Wednesday, June 25, 2003

In Ohio there's an interesting situation. Because of two different courts ruling that the state's ban on concealed weapons violated the Ohio Constitution the Ohio legislature has been negotiating with itself about what kind of 'shall issue' law to pass.
Now please keep in mind that since the courts have ruled that a prohibition on concealed carry violates the Ohio constitutions' enumeration of the Right to Arms that Ohio would be an ideal candidate to have a Vermont style law (i.e. no permit required). Yet, amid cries from the supposedly pro-gunners that a Vermont-style law can't be done, they choose to work out a "shall Issue' law.
Enter the head Republican - Bob Taft.
He claims to support the Right to Arms, yet he demands all sorts of restrictions upon any concealed carry bill. If his conditions aren't met, he threatens to veto.
Gov. Taft wrote a letter to clear up his position. The Toledo Blade printed it. I will fisk it.

Concealed carry with limits OK

I wonder if religous choice with limits is equally o.k.? Or freedom of the press with certain conditions?

After reading your recent editorial, I feel compelled to write and set the record straight on my position on the concealed carry issue.

In other words Gov. Taft watched The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas again last night & wondered if he could 'dance a little sidestep' to get out of the hot water he's in with the pro-gun base that is currently looking for a new candidate to vote for.

Throughout my public service career, I have been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the rights that it grants.

Up until now at least.

I have also been a strong supporter of the men and women on the front lines of protecting us, and I am proud to have received support from state troopers, the Fraternal Order of Police, and many local police groups in my statewide campaigns.

But what about the men & women on the front lines just trying to protect themselves because the people he thinks are protecting everyone aren't capable of protecting everyone? But could this have something to do with campaign contributions from some of those police organizations? (That is an admittedly baseless accusation since I do not know one way or the other about who contributed how much to Gov. Taft's campaign. Nevertheless it would be interesting to see if there's a financial connection.)

As I have repeatedly stated, I would accept a concealed carry permitting bill only if it contains rigorous training requirements and thorough background checks, and is acceptable to Ohio’s law enforcement community.

So unless the people jump through hoops that seem to appease the cops Gov. Taft doesn't want them to be able to protect themselves.

Because of my stand on these critical points, law enforcement officials had significant input in crafting the concealed carry bill that was approved on a bipartisan vote of the Ohio Senate.

Well either the cops are in the Gov.'s back pocket or the Gov.'s in the cops back pocket.

The Senate version significantly improved an unacceptable House bill by including a number of changes to safeguard both the public and members of the law enforcement community.

The House wouldn't play ball. They actually wanted a bill that minimally burdened the citizen. However the Senate did play ball & their bill has maximally burdened the citizen. Therefore the Gov. approves.

The Senate bill strengthens training requirements by adding a requalification component, increases penalties for violators, requires firearms to be locked away when a child is in a vehicle, requires a firearm to be in plain sight if a child is not in the vehicle, creates a felony offense for any person who possesses a firearm while driving under the influence, and increases safety for the men and women of law enforcement by notifying them through the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS) when a vehicle contains a concealed carry permit holder.

See if ya add ridiculous requirements that make it aggrevating to get the permit & renew the permit as well as use the permit, then maybe most people will not bother with the permit. I mean, if you carry a gun in the car for defense, what the hell good will it do if you have to lock it up when you're driving your kids around? So why bother? Apparently Gov. Taft feels that being able to protect your kids while driving isn't a Right & should be heavily restricted.
Also, please note the gun owner registration. Running a license plate will let 'em know if you're packing or not. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc, would have loved to have such a 'tool' for the safety of their law enforcement officials.

Despite editorial suggestions to the contrary, my position on this issue has been clear since 1997, when I began my first campaign for governor. And it is not negotiable.

So because since '97 the Gov. has disregarded the Rights of the citizens to have the means of self defense, he's not changing his view.

The Senate bill meets the criteria I have consistently outlined.

The Senate caved in & sacrificed the people's need for the Gov.'s wants.

Therefore I will sign the measure if it reaches my desk.

More or less if a concealed carry bill has to pass he'll sign it if it meets his conditions. But I'm not too sure he wants to see one pass at all.

I will veto any version of this law that does not meet my requirements.

If anyone dares pass a bill that interferes with the Gov.'s power, then he won't sign it.


Given the decisions of the Ohio courts that struck down the prohibition on concealed carry, I sincerely hope that some bright, eager young attorney sees that it can be used to strike down a 'shall issue' law, especially one as burdensome as the one the Gov. wants.

& I hope all you Ohio republicans remember that the Gov. cares more about his political agenda than your Right to self defense. & don't foget the Senators who traded your Rights for the Governor's favors.

No comments: