COLUMBUS (AP) -- The Ohio Supreme Court's ruling last week upholding the state's ban on concealed weapons sent a signal that it will be up to lawmakers, not the court, to decide whether Ohioans can carry hidden guns, a law professor says.

The problem for backers, though, is the Legislature has been struggling with the idea for eight years and seems nowhere close to resolving it. The bill exists in two versions: a Senate bill Gov. Bob Taft supports and a House bill that Taft does not.

The justices made clear they're not interested in resolving the issue, said Andrew Morriss, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland who teaches a course on weapons law.

"The Supreme Court dumped it back in the hands of the Legislature. Both were waiting for the other to act first," Morriss said.

He said Justice Paul Pfeifer's eight-page opinion did little to dissect the ban, which lawmakers enacted in 1859 and the court upheld in 1920.

"The opinion does something that's unusual. It says firearms possession is a fundamental right, but we're not going to protect it," Morriss said. "The only hope for passing conceal-carry is for the House to accept the Senate bill."

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

The fight to restore the right to bear arms for self-defense has always been about two key issues:

1) Allowing citizens the right to choose not to be a victim.

2) Lowering violent crime.

Amongst the recent Supreme Court and "Defense Walk" headlines, many Ohioans continue to be made victims by criminals who could care less about the fact that concealed weapons are illegal.

Cleveland:
Cleveland man killed outside his house

Columbus:
Columbus Police: Monday is worst day of the week for crime

Dayton Daily News:
‘Everybody’s mom’ found slain on E. Second St.

Mansfield:
5 violence deaths in 8 days have police scrambling

Toledo:
Man shot inside car on Dorr St.
more on same incident: Dorr St. shooting victim is a Toledo resident

and
Toledo police investigate 3 fatal shootings [2 more dead in their cars!]

(And we thought the "fundamental nature of a motor vehicle" made it so these attacks couldn't happen, OSHP Supt. McClellan??)

Robbery suspects caught 5 minutes after crime
Oregon police arrested two Toledo women who they say robbed a man and woman in the driveway of their Oregon residence.

Related Stories:
New Report Shows Ohio Violent Crimes Could Have Been Prevented

For 2 hours, Cincy's Northside was ''Safest Neighborhood in the State''

Columbus Dispatch
Lee Leonard
September 29, 2003

The verdict is in: Anyone who thought Maureen O’Connor, a former prosecuting attorney and member of the Taft administration, was going to be a get-along, go-along Ohio Supreme Court justice needs to re-evaluate.

O’Connor, ridiculed for pretending to be a sitting judge in a 2002 campaign commercial, demonstrated last week that her brief stint as a Summit County judge was no fluke; she is suited for the top court.

Whether you agree with her, O’Connor’s dissenting opinion in the concealed-weapons case was a well-researched, textbook example of how justices should rule based on law and precedent.

She was in the minority in a 5-2 decision, but her thoughtful opinion gave firearms advocates something to hang their hats on as the controversial issue shifts back to the legislature.

By winning a nasty campaign in 2002, O’Connor was the key to Republicans’ capturing a true majority of the high court. The GOP had a majority in party label only; Justices Andrew Douglas and Paul E. Pfeifer often failed to follow the party line, notably on the DeRolph school-funding case.

During the campaign, business and labor went head-to-head, with labor warning that if O’Connor won the court seat vacated by Douglas, ordinary citizens could forget about any kind of justice in their lawsuits.

Republicans fronting for O’Connor intimated that failure to elect her would free trial lawyers to win all sorts of outrageous damage claims, driving business out of Ohio.

Concealed gun ban protested with a march through Northside
The Cincinnati Post

NORTHSIDE - In a scene reminiscent of the Wild West, about 75 people paraded through Northside with handguns strapped to their sides Sunday.

Unlike the Old West, though, it was a modern-era media publicity stunt to protest last week's Ohio Supreme Court ruling upholding the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons.

Had protesters concealed their guns, they would have violated the law. But they openly and legally toted their firearms as they marched 1.4 miles on Northside sidewalks for about an hour.

Vernon Ferrier, one of four Cincinnatians who has filed a lawsuit against Ohio's ban on concealed weapons, was pleased with the march.

"It was a roaring success," he said. "There were no problems, and we got our message across. I think the state legislature will get our point.

"We promoted carrying concealed weapons, which is practical but illegal, by carrying weapons openly, which is silly but legal."

On Wednesday, in a 5-2 vote, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the legality of an 1859 Ohio law that said while there is a right to bear arms, "there is not a constitutional right to bear concealed weapons."

The decision overturned a ruling last year by Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman, a ruling that had been upheld by the Cincinnati-based 1st District Court of Appeals.

The state Supreme Court decision puts the burden on the state legislature if there is to be any change in the law.