Ohio gun rights activists and self-defense prohibitionists are waiting for a scheduled April 10 ruling by the 1st Ohio District Court of Appeals on whether the state’s 80-year-old law banning concealed carry is unconstitutional.
The Appeals Court will set a precedent by issuing an oral ruling.
Whichever way the decision goes—and there was strong indication following a March 20 hearing that the three-judge panel will rule in favor of gun rights—it will almost certainly be appealed to the Ohio state Supreme Court.
Not coincidentally, at the same time the Appeals Court was hearing oral arguments in the case, Ohio legislators were working feverishly to pass a concealed carry statute, allowing Buckeye State residents to obtain licenses to legally carry handguns.
The lawsuit, filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and five local residents against the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton County and the state of Ohio, seeks to overturn the decades-old prohibition. It has also been viewed as the catalyst that finally got Ohio lawmakers to move forward on a concealed carry bill. SAF Public Affairs Director Dave LaCourse was in the courtroom to hear the oral arguments, and he was very encouraged by the hearing.
Lawyers for the city, county and state argued before the court that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed pistol. But that argument did not appear to set well with Judges Rupert P. Doan and Lee Hildebrandt Jr.
Doan challenged the defense arguments, observing, “How can you rationally exercise your right to self defense if you’re attacked somewhere and you can’t have your gun with you?”
He noted that under the current situation, honest citizens could not draw a gun in a life-threatening situation, adding with a hint of sarcasm, “The only way you can meet an attack is to say, ‘Time out. I’m going home to get my gun.’ ”
Hildebrandt said the problem with current law is that law-abiding citizens face arrest, and must defend themselves in court.
Under the Ohio Constitution, citizens have a right to be armed for self-protection. Current law provides for establishing an “affirmative defense,” but the burden of proof—and the cost—is on the defendant in such cases.
Accounts in both the Cincinnati Enquirer and Cleveland Plain Dealer hinted strongly that the Appeals Court will nullify the concealed carry ban.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys contended that the current law is not uniformly enforced across the state, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for law-abiding Ohioans to exercise their self-defense right from one jurisdiction to the next. They also noted that carrying unconcealed firearms for personal protection would also get them arrested.
The case came before the Appeals Court because Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman had ruled on Jan. 10 that the concealed carry ban is unconstitutional. Defendants hotly contest that position, noting that if it is upheld, it would undo 80 years of lower court rulings. In that same decision, Ruehlman had issued an injunction against enforcement of the current law in Hamilton County, but the Appeals Court stayed the injunction pending the appeal. If Ruehlman’s injunction is reinstated, it would apply only to Hamilton County.
A win at the Appeals Court level could push the Ohio Senate to expedite action on a CCW bill, despite opposition from Gov. Bob Taft and Attorney General Betty Montgomery. On March 21, the Ohio House of Representatives approved, by a 66-27 vote, concealed carry legislation sponsored by Rep. Jim Aslanides. Taft has been roundly criticized by Ohio gun rights activists for initially vowing to support concealed carry, then backing away from that position, insisting instead that he would only sign a bill if it were supported by law enforcement.
He has announced he will not sign this bill because of opposition from the Fraternal Order of Police and State Highway Patrol, although it is backed by the Buckeye State Sheriff’s Association.
Senate President Richard Finan (R-Hamilton County) announced earlier he would not back Taft into a corner. That issue may become moot depending upon the Appeals Court ruling, as the Senate, and Taft, could have no alternative but to go with a concealed carry bill.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry, which had supported a broader bill earlier in the session, has thrown its support behind the legislation. However, not all pro-gun groups are on the same page.
The Ohio Constitution Defense Council is opposed to the bill, according to retired Reynoldsburg Police Sgt. Jim Ramm. A former member of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) board of directors, Ramm and his group are at odds with the NRA over the Aslanides legislation. He advocates a broader bill, sponsored by Rep. Tom Brinkman, that would have allowed concealed carry without a license, much the same as is the case in Vermont. NRA, however, supports the Aslanides package.
Return to Archive Index