IMPORTANT NOTE: House Bill 347 has an effective date of March 14, 2007. Until then, the laws we have been laboring under for the past few years still apply.

Who voted for the veto-override in the Senate?

The question being, "Shall the bill, Sub. H. B. No. 347, be passed notwithstanding the objections of the Governor?"

The yeas and nays were taken and resulted - yeas 21, nays 12, as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Senators Amstutz Austria Carey Cates Clancy Coughlin Dann Gardner Grendell Hottinger Jacobson Jordan Mumper Niehaus Padgett Schuler Schuring Wachtmann Wilson Zurz Harris-21.

Those who voted in the negative were:
Senators Armbruster Fedor Fingerhut Goodman Hagan Kearney Miller D Miller R Prentiss Roberts Spada Stivers-12.

The bill having received the required constitutional majority, passed notwithstanding the objections of the Governor.

Can women now carry in their purse in a motor vehicle?

Yes. Once it becomes effective, Ohio law will now allow a CHL-holder to place their loaded handgun in a “closed case, bag, box or container in plain sight and has a lid, cover or closing mechanism with a zipper, snap or buckle.”

Can a handgun now be placed in a motor vehicle console?

This is another one for the courts. It depends on whether a container is a console and a console is a container. If so, then yes you can carry in a console. If a console is a "compartment" or something like that then no. Only time will tell. Generally speaking, it is a rule of
statutory interpretation that you look to the context of the surrounding
language to interpret things. /In Pari Materia./ Given the rest of the
sentence is talking about boxes, bags, cases etc, things that are not a part of a car, it is probably safe to assume that the courts will say
"container" means something other than a part of a car like a console.

Will HB 347 allow license holders the option to carry handguns openly OR concealed within their vehicle? Or, must handguns be totally hidden from view, in our vehicle?

The Law is entirely silent on "open" or "concealed" as set forth in H.B.347. Before our law just said "in a holster on the person and in plain
sight" and now it just says "in a holster on the person." A similar change was made to the locked box provision. The only thing that still
has any mention of "plain sight" is the new "purse carry" provision. Since it does not say OPEN or CONCEALED it is presumed that both
options are covered, which leaves the police no wiggle room.

For a further summary of the legislation, and to download a copy of the Act, click here.

The Associated Press is reporting that anti-gun Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson plans to waste tax-payer money in a legal challenge to the state's new firearms law preemption statute.

From the story:

Local laws include current assault-weapons bans in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Toledo.

Mayors were weighing their legal options after the vote, with Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson saying the city plans to file a lawsuit.

Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman said lawmakers are ignoring constitutional protections given local communities.

"We understand there's a difference between urban crime and rural hunting," said Mike Brown, a Coleman spokesman. "The constitution respects that -- the Legislature did not."

Three Senate Republicans voted against overriding Taft, and three Democrats voted in favor of an override, including the attorney general-elect Marc Dann.

From the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Dann said the reason for his vote hadn't changed from the reason for which he supported the bill when it passed the Senate last month. "Having contradictory gun laws all over the state doesn't make sense," he said.

That was the argument of backers including the Buckeye Firearms Association, Ohioans for Concealed Carry and the National Rifle Association, which defended the clause as bringing uniformity to a confusing array of local gun laws.

It is highly possible one of Dann's first acts as Ohio Attorney General will be to defend Ohio law against these mayors' baseless legal attacks.

Click on 'Read More' for the full story.

By Chad D. Baus

In an effort to staunch the bleeding of the anti-gun lobby in Ohio, and in anticipation of a Senatorial veto-override, the Ohio media conspired to publicize a poll at the same time as the override vote, purportedly showing that Ohioans did not support the move.

From the Quinnipiac University poll:

By a 54 - 35 percent margin, Ohio voters say it's a "bad idea" to give state government the power to override local gun control laws, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Results are similar among Democrats, Republicans and independent voters. Gun control laws should be "more strict," 35 percent of voters say, with 12 percent who say, "less strict" and 46 percent who say they're "about right."

..."Gov. Taft is the least popular governor in America," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, "so it is ironic that as he leaves office he has strong public support on two critical questions.

Taft has vetoed legislation that would allow the state to override local bans on gun sales and registration, and lawmakers are trying to override his veto.

"There is a clear consensus that Ohioans don't want to relax current gun control laws and don't want to roll back the tougher laws passed by some cities," said Brown.

...From December 4 - 10, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,027 Ohio voters, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

As with past opinion audits on the subject of concealed carry, the wording of the poll question had everything to do with the outcome of the poll.

Click on 'Read More' for complete details.

For Immediate Release: December 12, 2006

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today offered its congratulations to the Ohio State Senate for overriding anti-gun Gov. Bob Taft’s veto of concealed carry reform legislation, by a vote of 21-12.

In overriding Taft’s veto, Ohio has effectively become a state in which residents will enjoy the benefits of preemption, meaning that local governments can no longer adopt differing, and often contradictory, firearms regulations. CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb called the vote “a common sense move that will eliminate confusion among private citizens and peace officers.”

“We’re proud of the lawmakers, including Marc Dann, who will be the next Ohio Attorney General, and fellow Democrats Charles Wilson and Kimberly Zurz for joining all but three Senate Republicans in taking this sensible, courageous vote,” Gottlieb said. “This reform measure effectively overrides local gun bans in such places as parks, and it also will nullify local bans on certain firearms.”

“Equally, if not more important,” added CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, “this reform measure abolishes the absurd requirement that Ohio citizens who are licensed to carry concealed must have their guns in the open while driving. And the new law, which will take effect in approximately 90 days, contains some benefits for police officers, too.

“This victory would not have been possible without some dedicated grassroots work by the Buckeye Firearms Association and Ohioans for Concealed Carry,” Waldron noted. “And Senate President Bill Harris certainly deserves credit for his leadership in this effort. Passage of this legislation does away with the ridiculous patchwork of local ordinances that consistently, and deliberately, confuse law-abiding Ohio gun owners.”

“Ohioans, including apprehensive newspaper editorial writers, will soon realize what residents in other states have learned,” Gottlieb said. “State preemption that prevents patchwork adoption of local gun laws is not only reasonable; it is the responsible thing to do. Now all Ohio residents will know that whether they travel from Akron to Ashland, Cincinnati to Cleveland or anywhere in between, the firearms laws will be the same, and they won’t risk running afoul of some local regulation.”