Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/10/2002 2:19:46 PM EDT
This is a good ruling. It will be appealed of course but it's a good start. _____________________________________ Judge: Ohio Ban on Concealed Weapons Unconstitutional Thursday, January 10, 2002 CINCINNATI — A fitness trainer, hairdresser and pizza shop owner are all breathing easier after [b]a judge in Ohio ruled they have a right to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves.[/b] "There is no doubt that the very thought a potential victim might possess a firearm deters that element of our society that cares nothing about laws or human life but rather understands only one thing — brute force," Hamilton County Judge Robert Ruehlman wrote. The common pleas judge ruled that Ohio's law against carrying concealed weapons violates the state constitution. Lawyers for the city of Cincinnati, the county and state said they would appeal the ruling. The lawsuit was filed in July 2000 by a private investigator and four other workers who said their jobs required them to carry weapons for self-defense. The workers say the Ohio Constitution allows citizens to bear arms and doesn't say the weapons cannot be concealed. But Ohio allows only law enforcement officials or officers of the state and federal government to carry concealed weapons. The workers argued that the ban subjects people to arrest before they get a chance in court to clear themselves by arguing they had legitimate self-defense reasons to be armed. Lawyers for Cincinnati, Hamilton County and the state countered that the right to bear arms does not prevent the state from regulating how people may carry guns. They said concealed weapons pose a threat to police officers and others. [b]"Amidst all of the baying from gun opponents is the irrefutable fact that there will always be people in our society who refuse to follow any rules and how can never been reasoned with or rehabilitated," Ruehlman wrote. "These people have no conscience and no qualms about doing harm to innocent persons. As a consequence, every law-abiding citizen of this state has the right to protect him or herself with a concealed firearm."[/b] Ruehlman defined law-abiding people as those not otherwise prohibited by federal, state or local law from possessing firearms. Ruehlman heard testimony over four days in December. After the trial, lawyers defending the state law asked the judge to remove himself from the case. They said he couldn't make a fair ruling because his wife and baby were kidnapped at gunpoint outside a strip-mall camera shop in 1989. Ruehlman's wife, Tia, said a gun probably wouldn't have helped her overcome her assailant. She said she believes that residents should be able to carry concealed weapons but had not discussed the case with her husband. Ruehlman declined to comment on the request. Anti-gun groups said they were worried about the concealed weapons case because of Ruehlman's past rulings. Those include his dismissal of Cincinnati's lawsuit against gun manufacturers two years ago. ___________________ Whoo-hoo! CMOS [:)]
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 2:33:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 2:38:03 PM EDT
The ruling said that Ohio's law was unconstitutional under the Ohio State Constitution, not the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitition.... Wish someone would rule the same under the 2nd... that would be quite a step in the right direction!
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 2:40:51 PM EDT
Not to throw cold water on anything, but the judge decided on the basis of OHIO's right to keep and bear arms, not on the FEDERAL version. AFA I can tell, he has no problems with requiring a permit process before allowing exercise of the right. What I want to know is, what will the judge in the New Mexico case conclude? Their state constitution reads: "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, [b]but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons[/b]. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 3:04:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 3:15:43 PM EDT
So, where do we stand now? We'll still probably get arrested for ccw right? And then have to fight it in court? AIRBORNE
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 3:22:21 PM EDT
Sounds like a victory for freedom in OH. I hope this sort of thing starts to spill over into a national CCW and repeal of gun control laws.
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 3:31:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2002 3:33:48 PM EDT by Maynard]
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 3:32:45 PM EDT
Looking at that other thread with a link to a CVG tv station and it says an appeals court has already placed an injunction against Rhuelman's ruling! Damn, the good people of Ohio won't even be able to protect themselves for 1 night! [:(!]
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 3:38:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 3:41:12 PM EDT
Is this part of good reprocussions from the Emerson decision? Or just wishful thinking on part of the judge, assuming that this will be overturned very soon? Someone help with these hardest of questions.
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 4:24:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 4:27:52 PM EDT
Ruling is only valid in Hamilton County. The rest of the state is still no CCW.
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 4:37:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 7:01:54 PM EDT
Ohio is one of only 4 (I think)states that do not permit concealed carry. The liberals and the lying ass governor will die before they cave in on this one. For those that don't know, REP GOV BOB TAFT promised to end the ban on concealed carry in Ohio if elected. Well, guess what.... HE LIED to get elected. I have written Ohio off for ever changing that ban. It has been all the way to the state supreme court and still stands. Do what ya gotta do and hope you don't get pinched.
Top Top