by Dave Workman
Senior Editor

The Ohio Supreme Court was scheduled to hear oral arguments on Apr. 15 in a landmark challenge to the state’s long-standing ban on concealed carry, mounted by four Cincinnati residents, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and two Ohio gun rights organizations.

SAF joined primary plaintiffs Chuck Klein, Pat Feely, James Cohen and Vernon Ferrier in the lawsuit, which is also supported by Ohioans for Concealed Carry and the Peoples Rights Organization. The attorney for the plaintiffs is Cincinnati attorney William Gustavson, who has successfully taken the case before Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman and a three-judge panel at Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals. Both courts ruled Ohio’s statute to be unconstitutional.

Then, on Feb. 11, Seneca County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael P. Kelbey issued a ruling that concurred with Ruehlman’s decision in a second case in which the state’s ban on concealed carry was ruled unconstitutional. The state Supreme Court set the Apr. 15 date for oral arguments immediately after Kelbey handed down his ruling.

Gustavson told Gun Week as this issue went to press on Apr. 9 that because the state high court appears to be fast-tracking this lawsuit, “We may have a ruling by the end of this summer.”

He was confident that the state Supreme Court will strike down the law, because, in his opinion, the law clearly conflicts with the wording of Ohio’s constitution, which provides: “The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.”

At stake is the potential for Ohio to join Vermont as the second state that allows unlicensed concealed carry by law-abiding private citizens. A Vermont Supreme Court ruling striking down a local ban against concealed carry in 1905 provided the basis for that state’s current concealed carry situation; the state legislature has never acted on the issue. Thus, in Vermont, citizens may carry openly or concealed, provided they have no intent to harm another person.

Under existing Ohio laws, concealed carry on the person or in a vehicle, is banned, and citizens arrested for violating the law must provide an affirmative defense, essentially forcing citizens to prove their innocence, rather than forcing the state to prove their guilt.

Gustavson said the case has local and national significance. It marks only the second time, to his knowledge, that a state Supreme Court will be deciding on the constitutionality of a gun law with the kind of potential result this case could have. He noted that when the appeals court heard the case, it not only unanimously upheld Ruehlman’s original decision; it also said that had Ruehlman ruled the other way, the appellate court would have reversed him.

“I’ve never heard of a ruling like that before,” he stated.

Gustavson believes there are several possible reasons why the high court is accelerating this case. He said it is possible the court wants to issue a ruling this year, a non-election year, so that the matter is decided without political overtones. He also suggested that the Supreme Court wants to address this issue because the Ohio legislature has failed on several opportunities to pass legislation that could have provided a licensing system for law-abiding citizens.

The 2003 version of a bill (HB-12), sponsored by state Rep. Jim Aslanides, passed the Ohio House by a 69-28 vote on Mar. 12 and is now before the state Senate. One of the reasons the legislature has failed to act in previous sessions is that Gov. Bob Taft has threatened to veto any bill that does not have the support of the state’s police administrators. However, the governor and the police organizations may have to choose between the prospect of a Vermont-style situation or a “shall-issue” concealed carry law.

“The court realizes that the legislature has been examining this issue for several years and is continuing to drag its feet,” Gustavson observed. “A prompt decision will give the legislature a green light to decide the issue.”