COLUMBUS (AP) -- The Ohio Supreme Court's ruling last week upholding the state's ban on concealed weapons sent a signal that it will be up to lawmakers, not the court, to decide whether Ohioans can carry hidden guns, a law professor says.

The problem for backers, though, is the Legislature has been struggling with the idea for eight years and seems nowhere close to resolving it. The bill exists in two versions: a Senate bill Gov. Bob Taft supports and a House bill that Taft does not.

The justices made clear they're not interested in resolving the issue, said Andrew Morriss, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland who teaches a course on weapons law.

"The Supreme Court dumped it back in the hands of the Legislature. Both were waiting for the other to act first," Morriss said.

He said Justice Paul Pfeifer's eight-page opinion did little to dissect the ban, which lawmakers enacted in 1859 and the court upheld in 1920.

"The opinion does something that's unusual. It says firearms possession is a fundamental right, but we're not going to protect it," Morriss said. "The only hope for passing conceal-carry is for the House to accept the Senate bill."

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

The fight to restore the right to bear arms for self-defense has always been about two key issues:

1) Allowing citizens the right to choose not to be a victim.

2) Lowering violent crime.

Amongst the recent Supreme Court and "Defense Walk" headlines, many Ohioans continue to be made victims by criminals who could care less about the fact that concealed weapons are illegal.

Cleveland:
Cleveland man killed outside his house

Columbus:
Columbus Police: Monday is worst day of the week for crime

Dayton Daily News:
‘Everybody’s mom’ found slain on E. Second St.

Mansfield:
5 violence deaths in 8 days have police scrambling

Toledo:
Man shot inside car on Dorr St.
more on same incident: Dorr St. shooting victim is a Toledo resident

and
Toledo police investigate 3 fatal shootings [2 more dead in their cars!]

(And we thought the "fundamental nature of a motor vehicle" made it so these attacks couldn't happen, OSHP Supt. McClellan??)

Robbery suspects caught 5 minutes after crime
Oregon police arrested two Toledo women who they say robbed a man and woman in the driveway of their Oregon residence.

Related Stories:
New Report Shows Ohio Violent Crimes Could Have Been Prevented

For 2 hours, Cincy's Northside was ''Safest Neighborhood in the State''

Columbus Dispatch
Lee Leonard
September 29, 2003

The verdict is in: Anyone who thought Maureen O’Connor, a former prosecuting attorney and member of the Taft administration, was going to be a get-along, go-along Ohio Supreme Court justice needs to re-evaluate.

O’Connor, ridiculed for pretending to be a sitting judge in a 2002 campaign commercial, demonstrated last week that her brief stint as a Summit County judge was no fluke; she is suited for the top court.

Whether you agree with her, O’Connor’s dissenting opinion in the concealed-weapons case was a well-researched, textbook example of how justices should rule based on law and precedent.

She was in the minority in a 5-2 decision, but her thoughtful opinion gave firearms advocates something to hang their hats on as the controversial issue shifts back to the legislature.

By winning a nasty campaign in 2002, O’Connor was the key to Republicans’ capturing a true majority of the high court. The GOP had a majority in party label only; Justices Andrew Douglas and Paul E. Pfeifer often failed to follow the party line, notably on the DeRolph school-funding case.

During the campaign, business and labor went head-to-head, with labor warning that if O’Connor won the court seat vacated by Douglas, ordinary citizens could forget about any kind of justice in their lawsuits.

Republicans fronting for O’Connor intimated that failure to elect her would free trial lawyers to win all sorts of outrageous damage claims, driving business out of Ohio.

Concealed gun ban protested with a march through Northside
The Cincinnati Post

NORTHSIDE - In a scene reminiscent of the Wild West, about 75 people paraded through Northside with handguns strapped to their sides Sunday.

Unlike the Old West, though, it was a modern-era media publicity stunt to protest last week's Ohio Supreme Court ruling upholding the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons.

Had protesters concealed their guns, they would have violated the law. But they openly and legally toted their firearms as they marched 1.4 miles on Northside sidewalks for about an hour.

Vernon Ferrier, one of four Cincinnatians who has filed a lawsuit against Ohio's ban on concealed weapons, was pleased with the march.

"It was a roaring success," he said. "There were no problems, and we got our message across. I think the state legislature will get our point.

"We promoted carrying concealed weapons, which is practical but illegal, by carrying weapons openly, which is silly but legal."

On Wednesday, in a 5-2 vote, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the legality of an 1859 Ohio law that said while there is a right to bear arms, "there is not a constitutional right to bear concealed weapons."

The decision overturned a ruling last year by Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman, a ruling that had been upheld by the Cincinnati-based 1st District Court of Appeals.

The state Supreme Court decision puts the burden on the state legislature if there is to be any change in the law.

Study backs hidden guns against crime

By JAMES DREW
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU CHIEF

COLUMBUS - For Lynn Wachtmann, Ohio’s failure to adopt a law allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns can be measured in flesh and blood, and the pain of crime victims.

"It’s heart-wrenching to see the number of Ohioans who are being victimized while some continue to play politics," said Mr. Wachtmann, a Republican state senator from Napoleon.

Mr. Wachtmann partially based his statement on research by David Mustard, an associate professor of economics at the University of Georgia. A gun rights group, Ohioans for Concealed Carry, hired Mr. Mustard to estimate what would happen if Ohio becomes the 46th state with a "conceal carry" law.

Mr. Mustard said he used 20 years of FBI data to analyze the "before and afters" in other states with carry conceal laws, and what Ohio could expect.

He concluded that crime would drop, with a monthly decline of three murders, 18 rapes, 29 robberies, and 96 aggravated assaults if Ohioans could carry hidden handguns.

"In the academic research literature, concealed carry laws are the only gun laws that frequently show reduction in crime," Mr. Mustard said.

"Once these laws are passed, they’re never repealed," said Chad Baus, a spokesman for Ohioans for Concealed Carry. "In fact, they are liberalized because people like having them. In Ohio, people can expect lower crime - and nothing else."

Although Ohio law bans citizens from carrying a concealed handgun, it does not prohibit them from carrying a handgun in plain sight - as long as they also comply with federal and local regulations, said Doug Cole, state solicitor for Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro.

Today, supporters of a conceal carry law in Ohio plan to strap on their handguns and march on the north side of Cincinnati.

"The ‘Defense Walk’ will offer Ohioans a visual display of the choice they have before them - openly armed citizens as dictated by current law, or a more subtle variety as suggested in the [conceal carry bill]," Mr. Baus said.

Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, said not enough detailed data is collected about those who get permits to carry concealed handguns to determine what would happen in Ohio.

Ms. Hoover said she and others don’t want people carrying handguns in plain sight or concealing them.

Commentary:
Sorry, Toby, but even the liberal Ohio Supreme Court, whose ruling you and yours just lauded as a victory, recognizes that our state constitution recognizes the right to bear arms for defense and security.

So which do you prefer to see next to you at the theater or the mall or the ballgame, Toby? Persons openly carrying firearms for their self-defense, as Ohio law currently suggests, or a more subtle variety, as suggested in HB12? And remember this - Ohio's "open carry" law requires no training, no background checks, no expensive fees. And it does not define restrictive "victim zone" exclusions where only criminals will carry guns.

Here's the news flash from Wednesday's ruling, Toby: you can't have it both ways. Your choice - the choice for all Ohioans and legislators: open carry, or concealed carry.

Suddenly interested in supporting HB12? Perhaps you might give Sen. Doug White a call, and your friend Bob Taft. Ask them to stop obstructing Ohio's CONCEALED carry reform bill. If you don't become a proponent of HB12, then, by default, you will be endorsing a much more liberal self-defense law than have we.

Click here to read the story in the Toledo Blade.

September 28, 2003
by Peter Bronson

The Left Coast Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals tried to ban "God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance and blocked the California recall election, claiming voters are too stupid to use punch cards. No wonder California's Clinton-Carter court is reversed 80 percent of the time by the U.S. Supreme Court - a record of boneheaded rulings exceeded only by the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Ohio Supremes declared the state's system of funding education unconstitutional, triggering years of useless litigation and billions in spending. Then when they found out they couldn't reach over the backs of the governor and lawmakers to run public schools, they issued another historic ruling: Never mind.

The Ohio Supremes got it all wrong again when they declared that school vouchers were unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court took a look and reversed the Ohio ruling like a teacher handing back a red-scribbled "F'' on homework.

This week, the Ohio court voted 5-2 to declare that the state ban on carrying concealed weapons is constitutional. Once again, they are out of step, out of date, out of excuses.

Click here to read the entire op-ed in the Cincinnati Enquirer, or click on the "Read More link..." below for an archived vesion.

A caller asked if she should dial something other than 911 to reach police.

Victim: "They have 'em at bingos and everything. Why aren't the here?"

By PATRICIA MEADE
VINDICATOR CRIME REPORTER

YOUNGSTOWN — When the city council president asked a police dispatcher if cops were responding to a robbery that involved a gun, the dispatcher said there was "no mention of a gun" for the call from East Philadelphia Avenue.

align="right">
However, an audiotape of 911 calls and police radio traffic obtained by The Vindicator shows the robbery victim, Susan Boyd, sounded terrified and was very clear at 9:36 p.m. Friday when she told the 911 call-taker that a "big silver gun" had been put to her face.

The 34-year-old mother of five also gave a fairly detailed description of the white-capped assailant and which way he ran — out her driveway toward Indianola Avenue, down Shady Run Road.

After a 911 call-taker receives pertinent information, it is passed on via computer to a police dispatcher, who assigns calls based on priority.

Police didn't arrive at Boyd's house until 46 minutes after she called for help. During that time, many of Boyd's neighbors also called about the robbery.

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

Pfeifer wins GOP nod - and nays

By John McCarthy
The Associated Press

COLUMBUS - Once again, the Ohio Republican Party has endorsed GOP Justice Paul Pfeifer of the Ohio Supreme Court. Once again, the vote was less than unanimous.

The party's State, Central and Executive Committee on Friday breezed through endorsements for Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, Justice Terrence O'Donnell and Toledo appeals Judge Judy Lanzinger for a seat that will be left open by Justice Francis Sweeney, a Democrat who is retiring.

But when the vote for Pfeifer was called, several committee members loudly said "no." Ohio party Chairman Robert Bennett then asked for a show of hands and the vote was 34-11, he said. The votes were preceded by a 45-minute closed-door discussion.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Must credit www.OhioCCW.org

For the past month, OFCC has been following an exclusive report that due to
Senate amendments to HB12 dealing with how one should carry a firearm, law
enforcement agencies in Ohio are not in agreement on Am. Sub. HB12.

On September 10, we reported that the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) had
accepted the invitation to attend an Ohio Law Enforcement Summit Meeting with
the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the Buckeye State Sheriff
Association (BSSA).

The meeting was held yesterday, but without the OSHP bureaucracy, who
backed out less than 24 hours prior to the event.

When calling to explain, OSHP Major J. P. Allen said he would not attend unless the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) were invited. (No such request had been made by the OSHP in the 12 days since they had first agreed to attend the Summit). The BSSA, who organized the meeting, said they'd be glad to phone the OACP to invite them, and promptly did so. The OACP leadership (but not most individual, local chiefs of police!) holds a baseless, extreme opposition to ANY concealed carry bill, and thus did not accept the invitation. The BSSA then phoned OSHP Major J. P. Allen again, to say they had invited the OACP, but that they had elected not to attend. Allen stated* that unless the OACP was sitting at the table, they were not willing to attend the Summit meeting.

So now we've come full circle. Sen. Pres. Doug White refuses to appoint conferees to Am. Sub. HB12 because he claims he doesn't have enough votes to override a veto (we have counted votes, and believe otherwise). Gov. Bob Taft threatens a veto unless the OSHP is neutral on a bill. The OSHP is now refusing to meet to discuss the UNSAFE language which they forced into the Senate's amended language, because the OACP is not at the table. Due to the failed leadership of a few Republican politicians, they're now trying to place the fate of your right to self-defense on still another doorstep.

Senator Doug White's refusal to appoint conferees until all sides agree is shameful. How can all sides agree when the only group insisting on dangerous language refuses to discuss their position?

The OSHP's stance is indefensible. It is apparent they know this, because they will neither discuss their position nor answer questions about gross errors in their February anti-CCW form letter, which has been emailed to interested Ohioans who contact the OSHP about their stance against self-defense.

Many have asked why so much emphasis is being placed on the opinion of a few
unelected bureaucrats in the OSHP. The OSHP and Gov. Taft claim that the OSHP makes more traffic stops than other law enforcement organizations do. In fact, in his latest position statement concerning his opposition to concealed carry reform, OSHP Superintendent Paul McClellan says "There are few agencies in the country that interact more with motorists than the Ohio State
Highway Patrol." But the truth is, the sheriff's 88 county offices make twice as many traffic stops as the OSHP. And local municipalities combined make six times the number of stops the OSHP does.

The Ohio Law Enforcement Summit meeting DID occur, and was attended by Ohio's two largest and most powerful law enforcement agencies in our state. Both the BSSA and FOP conferred as follows:

• Ohio's affirmative defense language, which pertains to persons discovered to be carrying a concealed firearm, and which was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court earlier this week, should NOT be removed from the law. Both organizations support and endorse the removal of this OSHP/Taft-inspired amendment, which not even one anti-CCW Senator (of which there are very
few) was asking for.

• Making citizens repeatedly handle, holster and unholster a loaded firearm is UNSAFE**. These unsafe practices would be mandated as a result of two OSHP/Taft-sponsored Senate amendments.

---> BSSA representatives offered the position that Gov. Taft's lockbox, or carjacker protection, provision should be removed, noting that they would prefer "that a license-holder retain the possession of the firearm on their person." The FOP agreed it would not oppose the removal of the lockbox provision in a conference committee.

---> BSSA representatives offered the position that Senate-introduced language requiring firearms to be stored "in plain view, off of their person in a motor vehicle" should be removed. The FOP agreed it would not oppose the removal of the lockbox provision in a conference committee.

**The OSHP stands alone as the only law enforcement agency in Ohio that has
endorsed these dangerous practices. And they cannot offer legitimate reasons as to why.

The OSHP's stated goal is to "enforce the traffic laws and promote safety on the highways". Since Ohio's major law enforcement agencies' critical safety concerns specifically deal with the language the OSHP demanded the Senate insert, the OSHP bureaucrats' refusal to come to the table to consider these agencies' concerns (whose combined forces make eight times the amount of traffic stops the OSHP troopers do) is negligence is of the worst kind.

The OSHP bureaucracy backed out of a law enforcement summit meeting it had agreed
to attend, and is now refusing to discuss their unsafe policies with Ohio's two largest law enforcement agencies, who represent all Ohioans, in all communities, all rural areas, all municipalities, all cities. As has been obvious from the start, the bureaucrats at the OSHP oppose this bill because of politics, and not facts.

So why IS Senate President White handing all legislative authority to the OSHP?
Rep. Jim Aslanides would like to know as well.

"It is the job of the Legislature to make law," said Aslanides. "The Senate needs to be pro-active in this matter. We, Ohio's elected representatives, are charged with getting the job done. It is time to make CCW the law."

Where are the pro-active Republican leaders in the Ohio Senate? When we informed Sen. White's office of the scheduling of an OH LEO Summit meeting, the communications director for the Ohio Senate Republican Caucus, Maggie Mitchell, told OFCC that Senate President White "supports any efforts that will get us a viable bill."

The LEO Summit meeting is an effort that could do just that. But will White call the OSHP Superintendent Paul McClellan, (the OSHP is 100% taxpayer funded - and the legislature writes the checks), and demand that they step to the table? A leader would.

Your continued voice of opinion to the OSHP, Taft, and your Senator may just
make the difference.

To express your own expectations to the OSHP (politely please!) as a taxpayer, call 1-877-7-PATROL. Emailing your thoughts to the Ohio Patrol Superintendent Col. Paul D. McClellan will only get you back a rhetoric-filled form letter. Finally, some may wish to to download an official OHP complaint form (.pdf file), which can be used to register an official complaint against troopers like Capt. John Born, who are putting lives at risk by telling persons that when attacked in their cars, they should just "drive off."

Click here for an official statement from Sen. Pres. Doug White, and for his contact information.

Click on the "Read More..." link below to read a letter from a retired law enforcement officer, who says anyone telling citizens that firearms are unnecessary in motor vehicles, apparently because they can be driven away from danger "is either completely tactically ignorant, lying, or both. In any case, they're certainly a danger to themselves, their fellow officers, and the public."

* Calls from OFCC to OSHP Major J. P. Allen for verification were not returned.

The Ohio University Second Amendment Club and Ohioans For Concealed Carry recently promoted an event at which John Lott, economist and author, spoke on that campus.

Lott's appearance was part of the OU Second Amendment Club's effort to raise awareness about the falsehoods and misrepresentations associated with Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine movie, which has been shown on campus television throughout the month of September.

After exhaustive but failed attempts to convince campus officials that director Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" film - which is under investigation for rules violations in association with his Academy Award entry - did not belong on campus television, the Second Amendment Club at Ohio University decided to promote an event on campus to ensure that the truth had it's say as well. Thus Lott's appearance.

Curt Winzenreid, Club President, reported that the event was well-attended - Rep. Jim Aslanides and other pro-CCW elected officials were in attendance. But there were a few empty seats - NO media, from campus or otherwise, accepted invitations to attend the event.

So Club members were more than a little surprised, two days after the event, to read an editorial in The Post, OU's campus newspaper attacking John Lott and condemning statewide concealed carry reform efforts. (There was STILL no mention of Lott's appearance on that campus just two days previous.)

Winzenreid's response, in the form of a letter to the editor, has been published in the campus newspaper. Click here to read it on The Post Online website, or click on the "Read More..." link below for an archived version.