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.
He might have been able to defend himself. Even if not, someone else might've been able to take down the assailant. Finally, the assailant might not have done the deed in the first place if he knew there might be armed law-abiding citizens within range.
Criminals are emboldened by unarmed victims.
CCW won't help her either.
Any trained person in the hardware store with a gun could've taken down the perp.
A sixty-something man with a two-shot derringer took out two handgun-armed thugs in an armed robbery, after he and others were ordered to lie face-down on the floor. Had this gentleman not been armed, he might well be dead now.
Again, CCW is no help is it?
Ask the elderly gentleman.
Before we drift completely away from my point though, I don't see how the 2nd ammendment can apply to CCW. To me it applies to malitia and protection against large scale attacks against liberty. Individual security will have to use a different argument. If I were an evil minded criminal, I'd have no problem doing crimes against people with hand guns. They'd never know what hit them and they'd be getting to ask the Lord all of those burning questions they had always wanted to know.
The street crimes that have happened to us are real. They are not figments of our imagination like the Cubans coming over here in rubber boats or a breakdown of the U.S. government into tyranny. I carry a gun just like I own a fire extinguisher, tools or jumper cables for my car.
Tell us your interprtation.
"If you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one"
--Jesus
Laws are made by elected representatives. That in no way validates the theft of the sovereignty of indivdual will. The measure of right and wrong in the validation of limits on Free Will comes from a moral code that is used to examine the limit.
The moral code I use comes from the Bible. When I examine the a law, or consider a vote, I measure rightness and wrongness accordingly. One of the 10 commandments is "thou shall not steal". That means I will not limit others by any method, as long as what is being limited is not wrong by the same code. Theft of will and goods by way of the ballot box is the same theft that occurs by way of outright violent threat. In fact it is robbery, masquerading as peaceful governance.
A man's life and goods are his own. Having a gun handy to defend them is his decision and his alone. He is not deciding to murder, he is deciding matters of preservation and defense. Interfering in this decision amounts to theft.
Interviews with convicts reveal that they fear most the armed citizen. Lott's study shows that allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms lowers violent crime by about 8%.
Do you not believe his results? Do you believe that crime decreases by some other amount? Does crime increase rather than decrease? Do you believe that allowing citizens to carry has no effect on violent crime?
The idea that liberty must be protected does not have limits, such as scale. The idea is absolute in that it must be protected, magnitudes of scale are irrelevant. The liberty of a woman to protect her body, the store owner to protect their cash box, and the country to protect it's existence are all covered by the 2nd Amend.
Duet. 19: 11-12
"But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die and fleeth into one of these cities: then the elders of shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hands of the avenger of blood that he may die.
Duet 19:21In turn I might also ask you if you know anything about the Bill of Rights?
"And thine eye shall not pity: but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
Since this is your interpretation of the Second Amendment, please give us your interpretation of the First Amendment and the entire Constitution.
It's only as good as the men who are charged with enforcing it. With precious few notable exceptions (maybe only 1?), the ones we have today have great regard for their own reelection -- under the guise of "doing the will of the people" (sometimes the people are WRONG!) -- and little if any regard for their Constitutional duties.
To wit: How many Supreme Court justices have been impeached over the past 50 years? How much more will the SCOTUS be allowed to twist and dilute the First and Second Amendments before the House says, "Enough already, you're outta here!"?
You know, I think that it would be a damn fine idea for some legislator to introduce exactly that type of bill.
Take a typical "CCW" type law, but substitute a few crucial terms.
"A person wishing to engage in published writing or speech must demonstrate that he has taken a state-approved writer's-safety course, and passed a test that shows that he is competent in all legal issues that involve public communication. It is well known that 'pen is mightier than the sword' and we are no longer living in the Wild West, where anyone with an idea in his head can fire off words just because he feels like it.
"Those who have a valid need for public communications can obtain a license, if they are able to demonstrate the ability to do so in a responsible manner."
"Etc., etc., etc."
When they scream bloody murder, just smile, and mutter something about sauces and large waterfowl.
If anyone deserves to be 'oist by that petard, it's the ink-by-the-barrel crowd.
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.