| Ohio AG Jim Petro Releases 2005 Annual CHL Report |
|
|
|
| Written by Jeff Garvas | |
| Thursday, 16 February 2006 | |
|
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro's office has released the 2005 Annual Report on Ohio's Concealed Handgun License law, which is required to be distributed annually to the Governor and leaders in the General Assembly by Ohio Law. It is imperative for anyone reading this report to understand that Attorney General Jim Petro's office, and Mr. Petro himself, have been instrumental in the successful implementation of concealed carry legislation in the State of Ohio. Without dedicated individuals who truly believed in this law's success its questionable how many reciprocity agreements we'd really have (currently sixteen!). It must be said that Mr. Petro's office has defended this law in both formal opinions requested by prosecutors, he has defended it in the Ohio Supreme Court, and he has intervened in litigation in Sandusky County. (Including litigation brought by this organization). This report shows that concealed carry is working, there is a consistent demand for the opportunity to defend one's self, and interest continues to increase the number of lawfully licensed Ohioans who wish to carry a firearm for self-defense. Some basic statistics from the report: You can read the AG's full report (PDF file) by clicking here, or you can read the rest of our story below first: (Click 'READ MORE' to continue) Consistency seems to be the theme of this report, which is a welcome but expected result based on years of watching other states implement these laws. There were only 219 licenses suspended, but the report cautions that some of those were issued in 2004. Suspensions can be caused by innocent acts, such as a divorce filing causing a mandatory restraining order against both parties. Recently, Cuyahoga County either revoked or suspended 90 licenses, but quickly handed back the "very same license" if the holder obtained new training certification. In 2005 only 75 licenses were revoked, but the report cautions that revocation can be caused by anything from a license holder dying to moving out of the State of Ohio. (Residency is a requirement). To put this into perspective, less than .11 percent of the licenses issued to date were revoked in the 2005 calendar year, and a good portion of those were probably procedural instead of criminal. Unfortunately 427 applicants were turned away and denied a license, which is just nine fewer than in the partial year of 2004. The vast majority of these 800 people acquired training, paid for it, and likely walked in the door thinking they had every right to obtain a license to carry concealed. Sheriffs do not report the reason for denials in their annual reporting. What this report is lacking: Ohio law requires the Sheriffs of Ohio's 88 counties to report numerical quantities to the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission annually. The law does not require this report to consist of anything other than that information, which is somewhat unfortunate. News media columnists will take this information over the next few days and start to write stories about the numbers -- coming to conclusions that are anything but justified. Its only a matter of time before someone says the number of licenses, or the rate at which interest increases or decreases, somehow quantifies the conclusion that this law is either unwanted or not needed. What this report fails to address are the numbers of lives saved. While anyone who follows this debate will understand that you can't easily put a number on the quantity of times a gun has been drawn in self-defense and not fired, most police officers will tell you they've done it hundreds of times in the course of their career. What we can and should report on are the number of times a concealed handgun license holder has saved his or her own life, or the lives of others. There are many cases in the State of Ohio, and as can be expected the news media makes very little news out of evil gun owners actually using a firearm in self-defense. The number of clearly justified cases that have taken place since this law has gone into effect is staggering, and unfortunately that story won't be the one we read about in the papers for the next few days. Finally, there is no question that reform is necessary. Ohioans For Concealed Carry is well aware of the fact that many people simply won't apply for an Ohio Concealed Handgun licenses for many reasons -- most of them hesitant to navigate the nation's most strict shall-issue concealed handgun law to ever be enacted. A sure way to increase applicants: Many people refuse to obtain a license due to Ohio's "plain sight" requirement -- a point we made a year ago when addressing this issue. Thankfully, Representative Jim Aslanides has introduced HB347 to seek changes that will hopefully resolve the car carry issue. During his testimony before the General Assembly noted concealed carry researcher John Lott stressed that the more hurdles and restrictions that are put before the potential applicants, the less likely they are to apply for a license. The more people who are licensed to carry, the more drastic the impact concealed carry has on violent crime. Based on the stories and excuses we've heard from people who refuse to obtain their license "until the law gets better" we conclude that the numbers in this report would be notably higher if the law was easier to understand, easier to navigate, and easier to comply with. |