enquirer.com

News
Front Page
Local
Sports
-Bengals
-Reds
-Bearcats
-Xavier
Business
Health
Technology
Weather
Traffic
Back Issues
Photographs
AP Wire
-World
-Nation
-Sports
-Business
-Arts
-Health

Classifieds
Jobs
Autos
General
Obits
Homes

Freetime
Movies
Dining
Calendars
Weekend

Opinion
Columns
Borgman

GoCinci
HelpDesk
Feedback
Circulation
Subscribe
Phone #'s
Search

E N Q U I R E R   L O C A L   N E W S   C O V E R A G E
Tuesday, August 08, 2000

Hidden weapon lawsuit revised




By Dan Horn
The Cincinnati Enquirer

        The legal battle over Ohio's concealed weapons law will soon involve every law enforcement agency in Hamilton County, possibly even the dog catcher.

        The four Cincinnatians who are challenging the law will revise their lawsuit today in an attempt to prevent all arrests for carrying concealed weapons.

        The four — a hairdresser, a private investigator, a personal trainer and a deliveryman — have argued the law violates their constitutional right to bear arms.

        They say the law makes it impossible for them to legally carry a concealed gun.

        The original lawsuit, filed in July, sought to stop only the Cincinnati police and Hamilton County sheriff from enforcing the concealed weapons law.

        But the suit will be amended today to include the more than 40 other law enforcement agencies in the county.

        “We're doing it to avoid losing the case on a technicality,” said attorney Tim Smith, who filed the original lawsuit.

        He said the new lawsuit may name every agency that could possibly cite someone for carrying a concealed weapon. He said that includes any county agencies that enforce animal control laws.

        “We'll name everybody,” Mr. Smith said. “Maybe even the dog catcher.”

        A hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for Friday in Common Pleas Court.

        City and county attorneys had complained for weeks that the lawsuit creates confusion because it seeks to bar enforcement only for the sheriff and Cincinnati police.

        At an appeals court hearing two weeks ago, opponents of the suit argued it was unfair for the law to apply in a city like Norwood but not in Cincinnati.

        Mr. Smith said he thinks the original lawsuit makes it clear it should not apply anywhere in the county.

        He said he will amend the suit to avoid confusion.

        “It's stupid that we have to do it, but we do,” Mr. Smith said.

       



'Safe Place' aims to save infants
Festival controversy continues
Robbery suspect hails taxi, fails getaway
Jewish leaders say Lieberman optimistic choice
Tristate calls pick 'inspired'
Weekend parties serve conversation
Hackers taking advantage of Netscape hole
Butler Co.'s $35M+ jail project on track
CPS mulls levy request amount
More than money needed for tower
Reading program pays off
Snowden opponent quits post on panel
Survey finds support for CPS
Taxpayers kick in $250,000 for art at Bengals' stadium
Lazio taps Cincinnati funds for campaign
Man faces murder charge
Money will be returned to city
Scootering through summer
Six up for police top job
Teachers tapped for awards
Grants help buy police vests
- Hidden weapon lawsuit revised
Mother wins Kenton Co. lawsuit
School bells ring for early start
Clooney's TV work victim of his success
Counting Crows, Live mesh well
Fort Wright loses power after crash
Get to it
Pig Parade: I Squeal. You Squeal. We All Squeal for Ice Cream.
Tristate digest


 
Search | Questions/help | News tips | Letters to the editors
Web advertising | Place a classified | Subscribe | Circulation

Copyright 1995-2000. The Cincinnati Enquirer, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper.
Use of this site signifies agreement to terms of service updated 4/5/2000.