Wednesday, July 19, 2000

Ruling suspends gun law

---

Law enforcement officials concerned

By Dan Horn
The Cincinnati Enquirer

        Vernon Ferrier can carry his gun to work today without worrying about breaking the law.

NORMAN FERRIER CAN NOW CARRY HIS PISTOL TO WORK. (Luis Sanchez photo) | ZOOM |

        Because of him, so can almost everyone else in Hamilton County.

        Mr. Ferrier and three other Cincinnatians won a court victory Tuesday that left the county with no concealed weapons law for at least the next three weeks.

        Judge Robert Ruehlman's decision means Cincinnati police and the Hamilton County sheriff can no longer arrest people for carrying hidden guns.

        It also means Cincinnati is about to become a battle ground in the national fight over gun control.

WHAT IT MEANS

• The Hamilton County Sheriff's Office and Cincinnati Police Division — the largest law enforcement agencies in the county — cannot arrrest anyone for carrying a concealed weapon.   • The order is in effect for three weeks, at which time the judge will hear more arguments before making a final decision.   • The city and county could appeal a final order in state court, or they could immediately try to move the case to federal court.

        “This is pretty significant,” said Tim Smith, an attorney for Mr. Ferrier and the others. “It's an important issue.”

        Mr. Ferrier, a Hyde Park hairdresser, said he and the others filed their lawsuit this week in hopes of overturning Ohio's law on carrying con cealed weapons.

        They contend the law is unfair because law-abiding citizens cannot get permits to carry a concealed gun. Instead, they must get arrested and go to court to prove they have a good reason to carry a gun.

        “This is long overdue,” Mr. Ferrier said of Judge Ruehlman's decision. “I should have just as much right to defend myself as the police or anyone else.”

        The judge granted a temporary restraining order that bars enforcement of the law until he hears more arguments on Aug. 11.

        “I've always had problems with this statute,” the judge said.

        His decision immediately stirred both anger and praise. Some welcomed it as a great defense of the U.S. Constitution, while others condemned it as an invitation for criminals to take up arms.

        “This misdirected ruling opens the barn door for every violent criminal to carry a weapon and get away scot free,” said Keith Fangman, president of the Fraternal Order of Police.

        “If any of our officers or innocent citizens are killed because Judge Ruehlman allowed violent criminals to carry guns, he's going to have blood on his hands.”

        Sheriff Simon L. Leis also raised concerns about safety. “We just hope no one gets hurt,” said sheriff's spokesman Steve Barnett.

        Other law enforcement officials said the decision could wreak havoc with the justice system.

        Prosecutor Mike Allen said it may affect hundreds of people who are either in jail or facing criminal charges for violating the concealed weapons law.

        He said he would not be surprised to see defense attorneys rushing to the courthouse this week with Judge Ruehlman's court order in hand, hoping to free their clients.

        “This is unprecedented,” Mr. Allen said. “There's going to be a lot of confusion. It's not an order that is easy to understand.”

        Much of the confusion centers on whether the judge's decision applies only to the sheriff and police division, or to all county law enforcement agencies.

        Although the sheriff and police were the only agencies named in the lawsuit, the judge's order could have a chilling effect on suburban police departments and other agencies.

        The “practical effect” of the judge's order is to ban enforcement of the law in Hamilton County, said Todd Boyer, spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery.

        In court Tuesday, attorneys for the city and county argued that a ban on enforcement would rob the government of its right to protect public safety.

        “They have no fundamental constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon,” said Richard Ganulin, an assistant city solicitor. “The right to bear arms ... has never been construed as a right to carry concealed weapons.

        “It is, at best, a privilege.”

        He said some form of concealed weapons law has been on the books in Ohio for 80 years. And whenever it has been challenged, he said, Ohio courts have upheld it.

        Mr. Ganulin also suggested that Mr. Ferrier and the others should take the issue to state lawmakers, not a judge.

        “They want the court to stand in the shoes of the state legislature to create public policy,” Mr. Ganulin said.

        But Mr. Smith said his clients have good reason to go to court.

        He said the law violates the Ohio and U.S. constitutions because it prevents his clients — a personal trainer, a private detective, a deliveryman and Mr. Ferrier — from defending themselves.

        He said his clients need guns because they are physically unable to defend themselves or because they fear being robbed or attacked while on the job.

        But under Ohio law, Mr. Smith said, only a judge can decide if those reasons are good enough to justify carrying a gun.

        And to get a judge, he said, they must first get arrested.

        “The state of Ohio has set up a system in which you cannot defend yourself against criminals,” Mr. Smith said.

        It is the same argument the National Rifle Association and other gun lobbyists have been making for most of the past decade as states have grappled with concealed weapons laws.

        To date, 43 states allow some form of permits to carry concealed weapons. Seven, including Ohio, do not.

        Mr. Smith suggested that Ohio could resolve the constitutional issues in its existing law by adopting a licensing procedure for concealed weapons.

        Judge Ruehlman's decision Tuesday is the second controversial ruling he has made recently in a gun-related case.

        Last fall, he threw out the city of Cincinnati's lawsuit against gun manufacturers, saying the misuse of firearms is beyond the control of gun makers.

        Mr. Ferrier said the judge made the right call. He said he is not an activist, only a businessman who wants to protect himself.

        “My involvement in this is not so I can be armed everywhere I go,” he said. “It's so I can be armed if I choose to be.”

       

---

Ruling suspends gun law
$610,000 settlement approved
Car cell phones are handy, and that can be a problem
Group fights Lunken proposal
Ballpark designs not all decided
Briton found not guilty of ducking child support
Ex-councilman denies fraud in Fairfield voting
Mill Creek flows from gritty reality to surprising beauty
KIESEWETTER: Miller brings fan's view to football booth
Aid seekers need close eye
Bush plans Covington tour stop
CROWLEY: Closer to home
County bows to law on mobile homes
Death of inmate in cell investigated
Fans head to derby day
Fixes for Garrison St. in works
Flier wrong on forming police force, trustee says
Florence plans to annex Turfway
Grease, oil fueling buses
Mariemont boathouse is being restored
New school district has staff in place
Robber hits bank near Covington police station
Rural roots revisited
Schools hiring five administrators
Study looks at Wal-Mart concerns
Talawanda voters again will face levy
Unattended kids, stiffer penalties?
Victim stabbed more than 40 times
What they did on their Summer Vacations
Get to it
Kentucky News Briefs
Pig Parade: Wake Up and Smell the Bacon
Tristate A.M. Report