals have less to worry about. In these "gun-free zones," fewer people can act to defend themselves and others. Nor is there a significant benefit from only having uniformed officers. If these killers want to attack, they need only wait until the uniformed officer leaves the area or otherwise make sure that officer is the first person whom the killers attack.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for the entire piece.