Ohio2006 Blog

News, analysis, and comments on Ohio elections.

Thursday, December 7

Taft (R) Vetoes Concealed Carry Amendment UPDATED

Gov. Bob Taft (R) preserved local gun regulations under the "home rule" power of local governments (for now, anyway) by following through on his threat to veto a hastily passed amendment to Ohio's concealed carry gun law.

In his veto message, Taft said the law “exceeds the scope of a concealed carry corrective bill by preempting local gun regulations relating to owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, and transferring firearms and their ammunition. In so doing, the act nullifies many local municipalities' gun regulations that are more stringent than state law, including the assault weapons bans enacted by the cities of Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Toledo. This vast prohibition of local control is unwarranted and fails to consider the differing challenges and circumstances faced by different communities and regions of the state.” The law also would have allowed guns to be carried in cars in a holster or purse, instead of in a locked container or in plain view.

Republican leaders said that they expect to override the veto. An override in the House requires 60 votes and the bill passed there easily with 70 votes. However, an override in the Senate requires 20 votes and the bill only managed 19 in that chamber.

Taft had vetoed only three laws before this one, and none of his vetoes have been overridden.

UPDATE: The House voted 71-21 to override the veto just before 2:30 pm today. The Senate probably won't vote until next week. The bill got only 19 votes in the Senate to pass but four State Senators were not present, all Democrats:
Ray Miller - (614) 466-5131
CJ Prentiss - (614) 466-4857
Charlie Wilson - (614) 466-6508
Marc Dann - (614) 466-7182
Unfortunately, Wilson is notably pro-gun.

You know that the gun lobby will be working the phones, so let's get on it. Call them and let them know that cities and towns should be able to regulate guns in their own neighborhoods and public places!

Jill has more.

10 Comments:

At 2:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The House just voted to override Tafts veto, they needed 60 and got 71 votes for the override.

The Senate needs 20 votes to override, they had 19 last vote, with two pro-gun members (Democrats) not voting. I expect it to pass when the Senate reconvenes on Tues. Even if it does not pass this session, it will in the next because our new Gov Ted Strickland supports passage.

 
At 9:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So is Marc Dann, who got a large majority of the pro-gun vote in Nov. Betty Montgomery although a Republican was very-anti gun. Her lack of support for the original CCW bill cost her the election. BTW Taft's recent fondness for "home rule" sure didn't extend to HB 9 which mandates how local municipalities handle public records. Not to mention that we just passed a bicycle law pre-emption bill ensuring consistent laws Statewide. So let's no call this a pre-emption issue, it is a gun-control issue pure and simple.

 
At 9:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone who is against this passage on the basis of local firearms laws amazes me. Does it occur to anyone that the people who are legally carrying a firearm are not the problem? Many of these cities mentioned already have gun restrictive laws. Anyone who watches the news knows that these have little to no effect on members of society who have no respect for the laws or any of the citizens of the cities. There are shootings in the Dayton area nearly every day...even with these laws in place. There are also numerous other violent crimes in this area on a daily basis. Go figure. Almost 90,000 people in this state are currently issued CCW permits. How many of these have made the news with something bad that they have done? Nothing compared to drug and alcohol arrests in a few days statewide. 48 states in the country have CCW laws. Ohio's is the most restrictive of all of these. Instead of making statements like "unfortunately Senator Wilson is pro gun", maybe you should allow others to exercise their 2nd ammendment right to bear arms and be able to defend themselves or others. I sure don't see anyone screaming for alcohol or illeagle drug preemption which is much much more of an issue.

 
At 12:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Selective constiutional outrage by a typical liberal. They have no problem undermining our country in the name of "free speech" and exploiting the 1st amendment to the point of treason, but they love to do nothing more than trample the 2nd amendment. What these loons need to do is look at study after study showing a decrease in violent crime when concealed carry is allowed. The poor can't even afford to get proper IDs to vote, but you're telling me that they are going to somehow afford to go get concealed carry permits? After all, it isn't the middle-class who is responsible for the majority of violent crimes. Just more liberal hypocrisy by celebrating restricting certain constitutional rights while trampling others. (Just make sure you don't take away their "privacy rights" to murder, or there will be outrage!).

 
At 12:25 PM, Anonymous Muffet said...

People can carry guns. that's the law. I don't particularly like it, but that's the way it is. I do like that Cincinnati, my home, bans assault weapons. This current fiasco of a bill would pre-empt that and permit assault weapons.

Those of you in favor of this bill, why do you think it's OK to bear assault weapons? Serious question here. Please don't talk about slippery slopes. This entire bill is a slippery slope when it comes to home rule. What is the real reason?

 
At 1:20 PM, Blogger Yellow Dog Sammy said...

Amazing lunacy on the part of the gun nuts on display here! Cities and towns need to power to deal with local conditions and problems, and if that means ordinances that ban assault weapons or that prohibit guns in public parks or public accomodations, or in places that serve alcohol, then that is precisely what I want them to be able to do.

You fanatics who want guns to proliferate and want vigilantes running around "defending themselves and others," I can't help your benighted ignorance but that sure as hell isn't the state of violent anarchy that I want to live in. I can't help what you get to do elsewhere under state law, but lay off the power of my town to do pass reasonable gun restrictions.

 
At 4:46 AM, Blogger -Sepp said...

Sorry Sammy, CCW has been law for a few years now in Ohio and all those "dodge city" scenarios haven't happened nor, are there vigilantes prowling the streets. How many of the gun laws in Ohio are you actually familure with? My guess at this point is zero. Assault weapons? Do you mean "assault weapons" or just rifles that look scary that are misidentified as "assault weapons" by those who know better but fein ignorance? Guns in bars? Already illegal nothing is going to change there. Public parks? Do you know how many people are already toting guns around in parks illegally? Do you think that Joe Citizen is going to carry a gun around for the sole purpose of shooting it? It appears that you are a victim of the hype. My suggestion? Even though you're anti-gun, go take the CCW training course and see for yourself what the training consists of. One section covers RESPONSIBILITY and another covers LIABILITY. If you would bother yourself to get all the facts rather than just relying on what you're being selectively told, you'd know better.

 
At 11:40 AM, Blogger Jill said...

"Do you think that Joe Citizen is going to carry a gun around for the sole purpose of shooting it?"

I don't understand - what is your implication? Why DOES Joe Citizen carry a gun around and why does he want to conceal it (if he's so proud of his rights) and why does he want to prevent people from finding out that the state has given him the privilege to carry a gun?

 
At 11:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I personally do not care if the state knows I have a ccw permit. Big deal. I have nothing to hide. I do, however, respect the privacy wishes of others that do not want this information released. Is that the big deal here? So the media can publish inaccurate data? Funny how so many of these journalists have "selective accuracy" when it comes to stories about ccw permit holders. There has not been the problems that the media predicted when the law went into effect. There have been more law makers that have been convicted of crimes than CCW permit holders. Maybe we should do what someone said earlier and push for laws that effect free speech...maybe then these people would have something at stake then. The simple fact is that all these journalists can say what they want. They can predict all of the violent shootouts that have not happened, the people carrying in a park that have caused no problems. I bet, however, if they had been in that barber shop in Cleveland when a robber came in with a gun and was shot by the owner (a cccw permit holder) and none of the patrons were injured would maybe change their tune. The CCW permit is so bad, in fact that the Cleveland Police wanted to make sure that everyone, especially the criminals, heard about the story. Of course it was not reported that this individual was a ccw permit holder. God forbid that the media might have a "good story" to share and might be proven wrong.

All of this on assult weapons is unfounded also. How many ccw permit holders run around with an AK or an Uzi strapped to them? The answer is zero. But, these assult weapons bans have been in place for some time and how many criminals have these weapons? Lots and lots. The law does not seem to be stopping them. The simple fact is that if someone wants to do something, be there a law on it or not, they are going to do it. Maybe instead of going back to the "what of" reporting on everything that has to do with guns, the media should focus on the real problems and report on information that is factually correct. Show me statistics of problems with CCW permit holders carrrying in parks. CCW permit holders carrying assult weapons. Good luck on that. And since everything that everyone does the media should have access to then the journalists should release all of their medical information to the public. All their financial information. Where do you want to draw the line?

My advice for all those who do not like this law is to move to Illinois. They do not have a ccw law there. Its time to focus on the state economy, job losses and things like that instead of spending time fighting something that is not even an issue. My two cents.

 
At 12:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...and why does he want to prevent people from finding out that the state has given him the privilege to carry a gun?"


A rather odd choice of wording there Jill, given that a RIGHT does not come from the government. That you see, is the problem.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home