Skip to comments.

Posted on 10/25/2001 7:22:22 AM PDT by Deadeye Division

The chairman and the sheriffs

The concealed weapons bill gets caught in a dispute over fingerprinting

By Dan Williamson
Capitolgate Statehouse Reporter
dwilliamson@capitolgate.com

This was the plan: by the time the House Civil and Commercial Law Committee got its hands on the concealed-carry bill, it would be ready for a vote; any major changes in the legislation were to have been made in subcommittee.

“That’s why it’s there,” Rep. John Willamowski (R-Lima), the civil law chairman, said two weeks ago.

That was the plan.

The reality, however, is that though the House Bill 274 subcommittee recommended a substitute version of the measure last week, Willamowski is unhappy with its contents. He indicated this week he will push for further alterations before sending it to the House floor.

Further complicating matters is that Willamowski’s alterations might scare off the only law-enforcement organization that has supported the bill.

Willamowski said this week he remains strongly opposed to the fingerprinting provision in Sub. H.B. 274. Although the subcommittee weakened the fingerprinting requirement spelled out in the original bill, as proposed by Rep. Jim Aslanides (R-Coshocton), it wasn’t enough to suit Willamowski.

“With regard to fingerprinting—again, you don’t have to get fingerprinted to buy a gun,” he said. Therefore, you shouldn’t have to be fingerprinted to carry a gun, he has said.

The original legislation required all citizens seeking concealed-carry permits to submit to electronic fingerprinting as part of the background check performed by the residing county sheriff’s office.

After angry complaints from gun-rights activists, the subcommittee changed the bill to allow sheriffs to determine whether a four-year Ohio resident needs to be identified by fingerprint. But for newer Ohioans, fingerprinting would still be mandatory.

The compromise didn’t appease most of the gun-rights organizations. More importantly, nor did it appease the chairman.

Willamowski said he doesn’t know when his committee will take up Sub. H.B. 274. He said he plans to seek input from House Speaker Larry Householder (R-Glenford) before disclosing what sorts of changes he intends to propose for the bill.

“I’ve got some ideas,” he said. “I’ll run it past some people to see if I can get some support.”

Rep. Ann Womer Benjamin (R-Aurora) said yesterday she personally isn’t married to the fingerprinting clause—but suggested members of the Buckeye State Sheriff’s Association are.

The sheriff’s association is the only statewide law enforcement organization that’s supporting the bill. House Republicans would like to be able to cite the association’s endorsement as evidence that Sub. H.B. 274 is not an anti-police bill.

“What’s important to me is keeping the sheriffs on board with the bill,” said Womer Benjamin, a member of Willamowski’s committee and chairwoman of the H.B. 274 subcommittee. “If some arrangement can be worked out where the fingerprinting could be diluted while keeping the sheriffs on board, then I probably could support that.”

However, the head of the sheriff’s association said such an arrangement cannot be worked out.

Bob Cornwell, executive director of the association, said the subcommittee wanted to dilute the fingerprinting clause further than it already has. “We said no,” he said.

As for Womer Benjamin’s concerns about the potential of the sheriffs withdrawing their support, “That is a very realistic fear on her part,” Cornwell said.

“If there’s no fingerprinting provision in Substitute House Bill Two-seventy-four, we will not support the bill.”

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.