RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by Bearable »

RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional per Heller and Bruen. And show that RC § 9.68 is a contradiction in of itself. It says the state knows that the state has no Constitutional authority to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms then says the state is going to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms.

Any questions please post.
RC 2923.12 unconstitutional.pdf
(247.73 KiB) Downloaded 170 times
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5824
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by JustaShooter »

When do you plan to bring your lawsuit to compel them to repeal 2923.12 & 2923.16, and fix 9.68?
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by Bearable »

JustaShooter wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 7:59 pm When do you plan to bring your lawsuit to compel them to repeal 2923.12 & 2923.16, and fix 9.68?
You know standing is required to bring suit. But by asking that question I assume you don't have anything to rebut the findings.
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by Bearable »

Bearable wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 8:44 pm
JustaShooter wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 7:59 pm When do you plan to bring your lawsuit to compel them to repeal 2923.12 & 2923.16, and fix 9.68?
You know standing is required to bring suit. But by asking that question I assume you don't have anything to rebut the findings.
Additionally, look at this story:
viewtopic.php?p=4420258&sid=644fcbf9e6a ... 1#p4420258
Woman arrested after security finds a loaded gun in her car in parking lot of hospital.

You and I agree, the story on its face of having a loaded gun in the car is not a crime. But the law says you can't have a loaded gun in the car. Dumb cops? Don't know. However, if the law was not on the books, because it's unconstitutional, there would be no story.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5824
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by JustaShooter »

Bearable wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 8:44 pm
JustaShooter wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 7:59 pm When do you plan to bring your lawsuit to compel them to repeal 2923.12 & 2923.16, and fix 9.68?
You know standing is required to bring suit. But by asking that question I assume you don't have anything to rebut the findings.
Surely standing can be achieved, through another if not yourself if there is enough desire. Really just curious if you were adding anything to the issue beyond words. It seems not.

Regardless, I wouldn't care to try to rebut as I agree they are unconstitutional - as many have said, *all* gun laws are unconstitutional. I doubt there are any here who would disagree.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by WhyNot »

I agree.

However, with cities continually trying to circumvent current law a.k.a. 9.68 with penalties. What is the predictable infringements with accompanying harsh penalties that could be envisioned if 9.68 restraints were removed ?

Other words , under restraint with current law, what would it be without it? Can anyone say, ''open season'' ? right down to and including a butter knife? Of course with the obligatory ''Ok persons'' , Mil, LEO, constable; political figures PLUS friends and family; couriers with large manila envelopes flush & full of green leafy cabbage$.
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by Bearable »

JustaShooter wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 6:53 am
Bearable wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 8:44 pm
JustaShooter wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 7:59 pm When do you plan to bring your lawsuit to compel them to repeal 2923.12 & 2923.16, and fix 9.68?
You know standing is required to bring suit. But by asking that question I assume you don't have anything to rebut the findings.
Surely standing can be achieved, through another if not yourself if there is enough desire. Really just curious if you were adding anything to the issue beyond words. It seems not.

Regardless, I wouldn't care to try to rebut as I agree they are unconstitutional - as many have said, *all* gun laws are unconstitutional. I doubt there are any here who would disagree.
As it stands right now please explain how I would create standing. How was I damaged? I am curious how you would go about it to achieve standing.

And what do you mean by saying "Really just curious if you were adding anything to the issue beyond words. It seems not."
Do you mean physical in nature? All court cases are nothing more than words on paper.

You would not try to rebut, but why not play devil's advocate and show me why I'm wrong, inquiring minds would like to know.
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by Bearable »

Here is another example, is R.C. 2923.15, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 511, 134 Ohio Laws 1866, 1968 (effective Jan. 1, 1974) unconstitutional?

The Ohio supreme Court in State v. Weber, 163 Ohio St.3d 125, 2020-Ohio-6832, erroneously says it’s constitutional.
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/d ... o-6832.pdf

Section 2923.15 | Using weapons while intoxicated.
(A) No person, while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of using weapons while intoxicated, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

The court then applies “intermediate scrutiny” while admitting Heller says otherwise. Footnote 1: “Although the Heller court stated that the regulation at issue was unconstitutional under any standard, it specifically rejected the possible application of rational-basis scrutiny. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637, fn. 27.”

The Majority Opinion relies on the two-step process in which Heller rejected and Bruen affirmed.

As Heller made clear the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms and they cannot. Ohio’s modern-day regulation (R.C. § 2923.15) has no historical precursors; nothing analogous that can pass constitutional muster. As Bruen said at pages 57/58 “As in Heller, we will not “stake our interpretation of the Second Amendment upon a single law, in effect in a single [State], that contradicts the overwhelming weight of other evidence regarding the right to keep and bear arms for defense” in public. 554 U. S., at 632.”

DEWINE concurred in judgment but then admits it is contrary to the holding of Heller. At paragraph 85 Dewine says: “It seems clear that laws identical to R.C. 2923.15 did not exist at the time of the founding.” And at paragraph 102 he says: “And while legislative enactments dealing with drunken firearm use were not ubiquitous during that time period, the available materials all support the notion that the right to bear arms does not encompass an unconditional right to be drunk and handle a firearm.” The quintessential double negative meaning we ain’t got nothing to support being in possession of a firearm and being intoxicated was a crime in1791.

FISCHER dissents starting at paragraph 110. Fisher generally gets it correct by showing the two-step process was contrary to Heller holding and history at the founding (1791) was required to show it fell outside the second amendment.

Brun has now been decided, R.C. 2923.15 is unconstitutional. Ohio did not enact a statute until 183 years after the second amendment’s ratification.
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by Bearable »

WhyNot wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 7:14 am I agree.

However, with cities continually trying to circumvent current law a.k.a. 9.68 with penalties. What is the predictable infringements with accompanying harsh penalties that could be envisioned if 9.68 restraints were removed ?

Other words , under restraint with current law, what would it be without it? Can anyone say, ''open season'' ? right down to and including a butter knife? Of course with the obligatory ''Ok persons'' , Mil, LEO, constable; political figures PLUS friends and family; couriers with large manila envelopes flush & full of green leafy cabbage$.
All 9.68 has to say is: "The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio shall not be infringed in any why, shape or form by this state or any political subdivisions of this state."

I could make it stronger if need be.
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by WhyNot »

email today and I'm sure others got it from BFA but seems Columbus has filed ANOTHER complaint against guns all the while under a court ruling AGAINST them...screams of NY under Bruen doesn't it?

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/columbu ... gun-rights


I hold to my original opinion that, these locales WILL ''do their worst'' if 9.68 is repealed or even modified.

REMEMBER, a modified ordinance can start a whole batch of new filings. Or mostly likely should read, WILL start.
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by Bearable »

WhyNot wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 6:58 am email today and I'm sure others got it from BFA but seems Columbus has filed ANOTHER complaint against guns all the while under a court ruling AGAINST them...screams of NY under Bruen doesn't it?

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/columbu ... gun-rights


I hold to my original opinion that, these locales WILL ''do their worst'' if 9.68 is repealed or even modified.

REMEMBER, a modified ordinance can start a whole batch of new filings. Or mostly likely should read, WILL start.
I can't stand BFA. Where is the link to the lawsuit?
M-Quigley
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by M-Quigley »

WhyNot wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 6:58 am email today and I'm sure others got it from BFA but seems Columbus has filed ANOTHER complaint against guns all the while under a court ruling AGAINST them...screams of NY under Bruen doesn't it?

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/columbu ... gun-rights


I hold to my original opinion that, these locales WILL ''do their worst'' if 9.68 is repealed or even modified.

REMEMBER, a modified ordinance can start a whole batch of new filings. Or mostly likely should read, WILL start.
It's not surprising to me at all. According to the LEPD radio show on 610am Columbus is now statistically tied with Chicago in gun violence based on population numbers. The city politicians aren't going to blame themselves for the gun violence, and after all, it's only taxpayer money they are wasting.
I seriously doubt any changes in state law is going to stop them, unless they are held personally accountable in some way. It's not like the voters in Columbus are going to get fed up and start electing other types of politicians instead. :roll:
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4754
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by Chuck »

I think it's excellent, and want to know, just what, exactly, does it take to establish "standing?"
Does the money I've spent on training and licensing count as damages?
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by Bearable »

Chuck wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 11:06 am I think it's excellent, and want to know, just what, exactly, does it take to establish "standing?"
Does the money I've spent on training and licensing count as damages?
Ohio licensing started in 2004. Heller was decided in June 8, 2008 and McDonald in June 28, 2010. Heller did NOT apply the Fourteenth Amendment. Remember, District of Columbia is NOT a state. But McDonald applied the Fourteenth Amendment to the states. I would guess the loss of money would have been anything after McDonald. I don't know if that would enough to create standing. Any licensing fee paid between June 28, 2010 and June 13, 2022 (constitutional carry) would be the sweet spot.
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: RC §§ 2923.12 and 2923.16 are unconstitutional

Post by Bearable »

Bearable wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 12:18 pm
Chuck wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 11:06 am I think it's excellent, and want to know, just what, exactly, does it take to establish "standing?"
Does the money I've spent on training and licensing count as damages?
Ohio licensing started in 2004. Heller was decided in June 8, 2008 and McDonald in June 28, 2010. Heller did NOT apply the Fourteenth Amendment. Remember, District of Columbia is NOT a state. But McDonald applied the Fourteenth Amendment to the states. I would guess the loss of money would have been anything after McDonald. I don't know if that would enough to create standing. Any licensing fee paid between June 28, 2010 and June 13, 2022 (constitutional carry) would be the sweet spot.
The the next question is who are you going to sue?
Not the Sheriff.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USC ... 0376-0.pdf
Then Who?
Post Reply