Is That a Pistol in Your Pocket?
Or are you just happy to see that the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the Buckeye State's 144-year-old ban on concealed weapons? From the Cincinnati Enquirer:
The decision Wednesday reversed the rulings of two lower courts and affirmed the right of the legislature to pass laws restricting how and where firearms are carried.
"It's my personal position that the legislature ought to be the entity to deal with this," said Hamilton County Prosecutor Mike Allen. "There is a law pending, it's reasonable, provides for periodic qualifications and stringent background checks. That's something most law enforcement could live with."
The decision also ensured that, for the immediate future, Ohio would remain one of only five states in the country that bars citizens from carrying hidden guns.
"However fundamental and entrenched in the constitutional heritage of our state, the right to bear arms is not absolute," Justice Paul Pfeifer wrote in his majority opinion. "There is no constitutional right to bear concealed weapons."
Say what you will about gun scholar John Lott's Web-surfing habits--in fact, even question whether concealed carry laws decrease crime, as he contends. But it is doubtless true that concealed carry laws don't usher in the sort of shoot 'em ups that gun control advocates fear.
Go here for an outdated but still useful archive of Reason articles on guns and gun control.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It blows my mind too. Hopefully the law will change before some carjacker blows my mind.
There have actually been 3 incidents in my neighborhood that are related to this debate.
In one, a handicapped man could not escape his home - set alight by a burglar. He was eventually caught. But my neighbor died in the fire.
Up the street on Lincoln Ave. in Columbus, an elderly man killed a man trying to kill his wife/girlfriend. The cops were quoted as saying that it was a good thing a citizen did something about it - because the cops were in no position to do anything (slow response to that incident - and refusal to issue a restraining order). Assailant killed (vigilante justice to Fingerhut).
Then recently an old man with MS was attacked by a guy with a flashlight. He pulled a gun on his attacker and was charged and fined $300 (and had his gun confiscated) for having a loaded gun in his car. No charges for the attacker, though $800 worth of damage was done to the old mans car - I wonder how much damage it would have done if he was hit in the head? Am I living in the UK or something?!?
Joe, cops are only a deterrence when they are there. When it comes to murders and violent crimes, they're usually not.
I don't think that anyone would argue that CCW is just a cover for people looking to make citizens arrests.
Abortion is also constitutionally protected. The legal hassles, public harrassment and even assaults on those practicing it have made access to it rare in cities and almost non-existent in the boonies.
So get over it guys. You can be as constitutionally correct as you want about packing heat around town but it's not popular and you're going to get hassled for it.
Please explain to me why we need a law permitting concealed carry?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
If it's concealed, nobody knows you have it. If they don't know you have it, they can't do anything about it. They can't search you to find it unless you either do something stupid that justifies a search, or try to carry it into some venue that specifically prohibits firearms.
Permit or not, what's to stop anyone from carrying a concealed handgun? Who says that most people aren't already doing it?
Lefty is refering to the 67th Ammendemnt "Congress shall provide funds for abortion."
It is the one right after "Congress shall provide funds for healthcare" and "Congress shall ignore when the States violate the 2nd Ammendment."
Did you guys not get these extra governmental powers in your version of the constitution? Fuck you get over it.
"Abortion is also constitutionally protected."
WTF?!?!?!?!?!??!?!
Like it or not, abortion as a right is not denied by the constitution, and congress has no authority to intervene. Please visit Amendments #9 & #10.
Neb Okla
"48 states allow concealed carry in some form, and only 5 do not."
Ok NebO. you got me on this one--and I'm the Mathwiz!
Russ, Amendment #5: the kids are being deprived of life without due process. Hasn't the court has made mistakes before about who a "person" is?
cross out "has".
7.62 - pretty big to carry concealed
Russ, the problem lies in the current statute that specifically makes it a felony to carry concealed. If the weapon is used in defense, you will be carted off to jail anyway.
There are also degrees of concealment. You could be seen for any of a number of reasons. For the first year or so that you decide to carry anything significant (which requires a belt holster of some sort), you wouldn't believe the stress of bending over to pick something up. Lets not even talk about trying to figure out what to do with a firearm in a public restroom.
Ineterstingly, here in KY, the only criminal act is carrying into federal and state buildings. If you are caught carrying in a public place that has 'The Sign', it is at worst a misdemeanor trespass with a modest fine. Don't go into the post office, though.
Joe:
The cruiser analogy isn't quite a fit. To see the full implications, what you need to look at is the fact that you defer your speeding until you arrive at an area with no visible police. The visible firearm defers the attack onto someone else. Imagine a requirement that all police cars must be marked? What would your driving habits be when not in the presence of a marked car?
"Like it or not, abortion as a right is not denied by the constitution, and congress has no authority to intervene."
First off, saying that abortion is not denied by the constitution is significantly different than saying "Abortion is also constitutionally protected".
Secondly, rights are granted in the constitution, not denied - so your sentence really makes no sense.
Thirdly, if what you are saying is that abortion is not strictly forbidden by the constitution and that congress has no authority over it one way or the other, but that it should be left to the states, then I guess you are also wondering what the hell Lefty was talking about....
'Secondly, rights are granted in the constitution, not denied - so your sentence really makes no sense.'
Not to butt in, but see amendment the 9th.
Here is ammendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
OK, here's a little reading comprehension test - does ammendment 9 deny any rights or, does it say that rights shall NOT be denied.
Sheesh.
ELDG,
Nice try... Please find any reference to an individuals existance and subsequent legal status prior to a date of birth. If you want to give legal status to the pre-born, brace yourself for a hard impact with the resulting unintended consequences.
Not only are you trying to redefine "person", you're also misapplying the 5th amendment. If the government was the one performing the abortion, you might have an argument. The constitution does not impose any restriction on non-government entities.
PLC:
I see where you are coming from. I read the enumeration of government's ability to regulate X as the denial that X is a right.
Different take, same point ...
PLC,
Yes, I was wondering what Lefty was talking about, (and not for the first time).
However, a "right to abortion" is neither explicitly granted by the constitution, nor by its omission, denied.
More importantly, there is no delagated power to the government granting the authority to legislate on the issue. By its omission, that power is categorically denied to the government. It is matter for the states or for the people.
"I've always wondered this: If you can't carry a concealed weapon, than does that mean you can still carry an exposed one, such as on your hip or in a shoulder-holster?"
Depends. In much of Arizona you could. In California, you could carry a sidearm openly--as long as it was unloaded.
PLC
"Secondly, rights are granted in the constitution, not denied..."
It is my understanding that the constitution *enumerates* rights and does not allow Congress and/or the States to do anything to deny those rights. Nobody can *grant* rights, they can only violate them.
Neb sez "and if I carry for my protection I shouldn't have to advertise that fact." Neither your desire to hide the fact that you have a gun, nor my desire to know whether the sketchy looking guy behind me at the package store, is touched on by the 2nd Amendment, regarless of how you read it. It's fair game for public policy.
Neb misses the point of the cruiser analogy (I think). Think openly carried gun=visible cruiser.
Jason notes that cruisers are rare on the highway, and people speed when they're not around. If, however, gun carrying is the normal, sociable thing being posited here, then there will be enough gun toters in the general population to pretty much have a visibly armed person in most public spaces. In fact, the proliferation of privately armed citizens vs. the rarity of police is insisted upon by several of the above posters.
Dan
"In California, you could carry a sidearm openly--as long as it was unloaded".
And didn't mind being detained,questioned and hassled endlessly. And, be sure you don't have a loaded clip in your pocket.
A box of ammo on the floor of your truck on the way back from the range can take over two hours to resolve. Compliance to laws are checked, questions are asked etc.
Both of the above are treated as probable cause for a search.
7.62
I suspect many calls for "gun rights" are just a chance to flash their pistols to compensate for small penises. Lets' not forget to intimidate their wives or minorities.
A right to liberaries? who cares. a peaceful world, we rather attack an innocent nation. YOu righties are pathetic!
Lefturn,
Thank you for your insightful and very eloquent comments. If only I could express how much I value your opinion.
[Three minutes into this statehouse news bureau report (see link), Eric Fingerhut (a concealed carry opponent) said "We respond to crime in our society by making sure that we have adequate police, tougher criminal laws, and the ability to capture and punish criminals.]
This is the "you don't need to protect yourself because the police will do it" argument. But if you depend on the police and they don't show up, don't sue because you weren't protected. Your case will be thrown out of court because courts routinely find that it isn't the duty of law enforcement to protect individuals.
As a sideline, I note that gun control types tend to run with the folks who think keeping criminals in prison is inhumane. For the results of these two policies, see modern Britain with the highest violent crime rate in the industrialized world.
[We don't respond to crime by turning to vigilante justice."]
This is an interesting statement. One of the biggest complaints the anti-concealed carry crowd have is that shall-issue CHL laws don't drop the crime rate. But I don't carry my concealed handgun to drop the crime rate for Texas; I carry it to drop the crime rate for Larry.
In fact, as a CHL instructor I specifically teach my students to (a) avoid trouble whenever they can and (b) use non-violent conflict resolution skills when they can't. (NVCR is a mandatory part of our training.)
Lefturn,
Interesting you should automatically assume anyone who supports concealed carry is also pro-war. Believe it or not, some people support the right to keep and bear arms because they fear the government's monopoly on force, both domestically and abroad. There was a time, until 150 years or so back, when people in the English-speaking world viewed both standing armies and professional police forces as threats to liberty.
This is not a left-right thing. Authoritarian pigs like Democrats Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, and Republicans Orrin Hatch and Richard Shelby, have more in common with each other than with civil libertarians in their own parties. Red-meat "law'n'order" troglodytes and "for the children" soccer moms, between them, are well on the way to reducing the Bill of Rights to toilet paper.
But hey, if you enjoy reducing this to a "four legs good, two legs baaaad" dick-waving contest between left and right, by all means, don't let me spoil your fun.
I've always wondered this: If you can't carry a concealed weapon, than does that mean you can still carry an exposed one, such as on your hip or in a shoulder-holster?
Okay, here is the freaky bit about the way Cincinnati operates.
If you carry a concealed .22, you are committing a felony. If you carry a concealed 12" field knife, you are committing a misdemeanor.
Here is the great part. The law is written so that AFTER you have been arrested, the court can decide that maybe in your case it was okay to carry a gun just this one time, and they can give you a pass. Jewelry store owners, to take the classic case, must first commit a felony, then hope that a judge sees it their way and lets them off on a facts and circumstances basis.
Equal protection?
They have been trying to pass a concealed weapons permit in the Ohio house for nearly a decade. The current version lets you carry concealed on your person, but not in your car. Eh? What are you supposed to do with it?
I stay on my side of the river for just these sorts of reasons.
Plutarck,
It depends on where you are, but under the letter of the law, the answer is 'yes, you can carry in the open' in most states.
The trick is that they hit you with disturbing the peace or even terroristic threatening (by implication).
I think people confuse bear with bare. To bear arms is to carry, to convey. It is not the same as to bare, or expose them.
If the justice determined "There is no constitutional right to bear concealed weapons" is he focusing on the concealed part? By implication does he see a constitutional right to bear unconcealed weapons? Gee, I wish the founders had left us with some paperwork to help in these matters.
Usuoe,
Just to be clear, the justice in this case was referring to the Ohio state constitution.
As dissenting Justice Maureen O'Connor pointed out, the law today "is as offensive as a statute allowing the arrest of anyone who speaks in public, but permitting the speaker to prove at trial that the speech was constitutionally protected".
So the law is supposed to be designed around the concerns of law enforcement over the desires of the populace at large?
From the article:
"Vernon Ferrier, the Hyde Park hairdresser who joined the lawsuit three years ago, said the goal of the walk is to draw attention to the need for a new concealed carry law.
He concedes that carrying guns in the open is "a bad idea," but he said the march is the only way to drive that point home to the legislators who have the power to change the law."
Why is carrying the guns in the open a bad idea. but concealed is OK? Is a gun in the open just bad taste?
concealed vs. open carry -- the bad guys fear concealed as they won't know who is carrying
just a theory
Cops are usually against concealed carry too. Puts them in the "other" bad guy category.
Three minutes into this statehouse news bureau report (see link), Eric Fingerhut (a concealed carry opponent) said "We respond to crime in our society by making sure that we have adequate police, tougher criminal laws, and the ability to capture and punish criminals. We don't respond to crime by turning to vigilante justice."
This is begging the question. He asserts that concealed carry equates to vigilante justice.
He also appeals to the notion "our society" just doesn't see the need for concealed carry. Apparently Ohioans aren?t a part of the society he mentions. In poll after poll Ohioans have come out for CCW. Furthermore, the votes of our state representatives on the recent CCW bill echo the desire for Ohioans to protect themselves.
The rest of the US can?t be lumped in with his society either, since the actions of the nation as a whole speak loudly on the issue.
Our society (nationally) responds to crime by allowing our citizens to protect themselves from violent criminals. 48 states allow concealed carry in some form, and only 5 do not.
The "justices" would like to have us believe that open carry is fine - but that only a criminal would need to conceal a weapon. Criminals already do, and if I carry for my protection I shouldn't have to advertise that fact.
In Ohio it is legal to carry openly, but eventually some handwringer *will* call the cops and the person with the weapon *will* be arrested (according to law enforcement testimony earlier in this lawsuit).
I wonder what it is about residents of the 10% of states that ban concealed carry that prevents them from being trusted with their own safety and protection.
Vlad -
To test your theory...do you slow down when you see a cop on the highway? Or when you don't, but know that cops sometimes conceal their cars? Personally, I usually drive too fast, and slow down when I see a cruiser.
That's deterrence. Hiding the car is an attempt to encourage speeding, so the police can write a ticket.
"We respond to crime in our society by making sure that we have adequate police, tougher criminal laws, and the ability to capture and punish criminals".
And this works? No murders? No rapes? Simply snap your fingers and a cop appears to cart off the bad guy?
This is actually a fairly common justification for a will not issue policy. It blows my mind that they can say this with a straight face when the position is so flawed.
7.62
Patrick said "If we accept ... that more private gun ownership reduces violent crime then countries with the most liberal private gun ownership policies (as opposed to possession of government-issued weapons as in Switzerland and Israel) should have very low violent crime rates compared to countries with strict gun control regulations."
First, why eliminate Switzerland and Israel? Does it really matter who owns the guns?
I work with quite a few Swiss citizens. They have told me that their machine guns are accessible to them at any time (just as my personally owned firearms are). So your restriction on ownership is moot.
Also, do you have some specific countries in mind that have private gun ownership policies comparable to those in the US (such as a constitutional right)?
Finally, why don't we reverse the argument and ask...
"If we accept ... that less private gun ownership reduces violent crime then countries with the least liberal private gun ownership policies ... should have very low violent crime rates compared to countries with lax gun control regulations."
I think Joyce Lee Malcom's recent book addresses this subject quite well.
Neb,
I exclude countries like Switzerland and Israel because gun possession in those places is driven mostly by military conscription and mandatory reserve duty. Most of the guns, I assume, are the property of the government and tracked closely by the government in some way. At least in Israel, not being able to account for your weapon is a serious offense vs. the armed forces/government. Therefore, I am uncomfortable holding them up as Libertarian ideals for gun ownership/possession.
In terms of countries, the last relevent statistics I saw was last year in part of the composites The Economist publishes in the back of the magazine. Unfortunately, I could not find the info on their web site. It was death as a result of violence(?) so I don't believe it was limited to crime but included civil war, terrorism, etc. and adjusted for population.
It was striking that not only was the U.S. #2 after Columbia but the numbers for the countries below fell off rapidly. The disparity was highlighted by how far below the U.S. Israel was given its small population and the fact it was already suffering suicide bombings by that time.
So, given the U.S. position on the list I don't have any specific countries in mind. Aside from Columbia, the numbers suggested that we are much more violence-prone than the rest of the world regardless of culture, economic development, etc. This, given strong private gun ownership and the constitution right to bear arms in the U.S., is challenging.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Patrick
Patrick,
The most recent evidence of the value of gun control come from England. They banned all handguns back in 1997, and since that time, handgun crime (and violent crime in general) has gone up.
Also, a good case study in gun control is Taiwan. Their homicide rate is higher than the US, despite a total ban on privatly owned arms. Their gun homicide rate is slightly lower than that of the US, but their overall rate is higher. And I believe they have capital punishment for gun ownership.
There has been quite a bit of study of gun control and crime in different countries. From a scientific point of view, such study is difficult, because of all the uncontrolled variables (mostly due to cultural differnces).
OK, OK. I should have said "legal" instead of "constitutionally protected" since it's not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Of course, neither is pornography, flag burning or the internet but whatthehell.
Lefturn, CCW laws usually prevent "flashing pistols".
It has nothing to do with penises, just two different views.
A) I wrongly belive that the police can protect me - so I wrongly believe that the police can protect you too.
B) The cops can't be everywhere at once. Call them at the first sight of trouble, but respond with lethal force when permitted by law.
Cops operate on view B. They call for backup, and shoot only when there is no other choice - but at least they *have* a choice.
The difference between me and a cop is that they are required by law to look for trouble, and I am required by law to avoid it.
Aside from that, we shop at the same grocery store, go to the same movies, and live in the same neighborhoods.
There is nothing magical about wearing a badge that means you are more entitled to protect your life than any other citizen.
Joe said "If, however, gun carrying is the normal, sociable thing being posited here, then there will be enough gun toters in the general population to pretty much have a visibly armed person in most public spaces."
Violent crimials would just do the same thing they do with cops - look to see if any are around, then commit their crime.
Why do you have such a strong sense of "fair play" when dealing with violent criminals that you want help them find defenseless victims?
Do you really think that attackers should be afforded a nice heads up to warn them of who is going to fight back?
Judging by your attitude, I think you have a paranoia problem. You just couldn't *handle* it if cops drove unmarked cars and could pull you over at any time.
The part you're missing is that you ARE speeding, and it's against the law. You deserved to be punished - and violent criminals deserve to be suprised by their victims.
I mistakenly said "48 states allow concealed carry in some form, and only 5 do not."
This is obviously incorrect. I meant to say that "45 states allow concealed carry in some form, and only 5 do not."
I was thinking ahead to the future, when Afghanistan, Iraq, and Canada are states. 😉
Thanks Mathwiz.
Jason Ligon said "If the weapon is used in defense, you will be carted off to jail anyway."
Not in Columbus.
Check out these two Columbus Dispatch articles from April of last year:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=3276
I know an old man who used his firearm in self defense. He wasn't taken to jail either. He was taken to court on a trumped up "having a loaded gun in a motor vehicle" charge. He was never charged for defending himself against his attacker (no shots were fired, but his firearm was still "used in defense").
'Why do you have such a strong sense of "fair play" when dealing with violent criminals that you want help them find defenseless victims?
Do you really think that attackers should be afforded a nice heads up to warn them of who is going to fight back?'
Oh man, the bull crapped on the straw man! I'm not worried about giving criminals a fair chance. I would like to be able to choose whether or not to walk into a liquor store or dark alley with an armed person.
Thank you, Dr. Okla, for the free psychiatric evaluation.
"The part you're missing is that you ARE speeding, and it's against the law. You deserved to be punished - and violent criminals deserve to be suprised by their victims." This is where we differ. I want potential violent criminals to be deterred from violence (visible cop cars). You want them to go ahead, so you can have the chance to play Rambo (hidden cop with a ticket quota).
Howdy all,
I would describe myself as an occasional observer of the gun control debate. This seems like a knowledgable crowd so I thought I'd pose a question that has nagged me for some time.
It seems that both sides base their cases on the success or failure of local gun control laws within the U.S. No matter which side you're on, this seems irrelevent since cities, counties, etc have no border patrols or customs inspection making it easy for individuals to "smuggle" weapons into the area. Therefore, you can't draw conclusions about the success/failure of the laws since we are not dealing with areas that could be considered controlled environments.
On the other hand, both sides of the debate seem to ignore information regarding gun control/violent crime across various countries which are equipped to manage the flow of guns to a greater degree.
If we accept the anti-gun control arguement that more private gun ownership reduces violent crime then countries with the most liberal private gun ownership policies (as opposed to possession of government-issued weapons as in Switzerland and Israel) should have very low violent crime rates compared to countries with strict gun control regulations. All the info I've seen (which is not much) shows the exact opposite.
It is understandable that the anti-gun control side would avoid the topic but the pro-gun control crowd seems to ignore it as well.
Why does everyone seem to be ignoring this elephant in the room?
Any thoughts?
Patrick
Lefturn: I've heard this Freudian bullshit before, and always from ineffectual people driven to make everyone as helpless as they are. Who's more confused, those who think weapons are sex organs, or those who want to take everyone's genitals away?
Besides, I thought the idea of having eunuchs as slaves went out with the Manchu Dynasty in 1912.
Joe said "I would like to be able to choose whether or not to walk into a liquor store or dark alley with an armed person."
Wouldn't we all! You are apprehensive about these places because armed criminals frequent them.
The flaw in your reasoning is that you seem to think that armed people like myself are likely to attack you. We're just not - and the statistics from 45 states prove it.
As for your assertion that I want to "play Rambo" - this is completely out of the question. Where do you get this nonsense?
Chances are high that if you get in a gunfight, you're probably going to get shot. I don't want to get shot any more than you do. But if some person is threatening me with bodily harm I don't want to *hope* I have a cellular signal and that the line isn't busy. Five minutes is a long time to wait for help when you're being stabbed/shot/raped - assuming you get through.
Also, on the cellular note, if I call the local police directly, the line is usually busy and directs you to dial 911 for an emergency. If you call 911 in Ohio, you end up ringing the Highway Patrol (receptionist) who tries to figure out what jurisdiction you are in based on your description of the location. God help you if you're unfamiliar with an area.
They don't have e911 (the ability to locate a cellular caller) and the Highway Patrol to Columbus Police patch-through line is of such poor quality that you have to yell everything to the dispatcher (not helpful if you need to be quiet - or if you have been injured and can't talk loudly).
I've experienced enough problems contacting the local police to report incidents like car accidents. Some kind of personal self defense alternative is a necessity if you value your life.
Thankyou Kevin Carson,
As I have pointed out elsewhere, the "rights" in the constitution are not "granted" they are *enumerated* and are not intended to enumerate *all* the rights we have (whether due to to "Divine Providence" or whatever (frankly I like Divine Providence, even tho I'm an atheist; must be the Quaker roots (also the reason I address you by both names)).
I digress
Plutarck,
Whether open carry or concealed carry is legal varies from State to State. I have a CCW permit in FL but open carry is not legal. In AZ (eg) open carry is legal, but concealed carry might not be, depending on county.
Back in 1969 I was in a small town in AZ doing a Silver mine survey. I went to the local cafe for breakfast one morning and found it full of men with sixshooters on their hips and stars on their shirts. It seems a young fellow had left Phoenix and not arrived in LA when his folks expected him. Anyway the Mohave County Sheriffs reserve had been called to find the unfortunate youngster (he and his car were found a week later, he had driven off the road (lack of sleep?) into a canyon that was not visible from the road. When they had left a waitress (yes in those days we called them waitresses (and girls)) remarked on the armed men, at which point some custy old cowboy said, (something like) "Yeah, Them fellers just do this [sign up with the Sheriffs reserve] so they can pin a star on and strap on a hunk o' iron." Yes, Lefty, there is a level of contempt from "crusty old cowboys" for men who express their manhood with a six-shooter, but that does not alter the fact that self-defense is a reality and a necessity.
joe
The fact of the matter is that you risk speeding because you are reasonably sure you will get away with it (I do too). However if you thought that *any* car might be a cop car (whether marked or not), you might think twice. This is the the thinking behind CCW. The fact that I *might* (possibly) be armed is a deterrent to your attacking me.
EMAIL: draime_2000@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.pills-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/25/2004 01:42:57
To be a human without passion is to be dead.