Skip to comments.

Posted on 09/04/2001 9:07:29 AM PDT by Deadeye Division

Police barricade

The Ohio FOP remains opposed to the House's concealed weapons bill

By Dan Williamson
Capitolgate Statehouse Reporter
dwilliamson@capitolgate.com

You can excuse supporters of House Bill 274 for thinking they had a shot at defusing opposition from one of the predominant police organizations in the state.

House Republicans have held out hope that the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, which represents more than 24,000 full-time officers, could end up staying neutral on H.B. 274, the concealed-carry legislation being considered by a subcommittee of the Civil and Commercial Law Committee.

Traditionally, police organizations have supported gun control legislation and have been wary of efforts to liberalize existing gun laws.

The Ohio FOP, though, has dropped hints it could refrain from taking sides. The organization’s position statement on the matter says that “some citizens believe they need to carry a concealed deadly weapon to feel safe working and living in our society. As a law enforcement organization with over 24,000 members in the state of Ohio, we do not oppose this ideology.”

However, a lobbyist for the Ohio FOP said Friday that proponents of H.B. 274 should not be encouraged by that statement.

“What we would not oppose is not even close to two seventy-four,” said Mike Taylor, the Ohio FOP’s state secretary and legislative chairman.

Taylor said H.B. 274 has a number of deal-breakers for the FOP: it would allow someone convicted of a misdemeanor to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon; someone who was the subject of an arrest warrant—for parking tickets, for example—could legally carry a weapon; and the training requirements included in the bill are unsatisfactory.

“They like to say there’s training. That’s not training,” Taylor said. “You don’t have to show at any time that you don’t know how to safely handle the weapon.” He thinks any concealed-carry law should mandate training closer to what police officers go through, along with an annual refresher course.

“It’s a lot more to it than pointing it at a target twenty feet away and shooting at it,” Taylor said.

H.B. 274 is expected to undergo changes before the full House has an opportunity to vote on it. Rep. Ann Womer Benjamin (R-Aurora), chairwoman of the H.B. 274 subcommittee, said last month she expects her panel to devise a substitute bill to be recommended to the full civil law committee.

The FOP knows this, but Taylor said he expects the substitute bill will be further away from what the police would like to see than the original version.

“The flavor I get is that the substitute bill will be less restrictive,” Taylor said.

He’s not the only one getting that flavor. The leader of Ohioans for Concealed Carry, an organization that has been at the forefront of the opposition to H.B. 274 all summer, is hopeful the new version of H.B. 274 will be less restrictive.

Since the subcommittee began meeting in June, Ohioans for Concealed Carry members have been attending subcommittee hearings decked out in blue denim shirts decorated with fluorescent stickers indicating their preference for House Bill 225—a no-holds-barred approach to concealed-carry.

But at the most recent subcommittee meeting, Aug. 15, the fluorescent stickers were notably absent from the blue denim shirts. Jeff Garvas, founder and leader of Ohioans for Concealed Carry, had ditched his blue shirt for a jacket and tie.

Garvas had met earlier that day with Benjamin and two other H.B. 274 supporters, Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati), another subcommittee member, and Rep. Jim Aslanides (R-Coschocton), the bill’s chief sponsor. The meeting had given him a new outlook, Garvas said at the time, and his organization would now reevaluate its position on H.B. 274.

The next day, the group was slammed in a joint statement distributed by five other hard-line groups. The press release dismissed Garvas’s group as a “minor pro-gun organization.”

“Without getting a single legislative concession and without consulting the membership, Ohioans For Concealed Carry sold out the membership just to cater favor with the politicians who support H.B. 274,” said a statement attributed to Jim Ramm, a representative of the People’s Rights Organization and the Ohio Constitution Defense Council.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry responded last Wednesday with a press release of its own blaming “misleading reports” for the confusion on its position.

“We have not changed our position on House Bill 274,” Garvas said in an interview. “We remain opposed to the bill as introduced.”

That said, Garvas didn’t rule out the possibility that his group will support the substitute bill, once the new version is introduced.

“The subcommittee members are being much more receptive to our concerns than they have been,” he said.

Although, Womer Benjamin herself said Aug. 15 she didn’t expect “major substantive changes” to H.B. 274, Garvas said the chairwoman took a softer approach in the private meeting.

“I think that that was misleading,” he said of Womer Benjamin’s earlier statement. “I think the public face versus the behind-closed-doors face is different.”

Womer Benjamin was unavailable to comment last week, but her legislative assistant, Laurie Peacock, said the chairwoman is open to ideas from Ohioans for Concealed Carry.

“We’re willing to definitely listen to their concerns,” Peacock said. “My boss is especially. They have some great suggestions on a couple of the points within the bill and we are definitely looking at those.”

Whether Womer Benjamin is able to win over Ohioans for Concealed Carry, it appears highly unlikely the FOP will drop its opposition to H.B. 274.

That will make it even more difficult for Gov. Bob Taft to support the legislation or allow it to become law without his signature. The governor hasn’t taken a position on the measure, but has said he won’t support a concealed-carry law that is opposed by law enforcement.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol and Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, both are against the legislation.

The Buckeye Sheriffs Association has endorsed H.B. 274. However, most observers attribute that to the role that sheriffs’ offices would be given in distributing concealed-carry permits—not to mention the pro-gun political atmosphere prevalent in most of Ohio’s rural counties.

When you add the Ohio FOP to the list of opponents, it will be difficult for Republican legislators to make the case to the governor that law enforcement is supportive, or even indifferent to their concealed-carry proposal.

Taylor, meanwhile, said his group isn’t going to spend much time or capital lobbying lawmakers to make changes to H.B. 274.

“We have expressed our reservations to the speaker and to the subcommittee chair,” he said. “It’s not a priority for us. Getting a CCW law passed is not a priority for our organization.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.