A request that the judge hearing a challenge to Ohio's ban on concealed weapons remove himself from the case doesn't merit a response, attorneys for opponents of the ban say.

        The request by the Cincinnati solicitor's office comes just days before Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman is expected to render his decision in the concealed-weapons case.

Ruehlman

        Filed this week, the city's memorandum contends Judge Ruehlman might have problems being impartial because his wife and then 6-month-old daughter were held at gunpoint in 1989.

        Mary “Tia” Ruehlman was accosted by a man who hid inside the family's minivan. She had picked up photos and had just returned to the vehicle when the would-be robber ordered her to drive.

        Mrs. Ruehlman escaped the vehicle with the infant, but not before she was hit in the head with the gun. The child was not harmed.

        City attorneys contend the Code of Judicial Conduct states “a judge shall disqualify himself ... in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might be reasonably questioned.”

        The suit challenging the concealed-weapons ban was filed July 20, 2000, by a group of Cincinnatians who say they are law-biding citizens who need to carry weapons for their protection.

        They sued the state and every municipality in Hamilton County, claiming the statute infringes on their constitutional rights.

        The trial, which started Dec. 4, lasted about three days and included testimony from one of the plaintiffs, Patrick Feely, and Cincinnati Assistant Police Chief Richard Janke.

        Hamilton County Prosecutor Mike Allen said Thursday his office has no plans to join the city's memorandum.

        “We feel that Judge Ruehlman can be fair and impartial in this case. He is more than capable of being objective and fair,” Mr. Allen said.

        An attorney for the plaintiffs called the request “preposterous.”

        “As a practical matter — because a judge's family member was the victim of crime — every judge from common pleas to municipal to appeals would have to remove him or herself. What sense does that make? I don't anticipate responding (to the request),” said William Gustavson.

        Judge Ruehlman declined to comment on the memorandum.

        No hearing has been scheduled to argue the city's request. The judge doesn't have to hold one.

        Judge Ruehlman is scheduled to rule by Jan. 10.

Air backups strand many here
President could sign school bill in Hamilton
Anti-crime unit reduced
Girl's death leaves family grieving, looking for answers
800-foot mural in progress
Area soldiers brave holidays away from friends, family
City's request that judge recuse himself pooh-poohed
Milford ad agency office burns
Portune asks DOJ probe
Snow heads this way, but no one knows how much
Tristate A.M. Report
HOWARD: Some Good News
WELLS: Stadium grass
Combs makes '02 run official
Judge may join prosecutor's office
Kings principal moving on
New Miami's top cop gets nod as mayor breaks tie vote
Boone schools share $495K grant
4 charged in deaths of two men
Christmas tree recycling, drops provided
Kentucky News Briefs
Lawyer releases report
Police in 'disarray,' vice mayor says
'Potty bus' brings relief