Skip to comments.

Posted on 09/27/2001 2:07:27 AM PDT by Deadeye Division

Failure to yield

The House won't alter the concealed-weapons bill to suit the FOP

By Dan Williamson
Capitolgate Statehouse Reporter
dwilliamson@capitolgate.com

The Civil and Commercial Law Committee’s panel on House Bill 274 isn’t meeting today, and that isn’t such a bad thing.

When the process began last spring, subcommittee chairwoman Ann Womer Benjamin (R-Aurora) promised to give everyone a chance to speak his or her peace on the important issue of allowing Ohioans to carry concealed weapons. While noble and well intentioned, the result has been months of what has sometimes been monotonous and repetitive testimony.

It even has stirred rumors in various corners of the Statehouse that the House purposely is stalling the legislation and has no intention of passing a concealed-carry bill this year.

Womer Benjamin and other GOP lawmakers have said that’s not so. The subcommittee is moving deliberately toward the creation of a substitute bill that will be voted on by the five members of the panel, she said last week.

Meanwhile, there will be more subcommittee hearings, starting next Wednesday and perhaps throughout the month.

After the first few hearings on the bill, the dynamics of the issue became pretty clear. Some folks don’t like H.B. 274 because it would require burdensome and humiliating steps to be taken before they can enjoy their constitutional right to arm and defend themselves. Others don’t like it because it would turn every street, highway and park into a potential war zone. A few others—most of whom are actually members of the subcommittee—think the bill strikes a pretty good balance.

Womer Benjamin falls into that third category. Though she’s open to improvements in the bill, the chairwoman said the subcommittee will “maintain the integrity” of the original legislation as proposed by Rep. Jim Aslanides (R-Coshocton).

That means that no major efforts will be made to mollify the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, which opposes H.B. 274 in its current form.

“We want to pass a bill out of this subcommittee that is consistent with protecting the right to carry concealed while at the same time protecting people’s safety,” Womer Benjamin said last week.

“As far as any substantive changes in the bill to appease law enforcement or whomever, I can’t say that I see that happening.”

Some H.B. 274 supporters had been hopeful that the organization—which represents more than 24,000 officers—could be won over.

Early this month, however, Ohio FOP legislative chairman Mike Taylor said the bill would need to become significantly more restrictive before his organization would drop its opposition.

“What we would not oppose is not even close” to H.B. 274, Taylor said. For example, he said the FOP wants more comprehensive training requirements and a prohibition against issuing concealed-carry permits to people who have been convicted of any crimes—misdemeanors as well as felonies.

If anything, though, the substitute version of H.B. 274 may be less restrictive than the current bill.

Womer Benjamin said she is sensitive to some of the concerns of Ohioans for Concealed Carry—a group that has been opposing H.B. 274 from the viewpoint that it would force law-abiding citizens to jump through too many hoops before being allowed to carry their weapons.

“They have brought up some good issues that we will try to address,” she said.

As for the police, the FOP’s opposition will put more pressure on Gov. Bob Taft, who has said he wouldn’t support a concealed-carry bill without the support of law-enforcement organizations. So far, only the Buckeye Sheriffs Association has come out in favor of the bill while the FOP, the Ohio State Highway Patrol and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police are against it.

Still, the governor hasn’t yet said anything to dissuade lawmakers from pursuing the issue.

Taft’s communications director, Mary Ann Sharkey reiterated yesterday that the governor would “not support” a bill opposed by most police groups.

Sharkey added, “I don’t think we’ve used the ‘veto’ word yet.”

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.