Judge strikes down concealed carry 'ban'

A judge today ruled unconstitutional Ohio's law that effectively prevents law-abiding citizens from carrying a concealed weapon for protection or work.

Ohio's concealed carry laws ''are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to the plaintiffs in that said (laws) deny to plaintiffs, in particular, and the law-abiding citizens with in Hamilton County, in general, the right to carry a concealed firearm for their defense and security, contrary to their Ohio Constitutional right,'' Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman noted in his decision released today.

Ruehlman also ordered a permanent injunction in the case preventing police from making arrests for carrying a concealed weapon by ''law-abiding citizens within Hamilton County.''

''We anticipated it,'' Allen said, noting he already has his written appeal ready to file. ''We're going to appeal and ask for a stay. Any change in this law should come from the Legislature.''

The original suit was filed in 2000 by Cincinnati private investigator Chuck Klein Jr. and others - a hair stylist, pizza delivery man and can teen food truck workers - who said they needed to carry concealed weapons for their work or safety.

''It doesn't surprise me,'' Klein said today. ''Outstanding. The law was a bad law and the (Ohio) Legislature over the years has refused to look at it. This was the only option we had left.''

In today's ruling, Ruehlman noted people should have the right to protect themselves.

''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 who can never be reasoned with or rehabilitated,'' he wrote. ''These people have no conscience and no qualms about doing harm to innocent persons.''

Ohio is one of less than 10 states which outlaws concealed weapons. Klein filed the suit - with the help of gun advocacy agencies The Second Amendment Foundation and Ohioans for Concealed Carry - in hopes of getting either the law overturned or a permitting process established.

''I wouldn't object to a permitting system,'' Klein said, ''as long as it isn't an Orwellian or Draconian system that makes you jump through a whole bunch of hoops.''

This isn't the first time Ruehlman has been involved in controversial decisions involving guns.

In 1999, Ruehlman tossed out a lawsuit in which the city of Cincinnati sued gun manufacturers, distributors and trade association, blaming them for negligence. The guns, that suit accused, were designed without proper safety features and, as a result, the city sought to have those manufacturers repay the city for police, medical and other services related to violence because guns contribute to public health problems.

the relevant section of the Ohio Constitution (not the federal bill of rights) says:

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

the key word here in the constitution is "bear"

from the webster dictionary bear
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): bore /'bOr, 'bor/;
borne /'bOrn, 'born/; also born /'born/; bear·ing
Etymology: Middle English beren to carry, bring forth, from Old English beran; akin to Old High German beran to carry, transitive senses
1 a : to move while holding up and supporting b : to be equipped or furnished with c : BEHAVE, CONDUCT d : to have as a feature or characteristic e : to give as testimony f : to have as an identification g : to hold in the mind h : DISSEMINATE i : LEAD, ESCORT j : RENDER, GIVE

the ORC (Ohio Revised Code) says:

§ 2923.12 Carrying concealed weapons.
Text of Statute

(A) No person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed on his or her person or concealed ready at hand, any deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance.
(B) This section does not apply to officers, agents, or employees of this or any other state or the United States, or to law enforcement officers, authorized to carry concealed weapons or dangerous ordnance, and acting within the scope of their duties.
(C) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section of carrying or having control of a weapon other than dangerous ordnance, that the actor was not otherwise prohibited by law from having the weapon, and that any of the following apply:
(1) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while the actor was engaged in or was going to or from the actor's lawful business or occupation, which business or occupation was of such character or was necessarily carried on in such manner or at such a time or place as to render the actor particularly susceptible to criminal attack, such as would justify a prudent person in going armed.
(2) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while the actor was engaged in a lawful activity and had reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack upon the actor or a member of the actor's family, or upon the actor's home, such as would justify a prudent person in going armed.
(3) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for any lawful purpose and while in the actor's own home.
(4) The weapon was being transported in a motor vehicle for any lawful purpose, and was not on the actor's person, and, if the weapon was a firearm, was carried in compliance with the applicable requirements of division (C) of section 2923.16 of the Revised Code.
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of carrying concealed weapons, a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of a violation of this section or of any offense of violence, if the weapon involved is a firearm that is either loaded or for which the offender has ammunition ready at hand, or if the weapon involved is dangerous ordnance, carrying concealed weapons is a felony of the fourth degree. If the weapon involved is a firearm and the violation of this section is committed at premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code or if the offense is committed aboard an aircraft, or with purpose to carry a concealed weapon aboard an aircraft, regardless of the weapon involved, carrying concealed weapons is a felony of the third degree.

This judge (for once!) actually saw the contradiction and ruled for the OHIO constitution.

I have often wondered what would happen if anyone carried a piece around openly, not concealed if they would try to accuse that person of breaking a law.

anyway....big bump for personal liberty!

In today's ruling, Ruehlman noted people should have the right to protect themselves.

We need more judges like this one on the bench -- people who have a firm grasp of the obvious.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Mike Allen said he will appeal Ruehlman's decision.

The bad news is that the courts are so stacked with leftists, they can appeal until they get the decision they have predetermined.

Yes, that's right. OC provides for the keeping and bearing of arms for the defense of the state and one's person. The issue before the judge is not the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Here's Ohio's version of RKBA:

To be honest, I don't see that the OC requires the legislature to permit concealed weapons, as long as open carry is legal. And at least as the law is open carry is legal in Ohio. Of course, I should also point out that open carry is not a practical option. In most of the state one is likely to be pounced on by local law enforcement, many of whom will be unaware that it is legal to carry a gun openly. Others who know better are still hostile enough to harrass gun owners carrying openly.

Nonetheless, a prohibition on concealed carry doesn't offend the Ohio Constitution, in my opinion, despite the present environment for open carry. Detention of an open-carrying gun owner or confiscation of the gun-- likely consequences in the Buckeye State's larger cities-- would, however, constitute an offense. That sort of case isn't being litigated right now, however.

I haven't read the decision, but as I think about it, though, the issue before the judge might have been the interpretation of Ohio law other than the constitution. Ohio law provides for the carrying of concealed weapons in circumstances in which a reasonable person would go armed. Perhaps the complainant was arguing that his circumstances were, in fact, of this kind. That question is not a constitutional one.

At any rate I look forward to the passing of concealed carry legislation in Ohio-- perhaps the next session of the legislature will produce a law.

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.