Firing blanks on gun control PDF Print E-mail
Opinion
Written by Jeff Garvas   
Monday, 13 April 2009 05:30

The Summit County Council is selling the public a bill of goods five years late.

Jason Dodson, chief of staff for county Executive Russ Pry, said in the Beacon Journal on Friday: ''It was never our intent to limit that right'' in response to the council's effort to remove language that prohibits concealed handgun licensees from having a firearm in their personal vehicles.

The county would in fact limit our rights in yet another government effort to prohibit firearms for the sake of prohibiting firearms.

Why the sudden need to pass legislation nearly five years after the concealed handgun law went into effect in Ohio? As in countless states before us, none of the critics' fears of blood in the streets has transpired, so Dodson falls back on a common scam: ''The legislation wasn't prompted by any incident, but is necessary for liability purposes.''

What he and those supporting this legislation are selling us is a bill of goods with a non-existent ''we have to do it'' excuse. In the county-employee relationship, Summit County is considered a ''private employer,'' otherwise it wouldn't have the authority to create legislation aimed just at its employees.

The Ohio Revised Code creates liability immunity in a civil action for any injury, death or loss to person or property caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles. The statute even specifically spells out if an employer chooses to allow licensees to carry, the employer is and remains immune from liability resulting from the actions of the licensee. This has been law since 2004, so why the sudden bogus liability excuse?

Summit County Councilwoman Gloria Rodgers should be praised for questioning this proposal. Why is the council telling county workers that they can choose to be armed driving to and from work, but if they encounter a life-or-death situation in their county-owned vehicles, they must assume the liability with their lives? What if a county employee could save the life of another all but for the existence of this pointless legislation?