June 22, 2004
Elyria Chronicle Telegram

When the state's concealed carry law went into effect in April, the Elyria City Council voted unanimously to ban the carrying of guns onto city-owned property, including parks.

Now the state Legislature is considering whether to pass a law that would support Council's decision. State Sen. Eric Fingerhut, D-Cleveland, is among those sponsoring a bill that would allow municipalities to say whether guns can be carried into their parks or any other outdoor areas owned by them.

As is, the law restricts people from toting their guns inside buildings owned by the state or any political subdivision of the state, such as a county or city. The state attorney general's office has said that local ordinances, such as the one passed in Elyria, are not valid and could be challenged by a citizen or group.

Parks are places where people gather for picnics, for softball games, or just to bask in the sun. Children play in the parks.

Dan White, spokesman for Ohioans For Concealed Carry, said parks are "some of the most dangerous places. A lot of them are [in] high-crime areas."

What kind of crime is White talking about? We might see a little vandalism in our parks now and then, but the vandals certainly aren't threatening our lives to the point we need to shoot them.

Is White saying that bringing guns into our parks will make them safer? If so, how? And if the parks are so dangerous, should we equip our children with guns before sending them out to play?

Guns are out of place in parks. There's no reason for citizens to have them there. A ban on guns in parks would be difficult to enforce, but at least it would send the message that there are some places guns just don't belong.

Passage of the concealed carry law already has made our city streeys more dangerous. The law allows anyone who passes a background check and a training class to carry a gun.

The proposed amendment to the concealed carry law is a good one. Cities should at least be allowed to protect those areas set aside for recreation and relaxation.

Commentary:
This newspaper was one of the first to list the names of CHL-holders as though they are social pariah. We haven't seen any streets made more unsafe since April 8, but apparently the editors have. Their observation skills seem somewhat selective, however.

Note, for instance, that the editors don't address the question of why Sen. Ray Miller's bill, which Fingerhut is supporting, is necessary in the first place, if the Elyria City Council can just pass a law banning guns anyways. What this city council has done is illegal. The law says so, the state legislature says so, and the Ohio Attorney General says so. And yet this newspaper champions such law-breaking, so long as they don't like the law that is being broken.

Furthermore, the editors should have done a bit of homework before ridiculing Dan White's comments about crime in parks. You see, he got that information on crime in parks from a solicitation of co-sponsorship that was sent out by the sponsors of the bill the newspaper is now championing.

Click here to read their memo on the subject, in which Sen. Miller states that "there are more than 6,000 misdemeanor and felony arrests combined, per year, in Ohio state parks. Though not defined specifically in terms of
municipal parks, the statistic highlights a disturbing situation and trend
of violence in the State of Ohio."

Surely the editors didn't realize they were arguing with the very people who sponsor the bill the claim must be passed!

True, children play in parks. True also that women are raped in parks, that the elderly are mugged in parks, and that people are murdered in parks. These people deserve the human right to choose self-defense in parks.

Finally, it must be tough to be Sen. Eric Fingerhut these days. Despite all his ranting, raving, and rhetorical doomsday testimony about what would happen if Ohio passed a concealed carry law, HB12 was indeed passed into law in January. The bill he is latching on to now, which seeks to repeal Section 9 of House Bill 12 - will never become law. And as far as his campaign against U.S. Senator Voinovich goes, we hear the most common response around Ohio to the question of "Voinovich or Fingerhut?" is "Finger-who?"

To get in touch with The Chronicle-Telegram, call The C-T toll free within Ohio at (800) 848-6397. Direct Letters to the Editor to letters@chronicletelegram.com.

---------------------

The Dayton Daily News also recently published an editorial on this subject, saying that "the gun lobby should yield, or be made to, on these kinds of restrictions."

Please keep the following position of the Ohio Attorney General's office, which can be found in a document entitled "Use of Personally Identifying Information" (.pdf), in mind as you read the following story:

Ask yourself as you read - what is the least bit "limited" about the actions of these newspapers, and the Ohio Newspaper Association?

June 21, 2004
Troy Daily News

Gun fight
Concealed carry triggers legal battles

Even as the Ohio Newspaper Association's open public records series has been running in newspapers across the state, the controversial Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) law that went into effect April 8 has begun to generate disputes.

Also, while a grassroots organization called The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (OCAGV) is fighting to keep in place the journalist exception amendment to House Bill 12 that allows media to obtain the name, county of residence and date of birth of those holding a CCW permit, the bill's author, Ohio Rep. Jim Aslanides (R-94th Dist.) said Thursday he is gathering ammunition to attempt to have it repealed.

Locally, Miami County Prosecutor Gary Nasal has been appointed as a special prosecutor by Shelby County Prosecutor Jim Stevenson to look into possible criminal violations by Shelby County Sheriff Kevin O'Leary and Sidney Daily News Editor Jeffrey Billiel. The newspaper published the addresses of concealed carry weapon permit holders in Shelby County. The addresses allegedly were part of the list that was received from the sheriff's office.

Language in the Ohio Revised Code regarding the specific information that can be obtained by the media states, in part "Upon a written request made by a journalist...the sheriff shall disclose to the journalist the name, county of residence and date of birth of each person to whom the sheriff has issued an emergency license to carry a concealed handgun." This language appears in section (B)(2) of Section 2923.129 of the ORC.

Both the ONA and OCAGV originally lobbied for the amendment to allow both public and media access to the records, which are maintained by the sheriff's office in each county.

Frank Deaner, executive director of the ONA, explained that when the bill was passed, the amendment was added for disclosure to media only.

"ONA had argued that disclosure should be for both the public and media. The intent of the law was not to keep the information confidential. Media can do what it wants with it. There is no censorship here. It fulfills a public service," Deaner said.

"From a newspaper's standpoint, there are two paths you could take," Deaner said. "You could decide to use it as a good source to check names against the list in certain cases that come up to see if someone has a CCW permit."

"Or you may publish the list to provide a public service by lettings the public know who is carrying," he said.

Aslanides doesn't see it that way. He maintains that disclosure is not a public service, and that printing a list of names is abusive.

"Much of the bill is about confidentiality. If an officer using LEADS (Law Enforcement Automated Data System) disseminates the information from the database, it's a felony. If a sheriff releases information from the applications, it's a serious misdemeanor," he said.
"The reason it's so important is there will be so few permit holders in Ohio that they want to remain anonymous," Aslanides said.

He said the reason given by journalists who lobbied for an exception was to be able to check to see if the system is working.

If someone gets a felony, they could check to see if he loses his permit, or check someone to see if they have a felony," Aslanides said.

"In order for the system to work, there needs to be a lot of applications - it;s a deterrent to criminals. They don't know who has one and who doesn't."

If printing names is to harass, it may discourage people from getting the permits," he said.

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

June 21, 2004
Columbus Dispatch

by Lee Leonard

You could stuff in a broom closet the number of folks who gave a hoot last week when Ohio’s newspapers complained about the lack of compliance with the public-records law.

Who cares that half the time a secretary will stall or flatout refuse a request to see a school superintendent’s salary or the minutes of the last board meeting for a public agency?

Well, the public needs to start caring, and not just because a few reporters and editors are trying to assert their rights under the law. Like it or not, certain records belong to the public. People ought to be able to read them and make copies, at cost, during reasonable hours.

We are approaching a crossroad on the issue of personal privacy vs. the public’s right to know.

Ever since 9/11, the government has been intent on retaliating and protecting American soil. A cabinet-level agency was established for the latter purpose, and new federal and state rules were devised, some of which inhibit the distribution of information. Investigations are kept secret and, in some cases, rights are suspended with the justification that terrorists don’t play by our rules.

The tug-of-war over information will not cease. There will be continual tension over the public’s right to know. But the possible ramifications must be examined.

Central Ohio’s Somali community was offended and astounded last week to learn that one of its members, Nuradin Abdi, was fingered by the federal government for conspiracy in terrorism after six months in secret captivity. Abdi was indicted on a charge of conspiring to blow up a Columbus-area shopping mall.

The government understandably wanted to learn more about Abdi’s past connections before going public. Having been flogged just last week for security failures involving 9/11, the government has to try harder to stay two steps ahead of the next terrorist attack.

One can speculate that the timing for releasing the information about Abdi was it to show that the feds are on the ball, protecting Americans. Should it have been done earlier? Should the terror-alert color-level be raised?

There’s no argument whether pressure is being felt by the Somali community, which now has to deal with guilt by association. Meantime, Omar Jamal of Minneapolis, an advocate for Somalis, accused the federal government of hiding behind the Patriot Act in the treatment of Abdi.

At the other end of the spectrum, advocates of concealed handguns saw their chance to make a point. Chad Baus of Ohioans for Concealed Carry noted that many store owners have been removing their "no guns" signs as they’ve seen that carriers could come in handy if there’s a holdup. He wondered if mall owners might now welcome permit-holders because of the terrorist scare.

The concealed-weapons folks won their right to carry by appealing to the sense of constitutional freedom in America. They envision a law-abiding citizen stopping a lawless terrorist from bombing a shopping mall.

We now see the difficulties we have in distinguishing between law-abiding Somalis and a Somali suspect. The same could be said of law-abiding citizens with guns and outlaws, except that one has a piece of paper qualifying him or her to pack heat.

Gun owners reluctantly accepted the requirement to get that piece of paper in exchange for the right to carry. But they objected to a provision in the law requiring sheriffs to release the names of permit-holders upon request of a news media representative.

There’s a delicate balance here in the age of terrorism. We need to be able to distinguish between friends and enemies. We need to protect our freedoms. But we also need to be sensitive to people who may be different, treat them with respect and avoid stereotypes.

The government should provide the people with the information that is theirs, and the news media should use the information responsibly, for example, by not inflaming feelings against Somalis or publishing the names of conceal-carry permit-holders without cause.

We are at a crossroads.

Lee Leonard covers the Statehouse for The Dispatch - lleonard@dispatch.com

June 20, 2004
Toledo Blade

I read with interest stories about bureaucrats in Toledo, Clyde, Arcanum, and other cities passing ordinances or rules banning concealed carry, in spite of a firm statement by the Ohio attorney general that their acts are illegal under Section 9 of House Bill 12.

Had the law-abiding citizens of Ohio acted as these city officials are, they would have begun to carry concealed firearms when HB12, HB274, or even earlier bills were introduced, instead of waiting until they were passed into law.

Furthermore, these bureaucrats constantly whine about being underfunded, yet seem quite willing to throw away taxpayers' dollars on certain legal expenses when they get sued.

This behavior is disgraceful.

CHAD D. BAUS
Archbold, Ohio

Although not specifically addressing CCW, two other recent letter writers highlight problems that effect CHL-holders. Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.