The following article was originally published in the Ohio Capital Journal and published on News5Cleveland.com under a content-sharing agreement.
Ohio lawmakers are rushing headlong into summer recess, but on the way out the door, one committee took up two firearm provisions aiming in different directions.
Given the timing of their introduction, both measures face an uphill climb for passage before the current session ends. Still, as political messaging goes, the bills stake out important positions for their party ahead of a consequential election.
The Democrat-backed measure would roll back the so-called constitutional carry law passed in 2022 allowing anyone 21 or older to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Across the aisle, Republicans want to place new penalties on undocumented people found in possession of a firearm.
Weapons under disability
Federal law carries several regulations which bar a person from possessing a gun. Perhaps most notable of late, people addicted to drugs can’t possess a firearm — that was one of the charges for which Hunter Biden was found guilty.
Federal law also prohibits someone with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction from possessing a gun. Ohio law does not.
State Rep. Scott Wiggam, R-Wayne County, is more concerned with undocumented people. Federal law already prohibits undocumented people from obtaining a firearm, but Wiggam wants to see the same restrictions reflected in state law. Under his bill, an undocumented person who knowingly possessed a gun would be guilty of a third-degree felony.
While concern about illegal immigrants is a perennial GOP issue, studies tend to discount the idea that immigration leads to an increase in violence. In one Texas study, researchers found undocumented people committed less violent crime than native-born citizens.
And the specific prohibition for undocumented people is facing new uncertainty, thanks in large part to one of the biggest recent victories for gun rights supporters. The case known as Bruen struck down strict concealed carry provisions in New York on the basis that those restrictions didn’t have a historical precedent in early American law.
Courts’ interpretations of the Second Amendment have also grown expansive enough that some circuits disagree on whether the amendment extends protections to undocumented people. Regardless of immigration status, for instance, the Constitution grants rights to due process and unreasonable search and seizure.
In March, a federal judge in Illinois threw out a weapons-under-disability conviction against an undocumented man. That circuit views the Second Amendment as providing protection for everyone, and determined the statutory history for disarming non-citizens points toward making decisions on a case-by-case basis.
“Now that’s where we are today,” Wiggam said, adding “where uncertainty exists, I believe House Bill 551 creates parity between the Ohio law and existing federal law.”
Wiggam argued it’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court will have to settle the matter eventually, but that shouldn’t stop Ohio from acting.
“I believe that states need to enact the gun laws that they believe are important,” Wiggam said. “I understand this is federal law. I think that the state of Ohio right now should speak up on this issue and become a part of this.”
Rolling back constitutional carry
While Wiggam urged lawmakers to pare back gun rights for a specific group, state Reps. Richard Brown, D-Canal Winchester, and Dani Isaacsohn, D-Cincinnati, called for a roll back generally.
“This bill, House Bill 418,” Brown explained, “will repeal in its entirety Ohio’s permitless concealed carry law.”
But he acknowledged, “many, if not most of you sitting here today, strongly disagree with this position.”
Brown reiterated the opposition from law enforcement agencies when the changes were approved in 2022, and he cast doubt on a study Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has held up as vindication for the policy. Brown argued comparing one year before and after the bill took effect is not “sufficient evidence to be reliable,” and that even the authors acknowledged their findings are at odds with other much broader studies.
“We’re not saying ban guns,” Brown argued, “We’re not saying you can’t have concealed carry licenses — concealed carry licenses were very successful.”
He insisted there’s room to protect Second Amendment rights without allowing any adult to carry a concealed weapon, no questions asked. As an example he noted in 2021, the Attorney General’s Concealed Carry Report showed 4,968 licenses were denied, suspended or revoked.
“Those almost 5,000 folks now can concealed carry without a permit,” he said.
Isaacsohn pointed to polling last year showing 88% of Ohioans support requiring training before granting someone the right to carry a concealed weapon.
“This legislation is common sense. It is overwhelmingly popular, and it will save innocent lives. It is as simple as that,” Isaacsohn said.
Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Peterson, R-Selina, asked them to address the prevalence of gun violence in big cities — particularly those in blue states. Isaacsohn argued those critiques amount to a sleight of hand. When you look at state level data, he argued, death rates in more highly regulated states tend to be lower, even if population centers sometimes face higher crime.
“In states like New York, and others that used to have high rates of gun violence, state laws have made a major impact,” he argued.
But while he said gun safety laws make a difference, each measure going in the opposite direction — making access to guns easier — contributes to a “culture of gun violence.” Their bill can’t solve that on its own, Isaacsohn said.
“So do I think cities with large populations struggle with gun violence? Yes,” he said. “Do I think that bills like this prevent all gun violence? No.”
But a look at other states who allowed municipalities to pass “common sense gun laws” and states who have passed their own laws shows “they have lower rates of gun violence than states that do not,” he told the committee.
