nine fingers
New member
Just a reminder, Ohions this still only applies to Hamilton County
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Ban on Concealed Weapons Unconstitutional
NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, April 11, 2002
CINCINNATI – An Ohio appellate court Wednesday overturned the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons. The law is unconstitutionally vague and the only statute that convicts an individual on its face and requires the suspect to prove innocence at trial, the court said.
The decision upholds a lower court's ruling that overturned the law.
"The practical effect of this statute is that any person carrying a concealed weapon is subject to arrest, incarceration and indictment before being able to establish the legality of his or her actions. ..." the court said.
"Guns or no guns, we know of no other situation where a citizen is guilty until proven innocent. And no one has been able to tell us how someone walking might legally move a firearm from one location to another - if the gun is visible, a citizen will be arrested for inducing panic; if it is concealed, for violating [the ban]."
The court notes the state constitution specifies an individual's right to bear arms.
"The exercise of no other fundamental right subjects a citizen to arrest," the court said. "Should a citizen first go to jail for voting and be required to prove innocence of multiple voting? Should a citizen first go to jail for marrying and then get out by proving innocence of bigamy? Should we jail people for publishing a newspaper, then require them to prove that what they published was not libelous or obscene.
"We hold today that [the ban] is not fair, proper, moderate or suitable under the circumstances and that it is indeed excessive. It acts to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to bear any arms and, in so doing, thwarts a fundamental right that was granted by our forebears and drafters of our Ohio constitution."
The court said the General Assembly's enactment of companion laws specifying exemptions to the ban just confused the issue and resulted in uneven enforcement.
"We consider ourselves persons of average intelligence and we cannot tell what is legal and what is not," the court said. Senior law enforcement officials also have trouble interpreting the law, it noted.
The court rejected charges by the city of Cincinnati that the trial judge, Robert Ruehlman, was biased because his wife and daughter had been abducted at gunpoint in 1989.
"Declaring an unconstitutional statute unconstitutional is not judicial bias - it is judicial duty," the court said. "Based on the law and the record before him, the trial judge had no choice but to rule as he did. Neither do we, regardless of our personal opinions. If Judge Ruehlman had ruled the other way, we would have reversed him."
Copyright 2002 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Ban on Concealed Weapons Unconstitutional
NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, April 11, 2002
CINCINNATI – An Ohio appellate court Wednesday overturned the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons. The law is unconstitutionally vague and the only statute that convicts an individual on its face and requires the suspect to prove innocence at trial, the court said.
The decision upholds a lower court's ruling that overturned the law.
"The practical effect of this statute is that any person carrying a concealed weapon is subject to arrest, incarceration and indictment before being able to establish the legality of his or her actions. ..." the court said.
"Guns or no guns, we know of no other situation where a citizen is guilty until proven innocent. And no one has been able to tell us how someone walking might legally move a firearm from one location to another - if the gun is visible, a citizen will be arrested for inducing panic; if it is concealed, for violating [the ban]."
The court notes the state constitution specifies an individual's right to bear arms.
"The exercise of no other fundamental right subjects a citizen to arrest," the court said. "Should a citizen first go to jail for voting and be required to prove innocence of multiple voting? Should a citizen first go to jail for marrying and then get out by proving innocence of bigamy? Should we jail people for publishing a newspaper, then require them to prove that what they published was not libelous or obscene.
"We hold today that [the ban] is not fair, proper, moderate or suitable under the circumstances and that it is indeed excessive. It acts to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to bear any arms and, in so doing, thwarts a fundamental right that was granted by our forebears and drafters of our Ohio constitution."
The court said the General Assembly's enactment of companion laws specifying exemptions to the ban just confused the issue and resulted in uneven enforcement.
"We consider ourselves persons of average intelligence and we cannot tell what is legal and what is not," the court said. Senior law enforcement officials also have trouble interpreting the law, it noted.
The court rejected charges by the city of Cincinnati that the trial judge, Robert Ruehlman, was biased because his wife and daughter had been abducted at gunpoint in 1989.
"Declaring an unconstitutional statute unconstitutional is not judicial bias - it is judicial duty," the court said. "Based on the law and the record before him, the trial judge had no choice but to rule as he did. Neither do we, regardless of our personal opinions. If Judge Ruehlman had ruled the other way, we would have reversed him."
Copyright 2002 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.