Posted on 12/20/2001 9:34:19 AM PST by Deadeye Division
I'll take it from here
The speaker intends to get personally involved in the concealed-carry effort next year
By Dan Williamson
Capitolgate Statehouse Reporter
dwilliamson@capitolgate.com
If Larry Householder ever gets fingerprinted by the Perry County sheriff’s office while applying for his concealed handgun permit (a damned highly unlikely prospect for a number of reasons), he won’t like it one bit.
“I’m a gun owner myself,” the speaker of the House said this week, “and don’t like to be treated like a criminal.”
That’s Larry the gun owner talking.
Larry the legislator, however, will probably work to ensure that a controversial fingerprinting provision will remain in an even more controversial bill, Substitute House Bill 274.
That’s the House’s concealed-carry measure, which will begin the new year under review in the House Civil and Commercial Law Committee.
Rep. John Willamowski (R-Lima), the committee chairman, repeatedly has expressed a desire to further tinker with the bill before sending it to the full House. Though he is a cosponsor of Sub. H.B. 274, Willamowski is strongly opposed to the provision that would require some applicants for a concealed-carry permit to be electronically fingerprinted as part of a background check.
Willamowski’s position is that since a law-abiding citizen doesn’t have to submit to fingerprinting prior to buying a gun, he shouldn’t have to do so before getting a permit to carry it.
Householder may agree on principle, but he’s more concerned with trying to win over law enforcement groups to support or at least take a neutral position on Sub. H.B. 274.
“We’re still trying to seek support from law enforcement,” Householder said. “We’re continuing to talk with law enforcement.”
The Buckeye State Sheriffs Association, which has broken with other police organizations in supporting the bill, has said that it will withdraw its endorsement if the fingerprinting provision is removed.
Meanwhile, some legislative Republicans—including, apparently, the speaker—believe they still can persuade Ohio’s branch of the Fraternal Order of Police not to oppose the bill. The Ohio FOP has indicated there could be a concealed-carry model with which they wouldn’t have a problem. But, according to lobbyist Michael Taylor it would have to be legislation “not even close” to H.B. 274.
If the FOP refrains from opposing it, legislative leaders believe there’s a good chance that Gov. Bob Taft will either sign the bill or allow it to become law without his signature.
Taft said in a year-end interview with the Columbus Dispatch published yesterday that he supports the concealed-carry concept, but won’t support a bill that’s doesn’t have broad-based support from police.
If Householder can appease the FOP, he acknowledged this week he’d have to do so by molding the bill’s makeup in the opposite direction of what Willamowski wants to do with it.
“I’ve let the chairman deal with this bill on his own and it’s probably time for me and the chairman to sit down and talk about the bill,” he said.
Another hurdle for Sub. H.B. 274 is the timing: 2002 is an election year—and a gubernatorial election year, at that.
“How that plays out politically, you could spend weeks trying to figure that out,” Householder said.
Well, in April, the University of Cincinnati’s Ohio Poll made a stab at figuring it out. According to a survey published in the spring, 69 percent of Ohio voters oppose making it easier to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons in the state. Only 29 percent would favor such a law, the Ohio Poll said.
The speaker downplayed the political risks, though.
“You could argue in a Republican primary, it would be a good thing.” In rural districts, Householder said, a vote for Sub. H.B. 274 probably would be viewed as a positive, whereas in urban areas, the concept is far less popular.
“If we don’t have the support of law enforcement,” he added, “it’s going to be more difficult.”
That doesn’t mean that the bill’s success depends on the governor and the FOP.
“If we have the support of the committee and the support of the House,” the speaker said, “we would probably put it on the floor and try to pass it.”
www.ofcc.net
Whoa, novel concept!
Except in Vermont, of course.
”The Buckeye State Sheriffs Association… has said that it will withdraw its endorsement if the fingerprinting provision is removed.”
Follow the money: the sheriffs are the ones who’ll get paid to do the fingerprinting. Don’t want to give up that source of easy money!
Seems to me that some of the sheriffs and LEO types have bought into the idea of the liberals that they are part of the elite.
Taft is - supposedly - a Republican. Make it clear to him that pandering to urban, largely-minority minority voters who never will vote for him anyhow will cost him dearly among European-American non-urban voters in the next election - and that they are his only hope of reelection.
Scandals of antigun politicians and activists - from Kalifornia to New York City!
We're told all the time that driving is a privilege, and not a right. So the state can make us jump through hoops before it allows us to drive on our taxpayer-funded roads. But the Second Ammendment is a right recognized by the US, and most state, constitutions. However, it seems this right is wrongly treated like a privilege, to be grudgingly granted by the government when it damn well feels like it. Therefore, the hoops that need jumping through.
In short, driving is one thing, and ownership and carrying of a gun is another. But don't tell the politicians that, because they figure they control both.
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.