TrapperReady
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,732
I was just perusing some other sights and came across this gem:
This is from the Ohioans for Concealed Carry website.
I'm not from Ohio, but thought this might be of interest to quite a few folks.
Sixth District Appellate Court Throws Out Beatty Case
DECISION WILL IMPACT PENDING LITIGATION IN CLYDE
NRA NEWS TO FEATURE OFCC AT 10:00 EST TONIGHT
The 6th District Court of Appeals today decided against Bruce Beatty, handing down a 2-1 opinion that has declared that HB12 is not a general law of the State of Ohio. Justice Peter M. Handwork, Arlene Singer concured and Justice Dennis M. Parish strongly dissented in the opinion.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry is performing a review of the twenty page opinion and will have a more detailed analysis of the events as the day progresses.
At first glance the court threw out most of Toledo's positions, but concluded that Ohio's Concealed Carry law is not a general law of the State of Ohio. We feel this conclusion is very wrong, and if upheld, it could have stunning effects on concealed carry statewide. Stay tuned to OhioCCW.org as we continue to review this decision and our reaction:
We find, however, that it is a clear violation of the home-rule amendment for the General Assembly to attempt to limit and preempt all authroity of a municipality regarding the regulation of concealed handguns within its jurisdiction
This decision will no doubt impact OFCC's long stalled litigation in Clyde, Ohio since both cases were in the same appellate district. Ohioans For Concealed Carry is committed to this cause and will consider taking this issue to the Ohio Supreme Court if required.
The lone dissenting opinion from Parish sums up the net effect of this decision and the potential chilling impact it could create:
The statute precisely delineates those limited public locations prohibiting concealed weapons. Those places not expressly incorporated into the list are not subject to the statute. Shortly after the bill's enactment, an amendment was proposed to modify the language expressly expanding the list of covered areas to include parks and recreation areas. The legislature did not adopt this amendment. The failure to adopt an amendment containing a parks provision constitutes compelling indicia that the exclusion of parks or recreation facilities was not an oversight. It was a conscious decision evincing legislative intent to exclude park property from the statute. Now the majority wishes to exercise legislative power from the bench by substituting its judgment for that of our elected representatives. Such an action constitutes an unwarranted judicial intervention.
Given the legislative history, the majority's actions create a conflict between the statute's provisions undermining both legislative intent and the actual provisions of R.C. 2923.126(A). It will enable every city, town, village, township or county within the state to render the statute void by merely enacting a farther-reaching local ordinance. Further, in declaring that R.C. 2923.126 is not a general law, the majority opens Pandora's Box. If R.C. 2923.126 is not a general law then dozens if not hundreds of other state statutes are also not general laws, and local governments can change them at will. Thus, the majority's action will serve only to promote uncertainty in the law.
This is from the Ohioans for Concealed Carry website.
I'm not from Ohio, but thought this might be of interest to quite a few folks.