Article published September 04, 2002
Hidden-weapon opponents fear lame-duck vote on proposition
By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU
COLUMBUS - Opponents of a bill allowing qualified Ohioans to carry hidden handguns said yesterday they fear lawmakers will rush the controversial measure through soon after the last polling place closes in November.
"This is much too important to the people and families of this state to be voted on in a lame-duck session," said Toby Hoover, executive director of the Toledo-based Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence.
About 30 Ohio representatives of the Million Mom March, which marched on Washington in 2000 to support stricter gun laws, attempted to deliver yellow rubber ducks to state senators in a largely empty Statehouse yesterday.
In the wings, a handful of gun-rights supporters carried signs, one of which read, "9-11 would not have happened if just one passenger or pilot had his Second Amendment rights."
The House voted 66-27 across party lines in March to allow Ohioans who are at least 21; pass criminal, mental health, and domestic violence backgrounds checks, and complete four hours of firearm training to receive permits to carry guns on themselves or in their cars.
The Senate approved a form of concealed-carry seven years ago. Gov. Bob Taft has said he would veto the bill if it doesn't have the support of law enforcement.
"The governor's position remains the same," said Taft spokesman Joe Andrews. "He will not support a bill that is not supported by a majority of law enforcement."
The measure is officially opposed by the State Highway Patrol and Fraternal Order of Police. The Buckeye State Sheriffs Association supports it.
"I believe there should be a vote," said Donald Rogers, a gun-rights supporter from Trumbull County. "It's an important piece of legislation. The Second Amendment of the United States of America says we have a right to bear arms. It's a God-given right. It's not a privilege of the state."
The Ohio Supreme Court will soon hear an appeal of a Hamilton County case in which the state's current ban was ruled unconstitutional.
Permanent Link
|
|
 |
|
Search
advertisement
