Ohio Court of Appeals Rejects Ban
on Right-To-Carry
|
"...The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security... We believe [the state's founding
fathers] meant what they said..." |
|
|
-- Judge Mark P. Painter |
|
Judge Painter |
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel from the
1st Ohio District Court of Appeals
held that Ohio's ban on carrying concealed firearms violates
Article 1 of the state Constitution - a ruling that upholds a
January 10
decision by Judge Robert P. Ruehlman. When announcing the unanimous
decision, presiding
Judge Mark P. Painter read from Article 1, stating,
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security."
He followed by claiming, "We believe they [the state's founding
fathers] meant what they said."
Ohio is one of only six states that currently prohibits all law-abiding
citizens from carrying concealed firearms for personal protection, and
does not offer a clear exemption to this prohibition for civilians. And
| |
"...We know of no other situation where a citizen is
guilty until proven innocent..." |
| -- Judge Painter |
|
while the law in question has a provision that justifies a "prudent
person in going armed," this provision is what is referred to as an
"affirmative defense," and can be used only after an individual has been
arrested and indicted.
Judge Painter commented, "No Ohioan can exercise
the constitutional right to bear arms, whether concealed or unconcealed,
without risking jail. We know of no other situation where a citizen is
guilty until proven innocent."
Wednesday's ruling also found the
"prudent person" provision incomprehensible to the ordinary citizen,
pointing out that even a seasoned law officer could not determine its
true meaning, leaving the law open to arbitrary enforcement.
What this ruling will ultimately mean to law-abiding Ohioans remains to
be seen, as
the gun-ban lobby formerly known as HCI promises another
appeal is in the works. This anti-gun extremist organization, through
what it calls the "Brady Center's Legal Action Project," has been
assisting the defendants in the case - which includes Hamilton County,
Cincinnati, and the state of Ohio - by acting as co-counsel. The next
stop for this case should be the Ohio Supreme Court, and we'll be sure
to keep you abreast of any new developments.
Related Stories...
More about Reckless Lawsuits
Ruehlman's Rulings (Jan 2002)
Cincinnati Reckless Lawsuit Continues to Suffer Setbacks (Aug 2000)
Cincinnati Reckless Lawsuit Dismissed (Oct 1999)
|
|
