Monday, May 2, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Attorney General’s Office

COLUMBUS - Attorney General Jim Petro today defended the constitutionality of Ohio's concealed carry law against a challenge by the City of Clyde in Sandusky County. Petro intervened in the case, Ohioans For Concealed Carry, Inc. v City of Clyde, in the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, arguing Ohio's concealed carry law is constitutional.

The case stems from a challenge by Ohioans for Concealed Carry against an ordinance adopted by the City of Clyde in Sandusky County on May 18, 2004. The ordinance sought to place an additional restriction on the carrying of a concealed weapon in its city parks. Petro says this restriction is not contained in H.B. 12 (Ohio’s Concealed Carry law).

The City of Clyde defended its ordinance as a proper exercise of its home rule powers in Ohio, and challenges the State’s authority to enact concealed carry law that precludes regulation by local governments.

“We believe the Concealed Carry law is an issue of statewide concern that, much like a boating license, is a general law that would supercede this ordinance,” said Attorney General Jim Petro.

In the brief Petro argued, “If boat and trailer park licenses are matters of statewide concern in which state law prevents municipalities from enacting regulations because that regulation would necessarily conflict with the state regulatory scheme, then so too is Concealed Carry.”

Petro stated, “The licensing and carrying of a concealed handgun can be effectively addressed only through statewide regulation. The mobility of today's society accentuates the need for uniform regulation throughout the State of Ohio. Otherwise, licensed citizens would not be capable of carrying at all, because he or she would have to be aware of multiple, piecemeal regulations throughout the state. Concealed Carry should be legislated uniformly throughout the State as a matter of statewide concern.”

The Attorney General's Office stated H.B. 12 as a whole regulates the licensing and carrying of a handgun throughout the State of Ohio. For example, H.B. 12 . (R.C. 2923.125) creates a standard license to carry a concealed handgun in Ohio, and creates requirements that must be submitted to the sheriff of the county in which the person resides or the sheriff of any county adjacent to the county. Petro said H.B. 12’s sole purpose is not to limit municipal authority. When Section 9 is read with H.B. 12 as a whole, as directed by the Ohio Supreme Court, the Concealed Carry law sets forth a statewide comprehensive scheme of regulations regarding concealed carry.

Petro's office has helped carry out the many provisions of the law resulting in Ohio sheriffs issuing 45,497 regular licenses to carry concealed weapons, answered thousands of questions from citizens and from law enforcement, created and maintained new publications, a Web site, electronic databases required by the statute, processed criminal background checks, training and assistance to sheriffs to help fulfill obligations under the law. Petro has formalized reciprocity agreements with 16 other states.

Click here to download and read the entire brief in .pdf format.

Related Story:
Suit seeks the beginning of the end for local gun ordinances

WCPO.com reported Friday that lawmakers in the Ohio House of Representatives have passed House Bill 29, named for a local survivor of domestic abuse.

"Amy's Law" will make it tougher for first-time domestic violence offenders to get out on bond. The measure is named for Amy Rezos, a Liberty Township woman whose husband tried to kill her three times. The bill now goes before the Senate.

The subject of protecting domestic violence victims is one that quickly comes to mind when discussing the Media Access Loophole. Some of the same Representatives and Senators who are supporting Amy's Law are the ones who continue to struggle with understanding why publishing CHL-holders' names in the newspaper could prove dangerous.

Consider the following recent dialogue between OFCC and a proponent of open records:

Question: I've heard the argument that an abused ex-wife want to keep it quiet that she is carrying a concealed weapon. But what about the abused ex-wife who wants to know if her ex is packing?

Answer: It's actually more common to hear from people who want to keep their location a secret, not that they are carrying. People who are trying to hide from an abusive spouse or stalker cannot afford to have their name, country of residence and birth date published in the newspaper or made available as a public record. That is MORE than enough info to definitively locate a person using the Internet.

Also, it is completely naïve for the abused ex-wife to believe she CAN know her ex is carrying a firearm if these records are public, because countless criminals carry illegally and commit crimes with their illegally-possessed/obtained/carried firearms every day. Amy Rezos' husband didn't get a CHL. How could public records have helped her in the slightest? This is similar to the gun ban lobby claiming people have a right not to be around people carrying hidden guns. Don't they read the crime blotters? Who do they think they're kidding? At best, public records helps citizens know the identities of all the "right" people who are carrying, but does NOTHING to help ID the criminal predators among us.

One other concern for publicly announcing who is carrying is that it defeats the element of surprise for anyone who bothers to check their target before they plan an attack. If a woman like Amy Rezos gets a CHL and carries for protection, do you think printing that information in the paper is a good thing? Is she more or less safe if her attacker (or hit man) knows she is armed? Give this knowledge to her attacker, and the element of surprise is removed. Any attack plan will simply be modified into an ambush plan.