A while back I took some time to look at Ohio’s new concealed carry law (along with several other states’ laws) and discovered a provision in the law that pretty much guts the concept of concealed carry and makes vehicles potential attack-prone gun free zones (or invites “panic” on the part of GFWs).  Here’s what I said at the time:

But given what I’ve been reading of the law, the CCW law they just got has a huge stinking problem.  Specifically, you can’t carry on or about your person in a “motor vehicle”, even if you have a permit, unless the handgun is “in plain sight on the person’s person or it is securely encased by being stored in a closed, locked glove compartment or in a case that is in plain sight and that is locked.”  Why does this provision sound like it was added by some GFW police chief somewhere?  What’s the damn point of having a concealed handgun if you have to expose it everytime you get into a car (or worse, lock it up)?

In the most recent issue of Gun Week I came across an article about someone who is suing the state over this provision.

Parts of Ohio’s new concealed carry law are unconstitutional and were written by “idiots,” contends a gun-rights advocate who sued the state on June 30, according to The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Stephen Miller, a lawyer and handgun instructor from Independence, sued in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, asking a judge to strike down the law’s language governing how guns may be carried in vehicles.

The law requires that when people licensed to carry concealed firearms get into a vehicle, they lock their guns in the glove compartment or a box, or wear them holstered “in plain sight.” But the law doesn’t define “plain sight.”

…

Hanson, who lobbied for the law, said the State Highway Patrol wrote the language in question. Miller wants the “plain view” language stricken so people in vehicles “would be able to carry in their cars the way the license indicates: concealed.”

It would appear that I was close when I wrote about the “GFW police chief.”  It seems odd that they went to such lengths concerning carry in a vehicle.  All they had to do was ask one of the many states that have concealed carry about how to handle this. 

It occurred to me after reading the article that the Ohio State Highway Patrol may have actually made their jobs harder by insisting on this provision.  Let’s ignore the implicit (and wrong) assumption that concealed permit holders are lawless criminals for a bit and just consider the tactical situation.  If the permit holder has chosen to use the “plain sight” option, you now have a firearm that is in the open and quickly accessible.  If permit holders are the lawless trigger-happy criminals that the Highway Patrol assumes them to be, this just means that they can more quickly get the drop on the trooper when he approaches the vehicle.  One of the tactical problems with concealed carry is that it can hinder ready accessibility to the weapon.  A concealed weapon would likely take longer to deploy and would afford the trooper more time to react. 

Of course all of this is based on the GFW assumption that everyone who gets a concealed carry permit is a trigger-happy bloodthirsty criminal just waiting for a chance to “waste somebody” (blood in the streets at every fender bender, etc).  Real world experience has shown that people who jump through all the hoops to get a carry permit are far more law-abiding that the population in general.  Perhaps the Ohio State Highway Patrol should talk to some Texas State Troopers (and not the political hacks who run the DPS, but real patrolmen), who deal with concealed handguns on a daily basis and manage to do so in a professional and respectful way (or at least that’s been my experience and that of a lot of other Texas CHL holders).