toledoblade.com --

In a split decision, Ohio’s 6th District Court of Appeals yesterday said a Toledo ordinance that prohibits firearms in city parks is not in conflict with the state concealed-carry law.

The ruling, written by Judge Peter Handwork, upheld the Toledo Municipal Court conviction of Bruce Beatty, who was ticketed on April, 9, 2005, when he challenged the city park rule.

Mr. Beatty, wearing a holstered, loaded 45-caliber handgun, threw a highly publicized “birthday party” in Ottawa Park in West Toledo to celebrate the first anniversary of Ohio’s concealed-carry law.

Toledo and Clyde in Sandusky County are among a handful communities in the state that have laws prohibiting weapons in public recreation areas, which are not among the 10 exemptions allowed under the statute.

Mr. Beatty, 50, said he was very disappointed and disagreed with the reasoning of the majority judges, but promised that it would be appealed to the state’s highest court.

“How can they ban a general law, which in effect is what they have done? What the court did was legislate from the bench,” he said.

Judge Handwork, who was joined by Judge Arlene Singer, said the concealed-carry law was not a general law because it wasn’t being applied uniformly throughout the state.

The court said the exemption that allows private property owners to decide whether concealed-carry licensees can have weapons created disparity in its regulation, and was inconsistent with the intention of lawmakers to ensure uniform application.

The decision holds in place the ruling and conviction a year ago today when Municipal Judge Gene Zmuda upheld the city ordinance and found Mr. Beatty guilty of violating the ordinance for having a firearm in the park.

The Luckey, Ohio, resident was fined $50 and ordered to pay court costs for the misdemeanor offense.

Acting Toledo Law Director John Madigan said the court ruling recognizes the home-rule powers that provide municipalities with the authority to enact ordinances they believe are best for residents.

“We are very pleased with the decision,” he said. “The court is not going to allow the General Assembly to subvert the ordinances of cities by basically calling something a general law in the state of Ohio.”

Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed arguments in the case on behalf of Mr. Beatty in an effort to support the constitutionality of the state concealed statute.

“We respectfully disagree with the 6th District’s decision, and believe the state’s concealed-carry law is a general law,” said Mark Anthony, a spokesman for the attorney general. “The majority’s opinion could lend itself to inconsistent regulations throughout the state and confusion among concealed-carry licensees.”

William Stephenson, a Wood County attorney who represents Mr. Beatty, said he respectfully disagreed with the court on such an important issue.

“The new statute, which merely amounts to enabling legislation that allows people to exercise their God-given constitutional rights to defend their lives, is struck down on flimsy procedural pretext,” Mr. Stephenson said.

Judge Dennis Parish wrote the dissenting opinion. He said his colleagues were making laws from the bench by “substituting its judgment for that of our elected representatives.”

“Such an action constitutes an unwarranted judicial intervention,” undermines the intent of legislators, and opens a Pandora’s box by declaring that the carry-concealed statute was not a general law, he said.

“If [the statute] is not a general law, then dozens if not hundreds of other state statutes are also not general laws,” and “will serve only to promote uncertainty in the law,” Judge Parish wrote in the four-page dissent.

Contact Mark Reiter at: markreiter@theblade.com or 419-213-2134.

Permanent Link