Posted on 11/29/2001 5:27:29 AM PST by Deadeye Division
Trial begins in challenge to Ohio's concealed-weapons ban
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Associated Press
CINCINNATI (AP) -- A private investigator and other citizens who sued months ago to challenge Ohio's ban on carrying concealed weapons are to get their day in court today as their case goes to trial.
Judge Robert Ruehlman expects to hear at least two days of testimony in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court from gun-rights supporters in the case. The plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation of Bellevue, Wash., which is paying for the lawsuit, and Ohioans for Concealed Carry. Defendants include Ohio, Cincinnati and Hamilton County, in which the city is located.
The defendants intend to defend the current state law vigorously, said Richard Ganulin, an assistant city solicitor. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington-based organization that supports gun control, is helping argue the city's position.
Last year, Ruehlman responded to the lawsuit by issuing a temporary order forbidding city police and the county sheriff from enforcing the ban. An appeals court overruled Ruehlman's order, freeing police to resume enforcing the law and sending the case to Ruehlman for trial.
Chuck Klein, a private investigator who filed the lawsuit and plans to testify in support of it, said yesterday he hopes the court action will prod the legislature into allowing citizens to obtain permits for carrying hidden weapons.
An Ohio House committee is considering legislation that would allow most Ohioans to carry hidden guns. The proposal is considered unlikely to come to a floor vote before January.
Klein has been joined in the lawsuit by a pizza-delivery business owner, a fitness trainer, a hair stylist, a factory worker and several others who say they need to carry weapons for self- defense. They say they do business in higher- crime neighborhoods, sometimes after dark and when they are alone.
Ohio law allows only law-enforcement officials or officers of the state and federal government to carry concealed weapons. Klein and other plaintiffs say the law violates the Ohio Constitution by forcing people arrested for carrying a concealed gun to clear themselves by justifying their possession of a weapon.
Forty-three states allow some form of carrying concealed weapons.
Some of those states require permits, firearms training or police approval before a handgun can be obtained. Vermont does not require any license for carrying concealed weapons. Missouri voters in 1999 rejected a ballot issue that would have legalized carrying concealed weapons in that state.
Kentucky and Indiana, which are neighbors to Hamilton County, allow people to carry concealed weapons.
The State Highway Patrol is among the police organizations opposing a conceal-and-carry law.
I can't think of anything to say to describe those many people out there I don't want to see carrying a gun, or even driving a car
Has anyone else ever noticed that you can substitute the word "cars" for the word "guns" in every argument the ballistophobes use?
Example: "High-powered cars should banned, because criminals use them."
"Why would you need a car? That's why we have public buses."
"Playing with toy cars causes childen to commit violence."
"You are x times more likely to kill someone you know with your car than a stranger."
Any other examples?
I may be wrong, but I believe that is "33 states."
Yes, or if some other government thought it wanted to take over. I often think of that case too. You can't help but notice that no where is personal protection mentioned inthe 2nd ammendment. It's not about personal protection, It's about forming a malitia with your neighbors at a moments notice.
That can easily be pushed too far. You can protect yourself with a 22 so a law against anything bigger would be ok. Or you can protect yourself really well with gernades and machine guns so a law against them weakens your ability to protect your family. But I simply don't live in a war zone. My family of 10 goes to the van and drives to church and drives home or to Taco Bells. We need a handgun about as much as we need a helicopter to travel.
The police to a good job but they are not everywhere. If they were it would be a police state.
That reminds me of another argument. The argument that if a small percentage carry it will limit all crime is thrown around all over this discussion but what about the concealed cop that MIGHT be watching? Why doesn't that count for anything? That is a huge reason that we are safe out there from all of those invisible thugs who I never seem to meet.
The Bill of Rights needs to be seen in the context that it was written - it's not a list of things that the government *can* do, it's a list of things that government *can't* do. That's why the ability to defend our lives from those who want to steal and murder is an inalienable right that comes from God, not from any government.
Now you are getting to my territory, the bible. Over and over I hear people call the constitution a living document. That is simply a joke. Only God can write a living document and to say otherwise is blaspehey. OK so the country and the FR is full of queers and witches and love to blashpheme. I'll stand behind the laws in His book. He set up our government and still calls it "The courts of the unjust". OK I digress.
Because in a state where conceal carry is permitted, a criminal JUST DOESN'T KNOW if that attractive young lady either
On the other hand -- if he knows there is no legal conceal carry, then he knows she
Thusly, doubt is raised in criminal minds when conceal carry is permitted.
One of the prerequisites for a "Taliban type thing" to happen is a complete reliance on government. Take away the right to defend yourself and you must rely on the government to do it for you.
The right of self defense is an intergral part of human dignity. Take it away, and what you have left is a servant or a slave.
The right to what kind of self defence?
Self defence against who?
Where does this universal constant come from?
But, the point remains, He gave them and us the right. If He chooses to take it away, so be it. Shouldn't we fight to keep the right, just to be sure it's His doing? ;-)
Effective - this means that the physically weak are not prey to the strong
Self defence against who?
Anyone willing to use deadly physical force against you or your family.
Where does this universal constant come from?
We are endowed by our creator.... (sound familiar ?) Not allowed by the whims and fancy of those elected to serve us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.