The World According to Oatney

Concealed carry confusion goes to court

In Ohio, our new concealed-carry law is a wonderful thing (especially since both the legislature and the public at large have lobbied for it for years, and Governor Taft finally gave in). However, in the opinion of some, including myself, the law is too restrictive. Its requirements for training are often unaffordable and out-of reach for many people, which severely dampens the effects of the new law.

The Ohio Supreme Court finally had a say in the case State ex. rel. Lee v. Karnes. The Court ruled unanimously that the law does not require any detailed proof of need for a sworn statement to be accepted, under threat of perjury, stating that the applicant or their family is under immediate threat or danger, and thus deserve an emergency permit to carry a concealed weapon. The Court ruled that the sworn statement is enough, because the General Assembly did not include any requirement for detail, and so the Court refused to infer one. The Court denied Lee's request for a writ of mandamus however, because Lee had the right to appeal the decision of the Sheriff (Karnes) but failed to do so. In denying the request for relief, though, the Court left an interesting legal hole.

The Constitution of the United States makes no limitations on the right to bear arms, and neither should state law. I tend to agree with those who say that open-carry is a better deal than concealed-carry. To make that workable, however, the General Assembly needs to revisit the state's arcane open-carry rules, which allow me to carry my weapon in a holster for all to see, but does not allow me to carry it loaded. (I must keep the ammo in a different place from the gun, which makes carrying a weapon open carry completely ineffective for self-defense.) Open-carry may be a better option, but it must be modified in order to be an effective one.

posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 4:16 PM