Showdown on concealed weapons: Ohio Supreme Court to decide if citizens can carry

Cincinnati Enquirer ^ | 06 September 2002 | Dan Horn

[Deadeye Division]

Ohioans for Concealed Carry
www.ohioccw.org

[SteveH]

Oh bang

[Logophile]

Ohio Supreme Court to decide if citizens can carry

Of course citizens can carry -- the court is going to decide whether they may carry.

[WindMinstrel]

what are the Ohio supremes like? They a conservative court?

And is Ohio a "may issue" or "shall issue" state?

[stevio]

Go get 'em Deadeye!

[Sloth]

The four claimed an Ohio law forbidding concealed weapons was unconstitutional because they needed the guns for self-defense.

Poorly written... it's not unconstitutional because they need the guns, it's unconstitutional because it violates constitutional rights. Their need for guns -- or lack thereof -- is none of the goverment's business, that's the whole point.

[goldstategop]

It would get RINO Gov. Robert Taft off the hot seat. I'm betting law enforcement will get used to Ohio's becoming a "shall issue" carry state. Neighboring Michigan became one last year and the sky hasn't fallen down and crime has dropped. The law as it is enforced IS unconstitutional not because Ohio bans concealed weapons but because Ohio makes it a crime to defend oneself with a weapon regardless of whether its concealed or not. And I fully expect the Ohio Supreme Court to strike down the extra impediment to self defense created by Ohio law. No one should have to be arrested and prosecuted to validate their inherent right to defend their lives and property as they see fit.

[Pearls Before Swine]

And is Ohio a "may issue" or "shall issue" state?

From the article, it seems like they are a "might eventually issue" state!

[schmelvin]

Just curious. The 2nd Amendment says that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well... doesn't the word bear in this context mean carry?

[Deadeye Division]

4-3 liberal slant. Hope to change that in the November election.

[Redbob]

I know this probably has no bearing whatsoever on what the Ohio Supreme Court will decide, but..
What exactly does the Ohio consitution say on this subject?

[Redbob]

And in answer to my own question:
from Article 1:
"1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)

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."

[Deadeye Division]

The Ohio Constitution
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm

[WindMinstrel]

Will they hear the argument before or after the elections?

[45Auto]

The liberal majority is cause for concern. In California, the very liberal court system has consistently decided against the plaintiffs in every RKBA/gun case/2nd Amendment case for the last ten years. They always seem to find some obscure and not necessarily related case law that allows them to screw the Constitutional RKBA.

One thing going for gun rights advocates in Ohio is the Ohio Constitution itself. California has no RKBA provision in its state Constitution.

My bet is that the Ohio SC will find a way to uphold the damn law while encouraging the legislature to pass a "may" carry bill. That effectively means "no carry". Ohio RKBA advocates should lean hard on their representatives to pass a "shall issue" bill and not put all your hopes in the damn courts.

[Deadeye Division]

Anti-gun forces tell senators not to duck concealed-weapons issue

[steve50]

I contacted my local sheriff 10 years back in an attempt to get one, at least in my county it's a " no damn way" state

[mvpel]

The plain wording of the Ohio Constitution is going to be tough for the Supreme Court to wriggle out of. It'll be interesting to read their decision brief either way.

[Frohickey]

Ohio RKBA bump! err... bang!!!