Ohio CCW case bites the dust

[foghornl]

This just in to me from Ohioans For Concealed Carry:

Basically, the Ohio Supreme Court has over ruled 2 lower courts htat Ohioans DO NOT HAVE the right to CCW. Below is the complete text of the news from Ohioans for Concealed Carry [www.ofcc.net]

11:30 a.m. Statement from Ohioans For Concealed Carry:
We are disappointed that the Ohio Supreme Court has failed on this issue and abridged this fundamental right of Ohioans for a third time in this state’s history.
The court has contradicted itself by saying that citizens may exercise this fundamental right by carrying openly without concerns for public safety, but that wearing a concealed firearm is somehow unsafe to society as a whole and must be regulated by our legislature.
There is no logic in the majority’s ruling.
As dissenting Justice Maureen O’Connor pointed out, the law today “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 protectedâ€.
It is incumbent upon Ohio Senate President Doug White to stop his obstruction of House Bill 12, appoint conferees, and send a bill to Gov. Taft’s desk.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry was a co-plaintiff in this lawsuit, and is Ohio’ s largest grassroots organization focused solely on restoring Ohioans’ right to bear arms for self-defense. A more detailed response will be issued after we have had time to study the entire ruling.
.

 

[Henry Bowman]

OHIO SUPREME COURT ENDORSES 1859 JIM CROW LAW!

 

[boyd425]

Check out the decision at:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Communications_Office/summaries/2003/0924/

The dissenting opinion really could not be better IMO. O'Connor outlines the contradictions in the decision (and while they're as obvious as a 2x4 swinging at your head, it's nice to have a supreme court justice state them). My favorite are the convolutions the majority drove around concealment (as a seperate issue from rkba), their argument using the law that states "cannot go about ... to terrify and alarm a peaceful people" while leaving available open carry ... Well folks, one of the obvious advantages to CCW is not bothering the folks who don't want to see the firearms.

I see a lot of open carry in Ohios future. I don't think people will sit still while a court so obviously infringes a right (a right that the majority agrees exists) and do nothing about it. As OConnor says the majority leaves this open. I'm sure the majority assumed that folks exercising the right to open carry will be intimidated by the fact that it's only an "affirmative defense" (ie you can still be arrested, but your OH constitutional RKBA is a defense in court) but -I- don't think Ohioans are that sheeplike yet. The fact that you may garner some media attention openly carrying is something that might get well used, say to encourage the legislature to clean this whole mess up. Interesting time, not entirely a bad thing but certainly not yet a win for the cause of freedom. All of this is my personal opinion. Boyd Kneeland

 

[Henry Bowman]

but -I- don't think Ohioans are that sheeplike yet.

I'm willing to bet that 60-80% are.

Here are my randon observations:

I'd make the headline:

OHIO JIM CROW LAW UPHELD! or OHIO SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS JIM CROW LAW!

It's time for us to play the race card!!!!!!!

In paragraph 8, the court compares us to "tramps." They seem to rely heavily on State v. Hogan that upheld (in dicta) a prohibition against carrying dangerous weapons by tramps. Obvious Jim Crow law. Read that case for classic quotes. That statute has since been repealed!

They then somehow equate CCW to "the annoyance and terror and danger of its citizens." The Ohio Bill of Rights "was never intended as a warrant for vicious persons to carry weapons with which to terrorize others." They are calling us terrorists!!!!!! They cite this language as a suggestion of "how limited Ohioans of the late nineteenth century considered the right to bear arms to be."

They acknowledge that the original law was passed in 1859. We may have a huge Underground Railroad Museum on the northern banks of the Ohio River in Cincinnati, but we know (from the language of State v. Hogan) that Ohioans didn't want free (and poor) blacks or "tramps" running around with "unusual and dangerous weapons."

They endorsed the Alabama Supreme Court of 1900 (no racism there/then!) who was quoted by the OhSupCt in State v. Nieto. "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." Nieto was Hispanic. Alabama has since adopted "shall issue" CCW and has repealled Jim Crow laws.

Overall, the majority opinion is very cursory, conclusory, and simply silent on inconvenient issues (i.e., open carry). I'm sure Brown v. Bd. of Ed. seemed well-reasoned at the time. As a society, we have since rejected such racism.



:banghead: