LEBANON LIKELY TO ALLOW GUNS AT COUNCIL MEETINGS
Ordinance would allow guns at meetings but not at other times of day.
Despite their lawyer’s advice, Lebanon City Council is ready without adding insurance — coverage to change local law to — permit holders of conceal-carry permits to bring their guns to council meetings.
The change will make the allowance both for council members and the public.
On Tuesday, the council is scheduled to discuss a proposed ordinance and striking the “ban on weapons and items resembling weapons” from their rules.
They could vote as soon as next week to make the change, becoming perhaps only the second Ohio city to take this step.
A quote from the city’s insurance consultant put the annual price of additional insurance for “deadly weapons protection” at $28,000.
If the city was named in a lawsuit related to concealed weapons in the city building — where they are otherwise prohibited — “$28,000 would begin to look pretty cheap,” the city’s attorney Mark Yurick said during a Feb. 6 council work session.
While suggesting the insurance would be wise from a risk-management standpoint, Yurick also acknowledged it was unknown how such legal action would come out.
“There’s literally zero law on this in Ohio,” Yurick said.
Currently, signs outside the Lebanon city building, housing administrative and munici
pal court, prohibit guns and other weapons, in keeping with Ohio law. The courtroom is used for court sessions and most city council meetings.
The plan is to alter the signs to indicate those with conceal-carry permits may bring their guns to meet- ings, but not wear them at any other time the building is open.
Yurick said he would base the city ordinance on one already passed in Shelby, a small city northwest of Mansfield in Richland County. Pending Lebanon City Council action, Shelby is apparently the only city to have opened up council meetings to those who have conceal-carry permits.
The council also rejected scheduling a police officer or security for the meeting, in part to avoid added cost and in part out of conviction they could handle it themselves.
Assigning a police officer, who would be paid overtime, would cost an estimated $7,500, according to staff estimates.
Yurick also acknowledged the policy wouldn’t cover every potential liability created by a council member or someone in the audience at a meeting.
“It may come in handy,” said Yurick, formerly a part- ner in a large law firm. “I don’t know how much it is going to come in handy.”
Five of seven council members have indicated they support the changes.
Mayor Amy Brewer has been practically silent during the hours of discussion. She did direct Yurick to draw up the necessary changes, noting the apparent majority.
Krista Wyatt is the only council member to express opposition.
She expressed concern this would enable irrespon- sible gun owners who think themselves “lone rangers.” Instead, she suggested Police Chief Jeff Mitchell or an officer be assigned, as is done in communities around the state.
Wyatt also suggested the change would be unfair, since it wouldn’t include other city workers during hours when concealed weapons would still be prohibited.
“It’s not selfish to want to protect yourself,” said Councilwoman Wendy Monroe.
Monroe, owner of a gun shop outside town, said the self-insured city had sufficient coverage.
Councilman Adam Mathews, also a lawyer, said he thought the city should be covered under immunity from lawsuits provided to local governments. Mathews called for clear signs explaining the changes.
Councilman Joe Shafer, who proposed the changes, said they would be “extending our rights back to ourselves.”
Vice Mayor Mark Messer offered to sponsor the legislation necessary to make the change a reality, in light of the potential under state law.
should take advantage of that. We’re not Texas — yet,” Messer said.