Summit County backs off on employee gun ban proposal

April 14, 5:51 AMCleveland Gun Rights ExaminerDaniel White

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Last week, the northeast Ohio county of Summit announced they were considering passing an ordinance to prohibit county workers from carrying firearms while working or doing county business, even while in personal vehicles. At the time, it was stated that the reason for the proposed ban was "liability purposes", according to Jason Dodson, chief of staff for County Executive Russ Pry.

Councilwoman Gloria Rodgers, who has stated she is planning to obtain a concealed handgun license, immediately came out in opposition to the proposal, calling it unnecessary and reminding that "people have a right to protect themselves."

Tom Morneweck, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 1229 which covers county employees, stated that the Union has no opposition to employees being legally armed and questioned whether banning in personal vehicles would even be within the county's authority.

Councilwoman Rodgers also questioned the liability aspect, reminding that the county has liability insurance which covers all kinds of accidents. The law also offers liability protection.

2923.126(C)(2)(a) A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer’s decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, “private employer” includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

(b) A political subdivision shall be immune from liability in a civil action, to the extent and in the manner provided in Chapter 2744. of the Revised Code, for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto any premises or property owned, leased, or otherwise under the control of the political subdivision.

The day after the proposal was announced, strong criticism lead the county to begin to backpedal. The first step was to say it would not apply to personal vehicles. Jeff Garvas, president of Ohioans For Concealed Carry and a citizen of Summit County had a Letter to the Editor published in the Akron Beacon Journal further criticizing the plan.

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.

With negative pressure mounting, and readily admitting there was no real purpose for the proposal other than "just in case," Summit County announced last night that the proposal would be tabled and effectively is a dead issue.

Councilwoman Rodgers was there until the end, getting in the last word, "We should let people have their constitutional rights." She also pointed out that county workers can face dangerous situations and should be able to protect themselves.

I'm glad to see that Summit County eventually did the right thing and stopped overreacting to a non-existent situation. Disarming their employees would do nothing to reduce liability and would serve only to leave them defenseless while performing their duties. Hopefully the Ohio legislature will act to prevent private employers from prohibiting their employees from having safely secured firearms in their personal vehicles parked on company property. This, too, serves no purpose and only renders them defenseless while commuting to and from work.