Posted on 04/07/2008 5:27:32 AM PDT by 50mm
Ohioans have the right to ban hidden guns from their homes and places of business, but if the landlord is a city or county, that right evaporates under a new section of Ohio law, a group that wants it overturned says. The Ohio Supreme Court hears arguments in the case Wednesday -- the day after the fourth anniversary of the state becoming the 46th to allow residents to carry a concealed weapon.
From April 8, 2004, through 2007, Ohio sheriffs issued 108,868 licenses to carry hidden guns. The licenses of 482 people were revoked because the holders no longer were eligible.
(Excerpt) Read more at dispatch.com ...
The Ohio Supreme court threw out all the local restrictions once, so I would hope that is settled law.
As far as parks go I doubt the logic of the argument that people go out of their minds in parks, ergo no guns will hold much water either.
How many of the 108,000 CCW holders have committed crimes with a gun since the law went into effect. That will be the logical thing to ask.
In places with restrictive anti-CC laws, I highly recommend suggesting to friendly judges (the higher court the better), that they *require*, by court order, that some people carry concealed in public.
This at least insures that those who desperately need to be armed can be armed, even in the most gun-hostile government areas.
I knew of a judge who did this as a matter of course whenever a woman appeared before him to get a protection order against an ex-husband or boyfriend. It worked! And having a court order that they *had* to carry eliminated any doubt or concern on their part—it was a life saver.
In turn, the judge got the idea from a retired US Army Sergeant Major that someone wanted to kill, but who worked in a city that discouraged guns. The judges order trumped any petty local official, so the SGM got to have CC, even though nobody else did in that liberal town.
Granted it is best to live in a place that encourages CC, but until there is more common sense in the country, if you can, whisper in the ear of judges.
The leftist, anti-gun bias of the author was exposed immediately with the phrase "hidden guns".
Would this apply inter-state? Given the Constitution "FF&C" clause, it would seem that it should.
The 2A language "shall not be infringed" applies to the States and municipalities as much as to the federal government. Especially since Madison et al. manifestly thought States just as likely to oppress as a federal regime.
The smartest liberals are playing a long game with us, just seeing how it plays out, and banking on the press's ability to get the people to throw up on proffered images of Frank Nitti types bringing machine guns to church, and just knuckle under and let Us Who Know Best repeal the Second Amendment. Then the liberals can start talking about a new American Revolution, the one that brings Big Brother to power.
I would only feel completely comfortable inter-State if it was done by a federal judge. Anything else could, and probably would, be argued by *somebody*, which at a minimum would waste your time and money in some lawyer’s squabble.
(Put it under the heading of “If you ask enough people, somebody is bound to say ‘No’.”)
Importantly, there are a lot of federal judges out there that could be persuaded of the value of doing this on a regular basis. As such, it is a back-door, barn-door sized loophole for CC even in places with strict anti-gun laws.
About the only limitations on a federal judge CC order would be, ironically, federal buildings. But those are under such strict controls that even federal officers have to check their guns on entry, so are hardly worth worrying about.
But I still encourage CC advocates who meet “friendly” federal and State judges in social situations, to lobby then with this as a good idea. It appeals to them, because it is a very practical way for them to actually “enforce” their own decisions.
That is, it annoys judges when they issue a restraining order against some violent individual, who ignores the order and hurts or kills someone. Along with everything else, it shows contempt for the judge, and they don’t like that.
So by CC arming the potential victim, in effect it says that if the violent perp ignores my order, there is at least a chance that they are going to get ventilated by the person they were going to victimize. The victim themselves will enforce my order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.