ohio pat
New member
Just an fyi
Gun Control Rejected in Cleveland, Ohio, from Gun Digest, February 14, 2011 edition, The Supreme Court of Ohio …rejected Cleveland’s attempt to retain its own gun control laws. In a 5-2 majority opinion, the justices upheld a 2006 state law that says only federal or state regulations can limit an Ohioan’s individual right to bear arms.
The ruling effectively upended Cleveland’s ban on so-called “assault weapns,” passed in 2006. In addition, “The ruling displaces all local gun-control ordinances previously adopted by Ohio Municipalities under the Ohio Constitution and does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.
This court decision follows U S Supreme Court cases where the individual has the right and the right is not that of a state to form a militia.
The impact will be a simpler understanding by the ccw holder that unless (in Ohio's Case", banned premises are listed in the law) he/she is entering a banned premise there is no concern.
A greater impact will be the ability of a ccw holder that lives in a municipality that previously had banned high capacity magazines they can now be delivered there. It may take awhile for retailers to do that but it should come.
I have written in the past that the ccw holder has an obligation to carry his/her firearm concealed, no indicators by clothing-revolver print on the pocket, firearm print in the waist ban, etc.
Pat Olvey
email [email protected] or [email protected]
Gun Control Rejected in Cleveland, Ohio, from Gun Digest, February 14, 2011 edition, The Supreme Court of Ohio …rejected Cleveland’s attempt to retain its own gun control laws. In a 5-2 majority opinion, the justices upheld a 2006 state law that says only federal or state regulations can limit an Ohioan’s individual right to bear arms.
The ruling effectively upended Cleveland’s ban on so-called “assault weapns,” passed in 2006. In addition, “The ruling displaces all local gun-control ordinances previously adopted by Ohio Municipalities under the Ohio Constitution and does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.
This court decision follows U S Supreme Court cases where the individual has the right and the right is not that of a state to form a militia.
The impact will be a simpler understanding by the ccw holder that unless (in Ohio's Case", banned premises are listed in the law) he/she is entering a banned premise there is no concern.
A greater impact will be the ability of a ccw holder that lives in a municipality that previously had banned high capacity magazines they can now be delivered there. It may take awhile for retailers to do that but it should come.
I have written in the past that the ccw holder has an obligation to carry his/her firearm concealed, no indicators by clothing-revolver print on the pocket, firearm print in the waist ban, etc.
Pat Olvey
email [email protected] or [email protected]
leasantry: