Supreme Court candidate provides inside look at Constitutional "modernization" panel's attempts to "clarify" the right to bear arms

Editor's Note: In the summer of 2014, Buckeye Firearms Association became aware that an obcure commission was considering "modernizing" Ohio's constitution when it comes to the right to bear arms. We provided a number of articles on the subject (see here and here and here) which were intended to shed a great deal of light on workings of this commission. The following, written by one of the commission's members, provides an inside look from a man who worked to keep Article 1 Section 4 exactly as it is.

---

“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security....”

Article I, Section 4, Ohio Constitution.

As a member of the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission [OCMC] and the only judge on that important body, I have been mindful of changes that might limit our citizens’ individual rights. The right to bear arms has been no exception.

I sit on the Bill of Rights and Voting Rights Committee [BORC]. When that committee first assembled, no one voiced any push to alter or even discuss the wording in Ohio’s Constitution on that subject. The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Article I, Section 4 creates a fundamental right to bear arms.

It all really started at a May 2014 BORC meeting. The chair took a straw vote to see whether the committee members thought Ohio should retain, as currently written, Article I, Section 4, which guarantees the right to bear arms. That section simply reads: “The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security....” However, despite this straw poll showing no real interest in changing the wording, this specific provision was not immediately placed in the list of bill of rights sections which would be immediately analyzed and sent to the full OCMC without change.

During the next meeting in June, after considerable discussion, some members of the BORC asked that a comparative analysis of similar provisions in the 50 different states be included. So a young member of the legislative staff did a lengthy memorandum comparing the right to bear arms in all 50 state constitutions. The memorandum showed that Ohio’s provision is similar to many of the other state’s right to bear arms provisions, especially the provisions in the state constitutions of Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. However, not all 50 states have such provisions. According to that report, the states of Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York have no specific state constitutional provision specifically protecting the right to bear arms.

After the report was completed, the subject of the right to bear arms was again raised. But for the first time I heard some questioning or some possible opposition to approving the provision as written, despite the detailed analysis provided of the other states’ constitutions and the earlier straw vote. Notably, at that point, we had heard no testimony, nor any controversy, concerning the language of that section. So to avoid any vote at that time on any possible change or alteration to this fundamental liberty right found in the Ohio Constitution, I immediately made a motion to table or postpone further consideration of a word change to a later time. State Senator Bob Peterson and State Rep. Ron Amstutz both seconded the motion and the motion to table passed.

The right to bear arms came up yet again at the September 11, 2014 meeting of the same Committee. I argued, during a lengthy discussion, the need not to change a word. Many members of the Committee agreed with my argument and spoke eloquently to retain the current language as set forth in the current Constitution. Many others and I made motions to retain the current language. This vote was the so-­called “first step.” But, under OCMC operating rules, every committee must go through a lengthy reading process on several occasions, and have it ‘read’ publicly, before a final vote can be taken. Technically, the amendment protecting the right to bear arms was still in play.

At the meeting of the BORC in December 2014, a first official reading or presentation of the Committee’s formal report and recommendation on Article I, Section 4, was made. Thus we had to wait for yet another meeting in which to vote for final approval and recommendation.

Finally, on February 12, 2015, the Committee listened to the second formal presentation of the report and waited for any public comment. I encourage those with interest in this topic to read the report, which sets out much of the history of the amendment in the State of Ohio. No one offered to speak against the current language of Article I, Section 4.

And, at last, in March 2015, the time to vote on the report was on:

“The motion was made by Judge Fischer and seconded.... It was then approved by unanimous vote of the Committee.” Hence the BORC recommended to the OCMC that maintaining Ohioans’ right to bear arms remain unchanged in the state constitution, and the whole Commission agreed.

The process had taken months and months, and the right to bear arms was unimpaired. The entire process had been delayed by some wanting to discuss the issue further, which is exercise of another right, that of free speech.

And thus, I probably became the only judge alive, and only candidate for the Ohio Supreme Court who ever cast a vote to keep the right to bear arms
in the Ohio State Constitution.

The work of the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission is important. There are aspects of the state Constitution that should be culled, modernized, or changed. The committee decided the right to bear arms is not one of them.

Judge Patrick F. Fischer was first elected to the Ohio First District Court of Appeals in November 2010. He is currently seeking the Republican party's nomination for Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.