Posted on 04/10/2002 8:44:12 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle
Ohioans For Concealed Carry issued the following press release today: CINCINNATI, Ohio, March 10 -
Ohioans for Concealed Carry (http://www.OhioCCW.org) announced they were pleased with a unanimous ruling handed down Wednesday by Ohio's First District Court of Appeals (Combined cases: C020012, C020013, C020015 & C020021).
The non-profit organization is one of the successful plaintiffs in the lawsuit, in Hamilton Common Pleas Court. Judge Robert Ruhlmamm declared an Ohio gun control law in violation of the Ohio Constitution.
The Appeals court's unanimous decision in favor of the combined plaintiffs is a victory for Ohioans and the Ohio Constitution. Law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense is recognized as a basic civil right.
Continued enforcement of this unconstitutional law would result in the felony prosecution and conviction of otherwise law abiding Ohioans statewide.
"This ruling only affects the law-abiding. Felons or other criminals prohibited by other Ohio or Federal laws will still be prohibited from even possessing a firearm, let alone carrying one." said Jeff Garvas, President of OFCC.
The defendants have stated that they would appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court in the past. Since they can not win on the basis of law or facts, they will now shamelessly try to prolong the case by tying it up in The Ohio Supreme Court.
By appealing this ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court the State of Ohio has nothing to win, and everything to lose. Today's ruling and all previous rulings were effective only in Hamilton County, Ohio. By appealing this case to Ohio's top court the defendants risk a statewide loss.
"It is our hope that the Ohio Supreme Court realizes the defendants agenda in stalling the permanent injunction and refuses any attempts for yet another emergency stay." said Garvas.
The trial court ruled that Ohio's existing prohibition on concealed carry violates the Ohio Constitution on three counts: Equal Protection, Due Process, and the right to bear arms for self-defense and security.
Forty-four states, including every state bordering Ohio, provide a legal mechanism for citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense. To do so in Ohio could result in a felony charge by law enforcement officers.
Governor Taft campaigned on the issue of making Ohio safer by enabling potential victims to protect themselves. In the past four years of concealed carry debate Governor Taft has opposed his own campaign promise.
In March the Ohio House passed a concealed carry reform bill by a stunning two thirds majority, or six votes more than necessary to override a veto.
"The courts and the Ohio House are finally seeing the light. Governor Taft should release the hold he has on Senate leadership and allow pending concealed carry reform legislation to become law." said Garvas.
Actually, it is not my map. I came across it from the American for Tax Reform group. I have given them an attaboy email already.
*************
Why should I trust a government that doesn't trust me to carry a gun?
*************
CITIZEN CARRY FOR ALL 50 STATES RECIPROCITY IN ALL 50 STATES
Can we use this ruling somehow as rationale in the great state of Illinois?
*GREAT MAP.
WILL YOU AUTHORIZE ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS TO REPOST THIS IMAGE ON EVERY WEBSITE THEY KNOW??
I AM FORMALLY ASKING YOU FOR YOUR PERMISSION. *
Michigan has it figured out. MCRGO.
Illionis needs a needs a strong MCRGO base type of firearm supporters. The shooter club ISRA claims to represent the self defense group, but have failed to any headway on the issue.
You sound like a leader perhaps you can stir up some energy.
John Bock and John Birch are two organizations that have some traction.
I dare not commit to more than I can deliver, but I will try. Ask Mr. Birch if -- my questions and comments aside -- he would be willing to meet with me per this topic. Do you have any contacts with Mr. Bock?
They do a good job considering they only have 20,000 members, live in a state that has an anti-gun voting block that works like a machine and that the people don't vote for their freedoms. The Illinois constitution says, "Subject to the police power, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Now how are you going to get a court ruling on something like that? I know, My group tried in Oak Park and another group tried in Morton Grove. In order to get your second Amendment rights, you're first going to have to destroy the anti-gun democratic party.
However, Kansas has one that reads:
Bear arms; armies. 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 tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
Someone in Kansas can do the same thing that the people in Ohio did.
Still checking on the rest.
Literally, or so it seems. The solution to all this anti-RKBA nonsense in the various anti-gun locales is to force (if possible) a US SC case in which the damn court incorporates the 2nd under the 14th. Other than that, the corruption in most of the federal appeals courts will remain for the next several decades, unless the demonRAT party is destroyed politically. Not much chance of that happening because there are too many of the vermin class on the take from the treasury. The corruption in the judiciary is legendary when it comes to the right to keep and bear. I've read the anti-gun decisions from the 9th Circus Court of Appeals over the last ten years, and its enough to make a grown man cry.
There are only 33 states that are shall-issue. The goal is to turn the whole map into a red zone. But barring that goal, it would be great if all of the white zones are turned to something else first.
If the gun-grabbers can have incrementalism, the gun owners can too.
In their map section, they have the famous red/blue bush/gore map as well as others.
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.