September 19th, 2008
Ohio court strikes down ban on guns in parks
The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a city law that banned people from carrying concealed guns in public parks, saying it conflicts with a state law that established a uniform policy on firearms.
In a 4-3 decision, the court said the city of Clyde’s home-rule powers don’t allow it to override the 2004 state law that allowed people to get a permit to carry concealed weapons in public, except in public buildings such as schools, courthouses and stadiums. No exceptions were made for parks.
Seems pretty cut-and-dried to Murdoc. Though I don’t know many details, I’m not sure how this ended up 4-3.
Oh:
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Paul Pfeifer said there is no rational basis to distinguish between the legal rights of private and public property on this issue.
“Clyde owns its municipal park. Is there any reason why the owner of this property, where families gather and children play, should be forced to allow people with guns to enter, while the private owner of a public space such as a shopping mall can bar from entry any gun-carrying citizens?” Pfeifer wrote.
Ah, public vs. private ownership doesn’t matter if you don’t like the distinction. Got it.
Besides, he points out that he’s ignoring the difference for “families” and “children.” What a nice guy.
Tags: OH
September 20th, 2008 at 5:16 am
OK he is a bigot! if I were to slightly modify his quote, the good justice would be locking me up
The test is to substitute gun owner with your favorite minority
“Clyde owns its municipal park. Is there any reason why the owner of this property, where families gather and children play, should be forced to allow people with guns to enter, while the private owner of a public space such as a shopping mall can bar from entry any gun-carrying citizens?” Pfeifer wrote.”
Shopping malls can not discriminate on the basis of gender, ethnicity, melanin content, or religious/philosophical beliefs. Yet they can discriminate on the basis of a constitutional right? What kind of crap is that? Would the judge say it is ok for the mall to ban people because they are black or asian or latino? Ban Mormons, or Catholics, or Methodists? Ban homosexuals?
Of course not! By opening the private property to the public an owner is limited in his ability to discriminate.
In the near future, the want ads will read:
Laborers Wanted!
safe conditions, fair pay
Gun owners and Smokers need not apply
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fd/NINA-nyt.JPG/300px-NINA-nyt.JPG