Another State SC Ruling On Guns

[rushmc 23]

Home rule can not trump state law in Ohio.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Communications_Office/summaries/2008/0918/070960.asp

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Hurrah for Ohio and the upholding of "state preemption".

If you were to allow every municipality to set it's own rules regardless of state law, then there would be no point in having state laws. But statewide uniformity is needed, to prevent a patchwork quilt of differing laws which no one would be able to keep up with, and which would ensnare numerous innocent citizens with legal troubles they don't deserve.

But this is about far more than just one city's parks. It will also prohibit any city from enacting any gun registration schemes, so-called "assault weapon" bans, bans on sales of firearms within city limits, etc.
State law overrides local law, and a local government can't take away gun rights guaranteed by state law and the Ohio Constitution. That's why this ruling is really so important. It nips all that city-level gun-o-phobe crap in the bud.

Thanks to "Ohioans For Concealed Carry" for pursuing this issue and setting the matter straight.

[PhreeZone 20]

The SC got this one right. This si a change for us since the Ohio SC is pretty good at screwing everything else up like our school funding that was ruled unconstitutional years ago and they still have'nt figured out how to fix it.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[livendive 8]

I like the result and I think the argument against it is absurd. The claim that the distinction between privately and publicly held property is "arbirtrary and unreasonable" doesn't hold water when one considers the meaning of public ownership. Public ownership means the people who use the park all own it. While an anti-gun freak would be perfectly within their rights to forbid me from carrying a gun on their private property, they have no right to tell me I can't carry one on my private property. Since public property belongs to both of us, we should each be free to do as we see fit, provided we don't intrude on the rights of the other. I can carry a gun without infringing on his right not to, but he can't ban concealed carry without infringing on my right to carry. To argue otherwise is to say that one portion of the public should be treated as a private property owner while another portion should not.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I like the result and I think the argument against it is absurd. The claim that the distinction between privately and publicly held property is "arbirtrary and unreasonable" doesn't hold water when one considers the meaning of public ownership. Public ownership means the people who use the park all own it. While an anti-gun freak would be perfectly within their rights to forbid me from carrying a gun on their private property, they have no right to tell me I can't carry one on my private property. Since public property belongs to both of us, we should each be free to do as we see fit, provided we don't intrude on the rights of the other. I can carry a gun without infringing on his right not to, but he can't ban concealed carry without infringing on my right to carry. To argue otherwise is to say that one portion of the public should be treated as a private property owner while another portion should not.

Blues,
Dave

I had not thought of it like that. Well stated.

How does your opinion square with Corps trying to not allow guns in cars in their parking lots?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln