2nd Amendment Victory in Ohio

In a ruling that confirms the 2nd Amendment rights of LEGAL gun owners in Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a Sixth District Court of Appeals ruling on restrictions municipalities may place on owners of Carry Conceal permits.

The case involves Ohioans for Concealed Carry and the City of Clyde over their 2004 ban on "weapons" in city-owned parks. The ordinance --

"...expressly included in its weapons ban persons who were licensed to carry a concealed firearm “pursuant to R.C. 2923.125.”

As expected this ruling has Mayors and City Managers throughout Ohio bellowing - "kids will get shot" and verbalizing images of gun-strapped parents ready to shoot the ump over a bad call. Even though they claim this is another attack on "Home Rule" - it is not!

The ruling does not strike down their ban on "weapons" in the city-owned parks. The ruling only states municipalities cannot restrict the rights of individuals legally licensed by the State of Ohio to carry a firearm.

In support of their argument that the ordinance does not violate state law the City of Clyde offers up that since private property owners can place restrictions CCW permit holders so can they. The city thinly tries to pass off the ruse that since they own the parks - they are privately owned. Huh?

Some of the jugheads on Ohio's highest court agreed with this blurring distinction between public and private property. In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer wrote...

The different treatment of public and private property is patently arbitrary and unreasonable; it affects one class of land solely on the basis of ownership, which has little to do with the relative safety of allowing concealed handguns on a particular type of property ...

Also in agreement but writing his own dissenting opinion, Justice Paul E. Pfeifer scribbles...

“There is no rational basis to distinguish between private and public property owners in regard to their statutory ability to prevent persons from carrying firearms onto their property...

Treatment of public and private property arbitrary? No rational basis to distinguish between public and private property? It sounds as if these robe wearing rubes, given the chance, would very easily agree that private property could, at times, also be considered public property (state owned).

Also in agreement, but writing his own dissenting opinion, Justice Paul E. Pfeifer scribbles...

“There is no rational basis to distinguish between private and public property owners in regard to their statutory ability to prevent persons from carrying firearms onto their property...

Treatment of public and private property arbitrary? No rational basis to distinguish between public and private property? It sounds as if these robe wearing rubes, given the chance, would have no problem trampling the rights of private property owners. Under this backward line of thinking - they could very easily agree that private property could, at times, also be considered public property (state owned).

Thank God Justice O'Donnell could not disagree more. Respecting the rights of private property owners and our 2nd Amendment rights, in the majority decision, O'Donnell writes...

There is a distinction between public and private property. A private landowner is the sole possessor of private property. ... On the other hand, public property is owned by the taxpayers and is accessible to all. If there were no distinction made between public and private property as the dissent suggests, then a municipality could in the future choose to expand the prohibition from public parks to public sidewalks and roadways, and eventually to all public property. We therefore conclude that the public/private distinction does not affect the uniform application of this statute.”

Joining Justice O'Donnell in the majority were -- Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justice Robert R. Cupp. 4-3