Judge: Ohio Ban on Concealed Weapons Unconstitutional

FOXNews.com ^ | 1/10/02 | AP

[jalisco555]

CINCINNATI

[jalisco555]

Wish we had judges like this in New York.

[anniegetyourgun]

YEEHAW!

[Triple]

awesome

[goldstategop]

"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."

Pah! The gun banners lost the case because Robert Ruelhman couldn't be bought to rule as they wished. They couldn't abide what the plain text of the Ohio Constitution says either. Now that Ohio's CCW ban has been declared unconstitutional their only hope of overturning it is to have the appelate courts overturn Ruehlman's ruling or failing that to amend the Ohio Constitution to remove the RKBA in an election year. With Ruehlman's ruling Ohio becomes the 34th state to either allow people to carry guns without any kind of permit or which allow people who have CCW permits to carry concealed guns. What a beautiful blow for liberty!

[weikel]

victory.

[Lazamataz]

Looks like Ohio will be the next domino to fall. When will it be Illinois' turn?

[Dan from Michigan]

If you get a good gov, I'd say you have a shot in 4 years. Illinois will be the toughest in the midwest.

If that sounds bad, it took us 6 years.

[FateAmenableToChange]

This is a pretty weak basis for the ruling. I anticipated that he would rule that the law was vague and did not adequately inform citizens of when they were breaking the law. Focusing instead on "the ohio constitution doesn't prohibit concealed carry" will almost certainly be overturned by the higher courts.

[aomagrat]

Second Amendment Bump.

[FateAmenableToChange]

This is a common pleas judge in, I think, Hamilton county. His rulings only affect that county, and the basis for his decision -- ohio const. doesn't say we can't carry concealed -- is very weak. The only good that can come out of this is that it might force Taft to sign the CCW bill that's been passed twice out of the legislature, just to head off any possibility that the Ohio Supreme Court might uphold this holding.

[Joe Boucher]

Make him govenor of Ohio. End the liberal madness.

[Rockinfreakapotamus]

BUMP!!

[ncson]

This judge sounds like a good replacement nominee for Ginsburg or Souter. Somebody forward his name to President Bush!

[Commonsense]

FYI

[katana]

You are right. The ruling only affects Hamilton County (Cincinnati area) but there is also a bill pending in the Ohio legislature which would allow CCW statewide. Our current governor (a Cincinnati Republican) has been and remains opposed, but the news media is saying that CCW is all but inevitable.

[Rockinfreakapotamus]

"...the state countered that the right to bear arms does not prevent the state from regulating how people may carry guns..."

glad to see the judicial branch of the Buckeye State finally learned what "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means!!

[goldstategop]

It doesn't prohibit concealed carry. In fact the Ohio Constitution's RKBA protections are BROADER than those afforded by the Federal Constitution. Judge Ruehlman made the point in his ruling the reason the statues are prima facie unconstitutional is that when the state says only recognized persons are allowed to carry concealed weapons and moreover the burden of an affirmative defense is on a person charged with unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon instead of the state you have a situation in which the state grants the right of self-defense to SOME not all of the people in the state and it makes it impossible for people who don't fall in that category to present to a police officer an affirmative defense for carrying a concealed weapon PRIOR to arrest. A law which has such an arbitrary scheme and moreover which contains criteria that no reasonable ordinary citizen can know how to obey since the interpretation of the law depends on whatever police offer you come into contact with must of necessity be ipso facto unconstitutional. And there is the broader issue: do citizens have a inherent right to defend their persons and property as guaranteed them by the state constitution? As answered I don't see how Judge Ruehlman could have ruled any other way and I find it hard to imagine the higher courts overturning him on this one. The state law as written is indeed unconstitutionally vague and moreover serves no compelling government interest. Would that all our country's judges ruled as forcefully for freedom as Judge Ruehlman did it would be a much better place to live in. Ohio has raised the bar on 2nd Amendment rights for the rest of the country.

[spunkets]

"When will it be Illinois' turn?"

When the sun runs out of gas.

[Nephi]

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.

"Perfect. If we discover any judges who may become an obstacle to our agenda, we only need to arrange a chance encounter with a member of the rapidly deteriorating society which we have created and then we use that incident as evidence that they are biased and must recuse themselves!"

[Deadeye Division]

bump