Federal gun law faces uncertainty in Ohio

July 18, 2004
Toledo Blade

Federal concealed-carry exemption affects off-duty, retired police

Despite passage of federal legislation giving off-duty and retired police officers the right to carry concealed weapons in any state, uncertainty remains about how the law affects some Ohio law enforcement agencies - including Toledo police.
The issue of what effect, if any, Ohio's concealed-carry law has on officers who carry weapons off duty has continued to be a topic of discussion among law enforcement personnel statewide.

Before the federal bill's approval by Congress on July 7, groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police rendered differing opinions on the state law. The Ohio Attorney General's Office is working on an opinion, and the city of Toledo's law department gave an opinion when asked by Police Chief Mike Navarre.

The federal legislation - which is expected to be signed into law by President Bush on Thursday - would override some states' prohibitions on carrying concealed firearms. Some states do not recognize other states' concealed weapons permits.

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

"This legislation will allow thousands of equipped, trained, and certified officers to continually serve and protect our communities regardless of jurisdiction and at no cost to taxpayers," said U.S. Rep. Randy Cunningham, a California Republican who was chief sponsor of the bill.

Toledo's law department issued an opinion that states Ohio law and the police department's directives indicate a Toledo officer may carry a concealed handgun while off duty inside the city. But the opinion indicates this authority would not necessarily apply to officers carrying concealed weapons outside the city.

"In such cases, the laws of the jurisdiction where the officer is carrying the weapon would apply. It would, therefore, be advisable for a Toledo police officer who desires to carry a concealed handgun outside of the City of Toledo to obtain a State of Ohio concealed carry license," according to the opinion.

The city law department did not return calls seeking comment on whether the federal bill would change their opinion.

However, Chief Navarre said from the synopses of the bill he has read, "it appears to me the issue locally will become moot with the passage of the federal law."

Lucas County Sheriff James Telb said the state's concealed-carry law hasn't changed his opinion on his deputies carrying off duty.

Off-duty officers "can carry them anyway in absence of the law," he said, adding he considers his deputies on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Dave Parker, chief ranger of the Toledo Area Metroparks and president of the Metro Toledo Criminal Justice Administrators Association, also said his policy for carrying off duty hasn't changed.

Like the sheriff's deputies, his rangers must qualify with the guns they carry off duty.

"I think [the federal legislation] allows for a very permissive interpretation for the right to carry for peace officers," Mr. Parker said. "I think the federal law conceptually is a good one. How it's implemented, we'll see."

Kim Norris, spokesman for the Ohio attorney general's office, said law enforcement officials still need to compare the federal bill to state law. However, she acknowledged that on the surface, it appears the federal legislation would override Ohio's concealed-carry law.

In a statement, the White House said the federal bill would protect the nation by ensuring officers are ready to handle an emergency regardless of their location and duty status and would help them better protect themselves and their families from "vindictive criminals."

Critics have said the bill could create problems, such as liability for actions by out-of-state or retired officers.

Toby Hoover, executive director of the Toledo-based Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, said the topic of off-duty and retired officers carrying weapons hasn't been a major concern for her group. However, she said, law enforcement should monitor itself.

"[Officers] are in no different danger than anyone else carrying. We are all human beings subject to stress. A person [with a concealed-carry permit] is trained to shoot a gun. An officer also is trained when not to shoot one. They are a couple steps ahead of the game," she said.

Commentary:
Instead of revealing her apathy about following laws she doesn't like, as she has been documented to do, in this article Hoover reveals her ignorance about the law, and about crime statistics.

Concealed handgun license-holders do indeed receive training on the appropriate use of deadly force, via the instruction booklet mandated in House Bill 12 and drafted by Attorney General Jim Petro.

Can police officers be trusted more than private citizens when carrying off-duty? Hoover thinks so, and thus displays her comlete lack of knowledge concerning crime statistics.

You see, nationwide FBI statistics prove that citizens with concealed handgun licenses are much less likely to commit crimes than are off-duty police officers.

Consider the following exerpt from 'Can Citizens Use Guns Competently?' by Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel:

Central to the idea that the police, and the police alone, should be privileged to carry defensive firearms is the presumption that the police possess abilities which are not possessed by licensed, trained permit holders. …However, scholarly research and police data both indicate that ordinary citizens are capable of using firearms competently for defense.

Whenever a New York City police officer fires a gun (outside of a target range), police officials review the incident. About 20% of discharges have been determined to be accidental, and another 10% to be intentional discharges in violation of force policy. In other words, only 70% of firearms discharges by police are intentional and in compliance with force policy. [168] In Los Angeles, 75% of shootings by police officers led to discipline of the officer or retraining because the officer had made an error. [169]

Many police officers work difficult, stressful jobs for many years. Ordinary citizens, if they find themselves under stress, can simply retreat back to their houses or apartments. If ordinary citizens are not trusted to carry handguns, how can handgun carrying be defended for a group of people who are under significantly higher emotional stress than ordinary people? Not only are police misuses of firearms in the line of duty common, police misuse of guns outside the line of duty is all too frequent. When an off- duty New York City policeman fires a gun, one time out of four the firing will be an accident, a suicide, or an act of frustration. [170] The rate of substantiated crimes perpetrated by New York City police officers is approximately 7.5 crimes per year per thousand officers. The number of New York police crimes alleged is 112.7 per thousand officers. [171]

Opponents of concealed carry can readily imagine hypotheticals of how an armed citizen might overreact to a particular situation; actual instances of over-reaction by licensed, trained citizens are rare, as we have detailed. But actual instances of police over-reaction are already well known. Anecdotal stories of police abuse do not provide a good reason for believing the police as a whole cannot be trusted with guns. And unsupported hypotheticals about what a licensed, trained citizen might do not provide a good reason for believing the citizens cannot be trusted with guns.

In general, police do not receive an amount of training which places them far above ordinary trained citizens. More typically, they receive a few dozen hours of training at the police academy, and may be, at most, required every so often to recertify their ability to hit a target. A deplorably large number of handgun-toting officers have not practiced marksmanship since they passed their firearms certification test as a police recruit. The amount of training which police officers have in defensive gun use rarely exceeds what a civilian could learn at a good firearms instruction academy. With the advent of inexpensive indoor laser target systems and high-technology video trainers for "shoot-don't shoot" programs, and the proliferation of civilian firearms schools, citizens willing to invest some time can be schooled in defensive firearms use to at least the same level of competence as the average police officer. [175]

This entire essay can be found in the OFCC PAC Education Guide.