[PackerBoy]

Actually, this ruling was based upon the OHIO Constitution, and the right to bear arms is set forth in the Constitution itself (and not some "Bill of Rights" afterthought). This provision also lacks the federal "well regulated militia" language that many courts find so troubling.

Great day in the Buckeye State, and me with a new .357 on the way! Road trip to Cincy coming up!

[supercat]

This provision also lacks the federal "well regulated militia" language that many courts find so troubling.

Ironic the trouble people have with that language, given that it serves to make abundantly clear that the Second Amendment isn't about "hunting or sporting purposes".

[B4Ranch]

Who reminded the judges that EACH state has a Constitution?

[Critter]

From the Connecticut Constitution:

"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

Yet, when CT passed it's own version of the 93 assault weapons ban, the CT supreme court held that the ban was constitutional, because the state was not banning all arms, only certain arms. We still have a right to bear bolt action, lever action and certain semi automatic arms in defense of ourselves and the state.

A constitution cannot be written clearly and simple enough to not be vulnerable to perversion by a corrupt, communist legislature and judiciary.