In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE OHIO F.O.P. AND C.C.W.
UNIVERSITY50
Member Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭✭✭
THIS IS OHIO'S F.O.P. OFFICAL STAND ON THE C.C.W. BILLS PENDING.
THIS IS A CUT AND PASTE RIGHT FROM THE OHIO FOP WEBSITE. SOME OF YOU MY NOT LIKE IT, BUT THIS IS WHAT MOST OF YOUR L.E.O.S OHIO SUPPORT, WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE C.C.W., WE JUST WANT SOME CLEANING UP OF THE BILL'S LANGUAGE.
Ohio Legislative Branch Website
CCW and the F.O.P.
The reason I'm writing this letter is to clarify the misconception by the media and gun advocates as to the position of the Fraternal Order of Police on the issue of Conceal and Carry (CCW).
When we talk about CCW we are generally talking about a concept or an issue. When we talk about CCW legislation we are talking about a tailored piece of legislation (i.e. HB 274, HB 225) that may have a significant impact on Ohio law. The misconception I wish to address is the notion that the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio actively opposes the concept of CCW legislation and is therefore labeled anti-gun in Ohio. Using the FOP's opposition to language contained in HB 274 many have decided to reach this conclusion when in fact, this is quite the opposite.
The Fraternal Order of Police supports that right of citizens being able to protect themselves. We know that we can't be everywhere or foresee every crime that takes place in this state. A properly trained individual knowing the responsibilities of owning a gun may very well be able to fend off and prevent a crime from occurring. This we do not dispute nor oppose the concept.
What the Fraternal Order of Police opposes is language contained in HB 274 allowing criminals with warrants out for their arrest to legally carry a concealed weapon. This sets up the scenario where a police officer may go to the front door to serve this warrant and the wanted individual runs out the back with his or her legally concealed firearm. We oppose the language that would allow an individual who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor crime, including assault on a police officer, to obtain a permit and carry a concealed firearm. We oppose the language that would allow an individual who has just finished a 6 month sentence in jail to literally walk out of his or her cell, go straight to the local sheriff and get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. These individuals do not fit into our member's definition of a "law abiding citizen".
Another major concern of the FOP is the lack of training. Currently, HB 274 allows individuals to be considered trained if they have held a hunting license for three consecutive years or more have ever been in the active or reserve military and can attest their experience is equivalent to the four hours of training required by HB 274. The FOP believes that for the gun owners and public's safety, proper and thorough training should be provided. Under the provisions of HB 274 an individual would never have to demonstrate that they have any level of proficiency with the weapon they want to conceal and carry. We don't believe that four hours of training is adequate enough to safely handle a handgun when out in public.
In conclusion I would like to state that we do not oppose the concept of conceal and carry. We do believe that any legislation passed should be both reasonable and responsible.
This issue is not just about officer safety but the Public Safety.
Sincerely,
R. Michael Taylor,
State Secretary
Edited by - UNIVERSITY50 on 07/01/2002 20:05:01
THIS IS A CUT AND PASTE RIGHT FROM THE OHIO FOP WEBSITE. SOME OF YOU MY NOT LIKE IT, BUT THIS IS WHAT MOST OF YOUR L.E.O.S OHIO SUPPORT, WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE C.C.W., WE JUST WANT SOME CLEANING UP OF THE BILL'S LANGUAGE.
Ohio Legislative Branch Website
CCW and the F.O.P.
The reason I'm writing this letter is to clarify the misconception by the media and gun advocates as to the position of the Fraternal Order of Police on the issue of Conceal and Carry (CCW).
When we talk about CCW we are generally talking about a concept or an issue. When we talk about CCW legislation we are talking about a tailored piece of legislation (i.e. HB 274, HB 225) that may have a significant impact on Ohio law. The misconception I wish to address is the notion that the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio actively opposes the concept of CCW legislation and is therefore labeled anti-gun in Ohio. Using the FOP's opposition to language contained in HB 274 many have decided to reach this conclusion when in fact, this is quite the opposite.
The Fraternal Order of Police supports that right of citizens being able to protect themselves. We know that we can't be everywhere or foresee every crime that takes place in this state. A properly trained individual knowing the responsibilities of owning a gun may very well be able to fend off and prevent a crime from occurring. This we do not dispute nor oppose the concept.
What the Fraternal Order of Police opposes is language contained in HB 274 allowing criminals with warrants out for their arrest to legally carry a concealed weapon. This sets up the scenario where a police officer may go to the front door to serve this warrant and the wanted individual runs out the back with his or her legally concealed firearm. We oppose the language that would allow an individual who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor crime, including assault on a police officer, to obtain a permit and carry a concealed firearm. We oppose the language that would allow an individual who has just finished a 6 month sentence in jail to literally walk out of his or her cell, go straight to the local sheriff and get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. These individuals do not fit into our member's definition of a "law abiding citizen".
Another major concern of the FOP is the lack of training. Currently, HB 274 allows individuals to be considered trained if they have held a hunting license for three consecutive years or more have ever been in the active or reserve military and can attest their experience is equivalent to the four hours of training required by HB 274. The FOP believes that for the gun owners and public's safety, proper and thorough training should be provided. Under the provisions of HB 274 an individual would never have to demonstrate that they have any level of proficiency with the weapon they want to conceal and carry. We don't believe that four hours of training is adequate enough to safely handle a handgun when out in public.
In conclusion I would like to state that we do not oppose the concept of conceal and carry. We do believe that any legislation passed should be both reasonable and responsible.
This issue is not just about officer safety but the Public Safety.
Sincerely,
R. Michael Taylor,
State Secretary
Edited by - UNIVERSITY50 on 07/01/2002 20:05:01
Comments
"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
what part don't you agree with?
the f.o.p. does represent the rank and file officer here in ohio.
As for myself and our lodge, we support the citizens right to carry. There are ways to deny crooks or risky jerks the permit. We do it just fine here in Indiana. Criminal Records checks in the local jurisdiction weeds out the knuckle heads. Works quite well and the applicant is screened again with a CR check at the state level.
As for myself and our lodge, we support the citizens right to carry. There are ways to deny crooks or risky jerks the permit. We do it just fine here in Indiana. Criminal Records checks in the local jurisdiction weeds out the knuckle heads. Works quite well and the applicant is screened again with a CR check at the state level.
If this is the case, why have I never, ever seen it in any newspaper or heard it on any newscast? I'm well aware that the media can slant, distort, etc. any public issue, but TOTALLY conceal your actual viewpoint over months and months of debate? It appears to me that the FOP hasn't considered it very important to make themselves clear on the subject. I'm an Ohio resident and read state news faithfully, and your post comes to me as a complete surprise. If you have time, explain to me the organization's dead silence all these months while every report casts it's position as anti-CCW. After you've done that, please tell the general public what you've told us.
When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
Lt
"We become what we habitually do. If we act rightly, we become upright men. If we habitually act wrongly, or weakly, we become weak and corrupt" - *ARISTOTLE*
**Like Grandad used to say--"It'll feel better when it quits hurtin"
If you don't care where you are going, you can't get lost.
2nd Ammendment
(Preamble) "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
(The Right) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
What did our Founding Fathers have to say about the use/importance of bearing arms?
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."--James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776)
".The said Constitution be never construed .to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania. [Note: This sentence was often quoted in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin's "Historical Review," 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.--Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413.
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke (1784).
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms .To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
I believe that the constitution of the United States of America guarantees every person the right to bear arms and that requirement of government consent through the issuance of a ccw permit is a direct violation of the 2nd ammendment and is therfore unlawful.
When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
rodney colson