[Henry Bowman]

CCW ban held to constitutional.
Link. (http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/documents/0/2003/2003-Ohio-4779.doc)
Comments after I digest the case. :fire:

[Jim March]

Well you're not TOTALLY screwed:

"Further, the state correctly asserts that the statute leaves open the ability to bear arms by openly carrying a firearm, satisfying the third prong of the test."

Your court just banned all future arrests for open carry.

SO DO IT.

En Mass, constantly, singly and in groups.

Call it "operation freak the sheeple".

Cause so much public panic, carrying the BIGGEST DAMN SUCKERS you can score, that the legislature gives in on a CCW bill.

[Henry Bowman]

No, Jim. All the good language, including ANY mention to open carry is in the dissent. The majority carefully side-stepped this argument by the State.

I'd say we're still totally screwed.

[Jim March]

Ah. You're right, that IS found in the dissent. I didn't catch that at first glance, I did a search for the word "open".

BUT, look who said it to the court: "the state". In order to do future busts, prosecutors would have to prove to local courts that state attorneys lied to the Ohio Supremes. Which means, we may indeed see arrests and harassment, but I'll bet good money the cases will be dropped the moment the DAs realize the implications.

[foghornl]

Retiring to TX or TN is looking better every day. Although I still got at least 12 more years before I can retire.

[Henry Bowman]

True, Jim. But you will not be charged with "carrying a firearm." You will be charged with disorderly conduct, inciting panic, trespassing, or something else. You cannot carry in your vehicle at all. ANY complaint by the sheeple to the police can be the basis for some kind of charge.

I don't trust the bastards!

[Bigjake]

there a load of bull.

[mrtgbnkr]

Well, so much for assuming that the OSC can read...what a bunch of idiots. They are almost as bad as the state senate and Gov. Daft.

Mark

[geekWithA.45]

Smacks entirely of Orwellian doublespeak to me.

Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms (repeated all throughout)

The court stated that the right to bear arms is a right of which citizens “cannot be deprived.”

They have no right to conceal, prohibition of concealment is correct use of police power.

They have the right to carry for lawful reasons, except for

but he cannot go about with that or any other dangerous weapon to terrify and alarm a peaceful people

And since "peaceful" people = timid, then any display of a dangerous weapon can be considered "terrifying and alarming".

So:
concealed carry is illegal.
open carry is "terrifying and alarming", and therefore illegal.

But the people have the right to bear arms, just no legal way to go about it.

What crap.

There are lots of places in the US of A where the night draws closer.

[Henry Bowman]

Time to feed the hogs. :fire:

[boyd425]

Henry Bowman said: "True, Jim. But you will not be charged with "carrying a firearm." You will be charged with disorderly conduct, inciting panic, trespassing, or something else. You cannot carry in your vehicle at all. ANY complaint by the sheeple to the police can be the basis for some kind of charge."

Henry, what makes you think carrying a firearm won't generally be the charge? They have certainly done that in the past....

As far as the majority sidestepping the open carry talk, I don't agree. the decision P10 cites state v nieto "The statute does not operate as a prhibition against carrying weapons, but as a regulation of the manner of carrying them". That seems to me to clearly say "hey there's still RKBA, just don't conceal". They're not unaware that someone could attach a firearm to themselves in an unconcealed manner but it does seem to me that perhaps they assume people will be intimidated by the probability of being charged with carrying and then having to use the right as an affirmative defense in court. I'm betting not all Ohioans will be so intimidated and I don't imagine this will be the last we see of the issue in Ohio courts. I suspect it'll just move to a -whole- -bunch- of people using affirmative defenses in court, could be busy dockets in Ohio soon... at least until the legislature cleans up this mess and passes real CCW legislation. All of this is my personal opinion. Boyd kneeland

( see klein v lei http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Communications_Office/summaries/2003/0924/ )

[boyd425]

Geek, the "open carry is "terrifying and alarming", and therefore illegal." Jazz was in relation to a law sepcifically about "the carrying of dangerous weapons by tramps" next sentence is "... The court stated that the right to bear arms is a right of which citizens "cannot be deprived.""

O'Connor is right when she says in the dissent P23 "Because a restriction on the manner of exercising a right necessarily leaves open other means of exercising the right..." I don't think the decision can be read to say open carry is terrifying. Not even if you hold it sideways : )
All IMO Boyd Kneeland

[boyd425]

And the open carry celebration begins!!
This just on OHCCW list:

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:27:47 -0700
From: RD <rdestep@earthlink.net>
Subject: Puttin' on a show in Cinci

Group Plans 'Gun Walk' To Promote Concealed Carry Change
September 22, 2003
Ohio News Network - All Ohio. All The Time.
http://www.onn-online.com/story.php?record=26830

A group is expected to push for the right to carry concealed weapons, by
walking through a neighborhood with guns strapped to their hips. The
so-called "Gun Walk" is scheduled for next Sunday in Cincinnati.
snip

[Henry Bowman]

Boyd: There's no Ohio statute against "carrying a firearm" (assuming no other disability and minimun age). Only against "concealed." Also, you cannot open carry in a vehicle or in any place that serves alcohol. There may be a few cities that ban all loaded carry, but that is not the norm.

[Henry Bowman]

Boyd: Do you have ANY other information about the Open carry walk Sunday? It seems to be double super secret.

[boyd425]

Uh oh, that email went out sept 22 and so doesnt reflect the happenings of this morning (see the whole thing which i've pasted at bottom here.) That said, it seems to me that this decision just makes the idea a better one, although now you've got to aim for getting the legislature to pass real ccw law. Also, I should say that while I would be there if I could do it (not sure how many hours the Washington to Cincinatti drive is but I don't think I would make it ; ) I do agree that people at the march face arrest, so if you go, decide in advance what price you are willing to pay. And if the march is still on and you decide to join up, then dress for media appearance.
This post was from OhioCCW@yahoogroups.com which I think Jeff Garvis hooked me up with. Although Michael R owns that yahoo group so I may be misremembering. Mr. Garvis is part of Ohioans for concealed carry and their site is: http://www.ohioccw.org/
The OhioCCW group web page is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioCCW/

All IMO
Boyd kneeland

-----

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:27:47 -0700
From: RD <rdestep@earthlink.net>
Subject: Puttin' on a show in Cinci

Group Plans 'Gun Walk' To Promote Concealed Carry Change
September 22, 2003
Ohio News Network - All Ohio. All The Time.
http://www.onn-online.com/story.php?record=26830

A group is expected to push for the right to carry concealed weapons, by
walking through a neighborhood with guns strapped to their hips. The
so-called "Gun Walk" is scheduled for next Sunday in Cincinnati.

Organizer Vernon Ferrier says he hopes the demonstration prods the Ohio
Supreme Court to rule soon on whether to overturn the state's ban on
carrying concealed weapons.

Justices heard arguments in the case in April. Ferrier is among those who
sued to overturn the ban 3 years ago.

It's legal to carry an unconcealed weapon in Ohio. Gun rights advocates say
police often use charges such as inducing panic to stop people from doing
so.

[Graystar]

I hope they take this to a federal appeals court. It just seems ridiculous.

You can't ban bearing arms, but you can ban a manner of bearing arms. So if the statute says "you can't carry guns" that's not okay but if it says "you can't carry guns concealed, openly, or in containers" then that is okay??? :confused:

The issue of whether the test applied by the majority (reasonable vs. intermediate) would constitute error and would be a valid point for taking this to federal court.

[Cybercop]

Greystar ,

I think you just hit the nail on the head. The unintended consequences of this ruling leave open the possibility of reinterpreting all of the articals of the ohio constitution using a lower standard. If you read the earlier opinions from the lower court this quickly becomes apparent. The OSC however pulls this one out of it's collective arse. I would love for the editor of the columbus dogpatch to be arrested for one of his editorials, or better yet how about one of our fine representitives. Of course they would have the chance to explain to a judge and jury how speach is protected.

[Evil thinking cap] [ON]

Some of the PTB's don't like the local paper taking ad's for "escort services", this could be a real good time to give that opinion a whirl.

{/Evil thinking cap][OFF]



(Just kidding!!!)
-Jim

[Nazirite]

Well the only good thing about this decision is I’ll be leaving Ohio in about 2 years, boy do I miss Tennessee.

Judges these days have completely lost their minds. Too many of them support a political agenda, not what the founding fathers had in mind. What’s worse, in a few years some of the Supreme Court Judges will be retiring. I think we all know that if the wrong judges are appointed, we can expect the anti folks to be filling lawsuits, decisions will come down against firearms, and all of the law abiding gun owners will have to turn them in (Or we might see the start of a second civil war). Either way it’s going to suck.

[Dave Markowitz]

I hope they take this to a federal appeals court. It just seems ridiculous.

On a matter of state law, Federal courts defer to the supreme court of the state in questions. So, if the OH S.Ct. says that the OH law barring CCW is constitutional -- under the state's constitution, the Federal court won't overturn the decision.

[Pheonix]

I do not completely understand the whole process of all of this legal stuff. Does this mean that we lost? Or, is this just the opinion of one person?

[BowStreetRunner]

Freedom done lost Pheonix

i love this quote:

"""""the Supreme Court of Alabama stated: “One of the objects of the law is the avoidance of bad influences which the wearing of a concealed deadly weapon may exert upon the wearer himself, and which in that way, as well as by the weapon’s obscured convenience for use, may tend to the insecurity of other persons.”""""""


And my dear Justices......Alabama NOW lets its citizens carry concealed weapons....so why are you using that 100 year old case to prove a point?
maybe because you have one
i didnt see one bit of logical leagl reasoning in there, just cowardice
BSR

[Coronach]

Hmmm.

I haven't read the link yet, but I gather that the home team just lost and lost big.

Depressing.

Not to say 'told ya so,' but I was derided for suggesting that accpetance of the compromise CCW bill that was winding its way though the Assembly was probably our best shot. I was, however, hoping to be proven wrong.

Now, all efforts go back to jump, since the axe dangling over the anti's heads has just been removed.

Sigh.

Mike

[Graystar]

On a matter of state law, Federal courts defer to the supreme court of the state in questions. So, if the OH S.Ct. says that the OH law barring CCW is constitutional -- under the state's constitution, the Federal court won't overturn the decision. Not when the issue involves a fundamental right. Just like Miranda.

[Graystar]

I do not completely understand the whole process of all of this legal stuff. Does this mean that we lost? Or, is this just the opinion of one person? It means that you lost. The issue has to be taken to federal court now if they want to continue the fight.

[Coronach]

Not when the issue involves a fundamental right. Just like Miranda. this would presuppose that the Federal Supreme Court views it as such. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Mike

[gun-fucious]

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2003_09_21_archive.html#106441309646341898

_
Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Concealed Carry Ban


I guess I'm not too surprised. Ohio's law prohibits carrying a concealed handgun, but allows you to raise an affirmative defense at trial that you needed to do so for self-protection. In practice, it was only a few years ago that this affirmative defense was finally successfully used at trial. Even law enforcement officials who testified during the initial trial in Hamilton County couldn't agree on what was a lawful reason to carry concealed.

Part of the opinion makes sense. They acknowledge that the right to bear arms under the Ohio Constitution is fundamental. But they also argue that fundamental rights are subject to reasonable limitations, and point to the fact that in both State v. Hogan (Ohio 1900) and State v. Nieto (Ohio 1920) the Ohio Supreme Court upheld limitations on carrying of arms as reasonable limitations. Because of constitutional conventions between 1859 (when the first ban was passed) and the present, which kept the Ohio right to keep and bear arms provision unchanged, they have a legitimate argument when they claim that this is evidence that concealed carry is not constitutionally protected.

What is disappointing is how embarrassing both Hogan and Nieto are, and how unconcerned the Ohio Supreme Court is with citing these cases. The Hogan decision prohibited "tramps" from carrying deadly weapons, and the language is vitrolic, and irrational.
Speaking of the class, the genus tramp, in this country, is a public enemy. He is numerous, and he is dangerous. He is a nomad, a wanderer on the face of the earth, with his hand against every honest man, woman, and child, in so far as they do not promptly and fully supply his demands. He is a thief, a robber, often a murderer, and always a nuisance. He does not belong to the working classes, but is an idler. He does not work, because he despises work. It is a fixed principle with him that, come what may, he will not work. He is so low in the scale of humanity that he is without that not uncommon virtue among the low, of honor among thieves. He will steal from a fellow tramp, if in need of what that fellow has, and will resort to violence when that is necessary. So numerous has the class become that the members may be said to overrun the improved parts of the country, especially the more thickly-settled portions.[State v. Hogan, 63 Ohio St. 202, 81 Am. St. Rep. 626, 58 N.E. 572, 574 (1900).]
The legislature didn't want poor people to be armed, and failed to define what made someone a "tramp."

The Nieto case is even more embarrassing. Nieto was charged with concealed carry in his own bed. The police went to arrest him for supposedly threatening someone with a gun--but it doesn't appear that he was ever charged with that. When they arrested Nieto in a company bunkhouse, he was asleep, and they found a gun in his clothing, and charged him with concealed carry. He was found innocent at trial, and the state appealed.

The Nieto decision makes little sense when you start to check the citations. From my book For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Praeger Press, 1994):
The majority opinion, written by Justice Avery, pointed to such decisions as Dunstan v. State (Ala. 1900) [although they consistently misspelled it as Dunston], and Carroll v. State (Ark. 1872) for support for the position that the state could even prohibit concealed carry in one’s own home. With respect to the right to bear arms in general, the Court cited the Ohio Constitution and the Second Amendment, and asserted that the Second Amendment was only a restriction on the powers of the federal government, citing Aymette v. State (1840), Fife v. State (Ark. 1876), English v. State (Tex. 1872), and City of Salina v. Blaksley (Kan. 1905).

But as we have previously seen, these decisions are mutually contradictory, and some contradict the position taken by the Ohio Supreme Court in this case. Salina denied any individual right existed under either state or federal constitutions; English accepted that both the Second Amendment and the Texas Constitution protected an individual right (at least for military arms) from state laws; Fife found the Arkansas Constitutional guarantee to be an individual right.

In addition to the question of whether this was an individual right, English and Fife both upheld what were effectively prohibitions on the carrying of handguns, either concealed or openly; yet the Ohio Supreme Court sought to use these as precedents for the position that some bearing of arms was Constitutionally protected:
The statute does not operate as a prohibition against carrying weapons, but as a regulation of the manner of carrying them. The gist of the offense is concealment. The constitution contains no prohibition against the legislature making such police regulations as may be necessary for the welfare of the public at large as to the manner in which arms shall be borne. [State v. Nieto, 101 Ohio St. 409, 413, 130 N.E. 663 (1920).]
In spite of these dramatic contradictions, the Court declared, “We are thoroughly in accord with these decisions."

...

It would be tempting to leave this decision now—but the minority opinion of Justice Wanamaker brings up the issue that was alluded to in previous chapters—the issue of race. Justice Wanamaker’s opinion is a tour de force of logical argument, starting with the basic premise of human rights:
ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Human rights were born when humanity was born. Both were divine creations. They antedated states, kings, and parliaments. States, constitutions and statutes followed centuries after. The latter were human creations. Their primary and paramount purpose was to conserve those human rights, not to deny or destroy them.
Justice Wanamaker then traced the significance of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, the American peculiarity of written constitutions as limits to governmental power, and Cooley’s writings on “State Constitutions Limitations On Power Rather Than Grants Of Power,” finally arriving at the Ohio Constitutions of 1802 and 1851:
“Section 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security;...”

This is the language of the plain people of Ohio, put into their own constitution. The people’s meaning is self-evident. It will not do to pervert the natural and ordinary meaning of the people’s words by substituting therefor a judicial construction that negatives and nullifies these constitutional guarantees. The people clearly understood these plain provisions. It is incredible that any court should be ignorant of them, or even doubtful concerning them.
Wanamaker also argued that a crime, by the definitions of Ohio law, required an injury to others, and therefore the mere carrying of concealed weapons, without some other criminal purpose, was not properly within the police powers of the state.

In conclusion, Justice Wanamaker pointed out the problems of the existing precedents on the subject:
I desire to give some special attention to some of the authorities cited, supreme court decisions from Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two inferior court decisions from New York, which are given in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The southern states have very largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions. [emphasis added]
Justice Wanamaker observed that while many decisions were already present on which the majority could base its opinion, “Of course, opinions could be found in support of almost any doctrine if you will look long enough and far enough. Opinions never were wanting to support witchcraft and slavery.”

His closing paragraphs sound profoundly current:

I hold that the laws of the state of Ohio should be so applied and so interpreted as to favor the law-abiding rather than the law-violating people. If this decision shall stand as the law of Ohio, a very large percentage of the good people of Ohio to-day are criminals, because they are daily committing criminal acts by having these weapons in their own homes for their own defense. The only safe course for them to pursue, instead of having the weapon concealed on or about their person, or under their pillow at night, is to hang the revolver on the wall and put below it a large placard with these words inscribed:

“The Ohio supreme court having decided that it is a crime to carry a concealed weapon on one’s person in one’s home, even in one’s bed or bunk, this weapon is hung upon the wall that you may see it, and before you commit any burglary or assault, please, Mr. Burglar, hand me my gun.”
On the issue of whether the current statute is unconstitutionally vague or not, the Ohio Supreme Court seems to have ignored the clear confusion of the law enforcement officials who testified at the original trial, and just decided that the language was clear enough to them.

Justice O'Connor dissented, and while agreeing that regulating concealed carry is constitutional, argued that the right to bear arms, being a fundamental right, is subject to strict scrutiny. However, the right to concealed carry is not a fundamental right, since open carry is still lawful in Ohio. Concealed carry should be subject to intermediate scrutiny.
{24} Under intermediate scrutiny, a regulation will be upheld only if the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest and leaves open other means of exercising the right. Id. The state argues that the carrying of concealed weapons must be banned to protect public safety. Ensuring public safety is an important government interest that would satisfy the first prong of the test, if the statute were narrowly tailored. Further, the state correctly asserts that the statute leaves open the ability to bear arms by openly carrying a firearm, satisfying the third prong of the test.
However, Justice O'Connor points out that no fundamental right should be subject to the affirmative defense requirement.
{27} Under the current statutory scheme, an officer need not be concerned with whether the accused is engaged in a constitutionally protected, i.e., lawful, activity at the time of arrest. Rather, a person can be arrested anytime when carrying a concealed weapon, even if doing so for the constitutionally protected purposes of defense and security. This creates an unavoidable chilling effect on the free exercise of the right to bear arms for defense and security.

{28} Moreover, the opportunity for the accused to establish that he was exercising a fundamental right does not justify subjecting him to arrest each time he exercises the right. 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 would have overturned the statute, because it was not narrowly tailored.

Here's a suggestion for you Ohioans: start to carry openly. There's no law against it--and here's a chance to make some money suing police officers who arrest you for exercising a fundamental right. It may also force the state legislature to finally pass a concealed weapon permit system.
posted by Clayton at 8:18 AM

[mrtgbnkr]

Ok, here's another problem to consider when contemplating carrying openly, well, two for me at least.

First, Ohio prohibits carrying in a car. The gun has to come off, be unloaded, locked in the trunk and reloaded/holstered when you get to your destination. A little bit of a PITA for an afternoon of running errands.

Second, while RKBA is a fundamental right, I simply can't afford the lawyer to defend the inciting panic charges etc that I'm sure I would have to face.

Seems to me they have us over a barrel on this one.

However, I will stand by my earlier opinion when the state senate added some really stupid provisions on the CCW bill....I'd rather have nothing than a law that forces citizens to handle their weapon over forces the gun to be locked in the trunk just because I have my children in the car. The excessive handling is IMO at least as dangerous as the chance that someone might attack me on an average day.

Mark

[Pheonix]

So, now I will buy some OWB holsters. Can I carry loaded ir is there some law about that hidden somewhere?

[xenophon]

"Second, while RKBA is a fundamental right, I simply can't afford the lawyer to defend the inciting panic charges etc that I'm sure I would have to face."


I though the state would provide one for you if you couldn't afford one? Get the state appointed attorney and let the jury decide it, shouldn't be any cost to you should it?

x

[Dave Markowitz]

Not when the issue involves a fundamental right. Just like Miranda.

Graystar,

No, not like Miranda. The legal rule governing in Miranda was Federal. We're dealing with a state constitutional issue here, specifically arising under Section 4, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

If the issue is of STATE law, under the STATE consititution, the Federal court will defer to the supreme court of the state in question as to the meaning of the law. Taking this a step further, if the state's supreme court hasn't yet ruled on an issue of state law, the Federal court is supposed to figure out how the state's supreme court would hold. (Which is at best a SWAG.) This is an element of federalism.

Now, if a state's supreme court ruled on an issue involving Federal law -- including for example, the Second Amendment -- the Federal court would not be bound by the state court's decision.

And yes, I am an attorney.

[Graystar]

No, not like Miranda. The legal rule governing in Miranda was Federal. We're dealing with a state constitutional issue here, specifically arising under Section 4, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. There was no legal rule governing Miranda. The Bill of Rights is not law. The Supreme Court has already stated that. And the Cruikshank ruling reminds us that the duty to protect our fundamental rights lies with the state. It is when the state itself violates our fundamental rights that the Federal government comes to our rescue.

This court stated:
"Today, we reiterate that the right to bear arms is fundamental."

While the Federal court is not bound by this statement, it cannot ignore a state's mis-handling of a right the state considers to be fundamental. Especially since there were claims of due process violations, which would clearly bring the issue into a federal arena.


And I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on THR. :D

[Dave Markowitz]

The Supreme Court has already stated that.

Got a cite for that?

While the Federal court is not bound by this statement, it cannot ignore a state's mis-handling of a right the state considers to be fundamental. Especially since there were claims of due process violations, which would clearly bring the issue into a federal arena.

You're not understanding the appellate process. The problem is that you cannot appeal a legal issue to a higher court when it was not already raised in the lower court.

I am not saying that you cannot challenge the validity of Ohio's ban on CCW in Federal court. However, in this instance, you'd need to mount an entirely new challenge to the law based on OH violating the Federal constitution. This would not be an appeal of the OH Supreme Court's decision, it would have to be an entirely new case, unless you want it to be dismissed out of hand.

[mrtgbnkr]

xenophon,

I though the state would provide one for you if you couldn't afford one? Get the state appointed attorney and let the jury decide it, shouldn't be any cost to you should it?

I don't know about you, but trusting my future (and that of my family) to a PD isn't my idea of a good idea. I can already see the guy urging me to cop a plea to avoid jail time...sure, it might be a misdemeanor, but I don't want to have to deal with the hassles....my life is messed up enough already looking for a job, I don't need to add to my stress level. Thanks

Mark

[Politically Incorrect]

First, Ohio prohibits carrying in a car. The gun has to come off, be unloaded, locked in the trunk and reloaded/holstered when you get to your destination. A little bit of a PITA for an afternoon of running errands.

My roommate said he talked to a local LEO and said that if someone was carrying openly in public that he would not arrest him for disturbing the peace or such, but would arrest someone for entering in their vehicle without disarming, which is currently illegal.

I am reconsidering what I should do, but I can tell you that in the past four years, I've stood next to local and state law enforcement officers (Howdy Troopers!) in the Dayton-Cincy-Columbus area with a cocked and locked 1911A1 tucked into my waistband. Quite a few times, it was at some gas station or in a store waiting in line. It's just silly to me that they would be so oblivious to the notion that they are the only ones who have a gun within their vicinity. If I, who has no ill intentions to the community, can carry a firearm and stand next to an unsuspecting LEO, then how simple is it for a criminal to do the same thing?

I have noticed that bank robbery isn't prevented by the current law in Ohio. (Of course, robbing a bank is already a crime!) Criminals and those under the affirmative defense in Ohio are treated the same way despite the only offense the ADs committed was they didn't meet the specific requirements on how to exercise their right to bear arms for their defense and security.

If you look around you, I'm sure you couldn't tell who is armed and who isn't. There are those in Ohio who have used the words, "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." Thousands of Ohioans already carry firearms and they have not harmed anyone.

[Graystar]

You're not understanding the appellate process. The problem is that you cannot appeal a legal issue to a higher court when it was not already raised in the lower court. I know that. The issue of due-process was raised.

Got a cite for that? I'm still looking...I know I've seen it somewhere.

The reason the Bill of Rights is not law is because the restrictions would still exist even if the Bill of Rights didn't. By its legal definition, a bill of rights is simply a summary of fundamental rights. Other rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to travel, have the same protection as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, without themselves being enumerated. A bill of rights simply states what is. It does not add or take away anything.

[AZRickD]

This is the second time I have had to post this on this forum:

You do not have to put your gun in a trunk in Ohio.

The law says that one of the ways it can be transported is "in plain sight, unloaed, action open."

The State was trying to say that this meant the ammo had to be stored in a separate compartment. A man was arrested (blammo in a magazine). He won his case. The State lost. Another man did the same. He won. State lost.

As a result, the Ohio Attorney General's office issued an opinion saying that the blammo could be in magazines and even on-person. The AG produced a training video on that topic and distributed it to OHP posts all over the state.

How did I know this? I made twenty long-distance calls to 15 OHP posts and a few Sheriffs offices and local PDs from Arizona. The vast majority of them were aware of the new interpretation.

You folks should spend less time on gun forums and more time in law web sites (OHP has a link to the law) and talking to local LEOs and prosecutors to put them on notice.

Also, "Inducing Panic" requires that some other law be broken, and carrying openly is not one of them:ORC 2917.31
§ 2917.31 Inducing panic.

(A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:

(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;

(2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence;

(3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.

(B) Division (A)(1) of this section does not apply to any person conducting an authorized fire or emergency drill.



Rick