Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Concealed Carry Ban

Ohio News Network ^ | September 24, 2003 | Tom Chansky

[MissTargets]

The state’s ban on the concealed carry of weapons is constitutional.

In a 5-2 ruling issued Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the state’s ban does not infringe on the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution. The ruling keeps Ohio from joining 44 other states that allow citizens to carry hidden guns. Ohio has had some kind of ban on concealed weapons since 1859.

[MissTargets]

What a blow. But at least we know where we stand.

This is an excerpt. Unable to post whole article

[MissTargets]

boom

[Bikers4Bush]

Figures, what with our rhino governor and all.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The article doesn't quote the Ohio constitution, but the National one is clearly an absolute right.

The only enumerated right that is absolute.

No other enumerated right bears the warning "Shall not be infringed."

Course the statist scum ignore that too.

[r9etb]

Well, considering the almost 100 years of consistent legislation and jurisprudence on the issue, I think the court probably made a sound decision.

To have decided otherwise would have been for the Ohio court effectively to legislate in favor of CCW -- which in a logical sense would be no different from them overruling a CCW law.

This is a matter for the legislature to address, not the courts.

[George Smiley]

Well, considering the almost 100 years of consistent legislation and jurisprudence on the issue, I think the court probably made a sound decision.

To have decided otherwise would have been for the Ohio court effectively to legislate in favor of CCW -- which in a logical sense would be no different from them overruling a CCW law.

This is a matter for the legislature to address, not the courts.

There's a 1985 US Supreme Court case, Hunter v. Underwood, that can serve as a blueprint for destroying a state law on the grounds that it's racist! (Most Reconstruction-era laws of this nature were designed to disarm newly freed slaves.)

While not a "gun case", the standard set is that the law must have a verifiable racist origin and a current racial "effect" even if the "effect" is accidental.

Thanks to Jim March (he who exposed a Million Mom March scandal involving improper free office space in a public facility)- see here for more details.

[FoundersRWatching]

Ah yes, the joke that is the legal profession!!

[r9etb]

While not a "gun case", the standard set is that the law must have a verifiable racist origin and a current racial "effect" even if the "effect" is accidental.

I don't know that you'd be able to demonstrate that there's a racial effect in this case, though.

What this whole thing boils down to is an attempt to ram CCW into law through the courts. We oppose such action on other things, and should do so here as well.

This is a matter for the legislature.

[Chemist_Geek]

This is a matter for the legislature.

Unfortunately, now, the anti-self-defense forces in the Legislature have the high ground... There is a shall-issue bill pending before the Ohio legislature, and there has been all session. Now, though, if that bill fails then we have status quo and the ASDers win.

Had the Ohio Supremes ruled differently, then the pro-self-defense side would have been in the driver's seat; with the overturning of Ohio's law carry would then be unregulated, and the ASDers would be desperate to get some sort of regulation back into effect. We'd essentially have the veto on any of their silly proposals (like banning concealed carry in vehicles when there is a child under the age of 18 aboard).

[Atlas Sneezed]

(The whole article)

The state’s ban on the concealed carry of weapons is constitutional.

In a 5-2 ruling issued Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the state’s ban does not infringe on the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution. The ruling keeps Ohio from joining 44 other states that allow citizens to carry hidden guns. Ohio has had some kind of ban on concealed weapons since 1859.

A group of Cincinnati residents backed by state and national groups challenged the constitutionality of the state law that makes it illegal to conceal a gun. The groups say Ohio’s founders would have mentioned a ban specifically if they wanted lawmakers to restrict concealed weapons.

The Supreme Court’s opinion states that while a right to bear arms is in the Ohio Constitution, that right is not “absolute.” Writing for the court, Justice Paul Pfeifer expresses that a 1920 court opinion upheld the constitutionality of the ban, saying it is a regulation of how weapons can be carried.

The majority opinion says that the plaintiffs ask the court to overturn a law that has been “part of our legal heritage since 1859, that has been amended by our General Assembly time and again without fundamental modification, that did not arouse the concern of two different constitutional conventions and that has been held by this court to be constitutional.”

The court did send back two issues to a lower state court. The lawsuit also challenged the constitutionality of two sections of state law that set licensing and training requirements for private investigators and security guards to carry weapons. The Supreme Court sent the constitutionality of the firearms training and licensing regulations to the 1st District Court of Appeals, which had ruled the state law unconstitutional.

Dissenting from the majority, Justice Maureen O’Connor writes that the state’s ban regulates the way in which Ohioans can exercise a fundamental right. Because of this, O’Connor writes, the ban should allow other ways to exercise the right, a matter that is not the case in Ohio.

O’Connor writes the only way for Ohioans to exercise their right to bear concealed weapons is to go to trial.

"This is as offensive as a statute allowing the arrest of anyone who speaks in public, but permitting the speaker to prove at trial that the speech was constitutionally protected," Justice O'Connor writes.

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, Justices Alice Robie Resnick and Francis Sweeney and 6th District Court of Appeals Judge Richard Knepper joined Pfeifer in the majority opinion. Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton joined O’Connor on the dissent.

Concealed Carry In The Statehouse

Concealed carry has also been controversial in the Ohio Statehouse.

Earlier this year, lawmakers were near agreement on a compromise concealed carry bill. The legislation would have allowed Ohioans who pass a background check and safety course to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

However, the Ohio House wanted a provision allowing people without permits who get charged with carrying a weapon to be able to try to convince a judge that the weapon was necessary because of a job or personal safety. The Ohio State Highway Patrol opposed that provision.

Governor Bob Taft has said he would not sign a concealed carry bill that was opposed by the Highway Patrol.

The House and Senate have yet to appoint a committee to resolve differences in the two versions of the concealed carry legislation.

© Dispatch Productions, Inc., 2003. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. AP contributed to this report.

[TSgt]

I wouldn't call Bob Taft a RINO. Maybe a crook in Republican's clothing but not a RINO.

Him and the previous Governor now Senator deserve each other.

To hell with Ohio. My wife and I are moving south!

[Triple]

beg to differ on the 'sound' decision.

If the legislature can pass laws contrary to the constitution, then ohio is no longer a republican form of government, as it must be acording to the constitution, but is is a democracy.

ps: Democracy is 4 wolves and a sheep voting to decide what is for dinner. Democracy stinks.

[MissTargets]

I agree with you. The Courts should not legistate. But, as Chemist Geek stated, if they would have ruled otherwise,
there would have been some sort of legistation passed, to prevent the Vermont style CCW

I really felt, that the OSC would have ruled the other way. There must have been a lot of political pressure.

[r9etb]

If the legislature can pass laws contrary to the constitution, then ohio is no longer a republican form of government, as it must be acording to the constitution, but is is a democracy.

As the court noted, this particular law has been on the books for close to 100 years. It was found constitutional by the Ohio court once before, in 1920, and it was not affected by a couple of constitutional conventions between 1859 and now.

On that basis, the court's ruling seems quite reasonable.

The proper place to address this is in the legislature.

[ladtx]

...state’s ban does not infringe...

How can a ban not infringe on the right? I'm just a plain old Texas country boy, can someone splain that phrase to me.

[MissTargets]

You are braver then me. :)

[MissTargets]

It doesn't. Here in Ohio, you can strap on your six shooter, and walk down the street.
Just don't conceal the firearm. (Note: firearm, not weapon)
It's the regulation, that is in place, that is the problem.

[Triple]

So what - the bad law has been around a long time. That does not change the facts. Notice, you did not challenge one of my assertions or the logic employed.

[TXnMA]

Justice Paul Pfeifer expresses that a 1920 court opinion upheld the constitutionality of the ban, saying it is a regulation of how weapons can be carried.

Dissenting from the majority, Justice Maureen O’Connor writes that the state’s ban regulates the way in which Ohioans can exercise a fundamental right. Because of this, O’Connor writes, the ban should allow other ways to exercise the right, a matter that is not the case in Ohio.

-------------

Sounds like the thing for Ohioans to do is to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. Since it is concealment that is prohibited, they should all strap their weapons on in clear view -- and go about their business.

If law enforcement claim that open carry is banned, then the constitution absolutely has been violated. What other ways to bear arms there -- other than openly and concealed?

[North Coast Conservative]

My Fellow NEOhioans:

Were you involved in the last election? Did you actively support Maureen O'Connor and Eve Stratton? If you did, congratulations. If you didn't, shame on you.

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, Justices Alice Robie Resnick and Francis Sweeney and 6th District Court of Appeals Judge Richard Knepper joined Justice Paul Pfeifer in the majority opinion.

These people are our enemies. They are keeping you from having the ability to defend yourselves. You could say that the blood of innocencents killed by the predators in our society is directly on their hands, especially if the people killed would have legally carried.

So what can you do about it?

1)Call your county Republican Party, find out who the Republicans are that are running for State Supreme Court.

2)Call these candidates to find out their position on the 2nd Amendment.

3)Volunteer to walk door to door to distribute literature for candidates who support the "right to carry".

4)Volunteer to put up yardsigns for those candidates.

5) Elect a state rep/senator who will support the "right to carry".

See you at Heritage Club the first Thursday of the month.

…..Semper Fi