May 19
Saturday
image image
OFCC Sues City of Cleveland Heights, Ohio The sign you see here is posted in Cleveland Heights Parks implying possession of a firearm is a crime. On Friday August 12th, 2011 Ohioans For Concealed Carry Filed a lawsuit against the City the City of Cleveland Heights. The litigation comes after many attempts to resolve concerns over laws that Cleveland Heights not only allowed to remain on their books, but also posted signs at their parks that continue to imply it is illegal to be armed. The City of Cleveland Heights has chosen to ignore our attempts at civil discourse. When individuals have contacted them representing themselves as residents of the City of Cleveland Heights their concerns apparently fell on deaf ears. When representatives of the organization have formally contacted the city's legal representation they've been laughed at and hung up on by the Law Director. It is this arrogance and refusal to work with Ohioans For Concealed Carry that has forced us to seek a remedy through the courts.
Our press release follows. Read the Full Story
Canton PD Event Leads to New OFCC Legislation When officer Harless of the Canton, Ohio police department came upon a vehicle stopped in the roadway most of us were focused on getting restaurant carry legislation signed into law. What took place that evening has become an international viral video, calls for the resignation of the City Council president, and criminal charges against a man who is clearly heard trying to state that he has a license. Ohioans For Concealed Carry has not just raised thousands of dollars in a legal defense fund, but we've written legislation to resolve this matter that Representative Danny Bubp has stated he's going to introduce this fall Read the Full Story

Search OhioCCW


Join OFCC Today!

Upcoming Events


2012 Party In The Park
When: August - TBD

SB 305 reaches critical stage -- your help is needed now

  • Print
Published on Friday, 18 May 2012 23:21
Written by Gary Witt

OFCC Directors Doug Deeken and Gary Witt on May 16 met with four members of the Ohio House of Representatives to voice OFCC’s continuing objections to SB 305, the "hidden compartments" bill. The Senate recently passed the bill, 30-2.

The House Transportation, Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, which consists of 13 representatives, is holding hearings on SB 305. OFCC directors met with the following members of that committee: Chairman Rex Damschroder (R, District 81); Rep. Joseph Uecker (R, District 12); Rep. Ron Young (R, District 11); and Rep. Terry Johnson (R, District 13). In each meeting, OFCC identified flaws in the bill that could result in innocent citizens being charged with felonies.
 
Some of the legislators were surprised to learn that the Ohio Revised Code already outlaws containers used to hide controlled substances (ORC 2925.14 -- drug paraphernalia), and that the existing statute could be modified without creating a new section of state law.
 
The Transportation, Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee conducted a hearing of sponsor testimony on May 16, but the bill's sponsor, Senator Hughes (R, District 16), did not attend. After another individual provided sponsor testimony, the podium was turned over to Staff Lieutenant Chad McGinty of the Ohio State Highway Patrol.
 
Lt. McGinty told the committee how hidden compartments have evolved from the duffle bag on the back seat to sophisticated compartments with hydraulic operating systems, and discussed the quantity of controlled substances that the Patrol has discovered. He stated that the OSP has no data on the number of drivers with empty hidden compartments who are released from a traffic stop without being arrested.
 
After his testimony, Lt. McGinty attempted to answer questions from committee members. Many questions were carefully prepared, including:
 
* How can you prevent innocent people from being charged?
* Are you using existing law (ORC 2925.14) to charge people?
* How does OSP determine intent?
* Why do you need to insert a protection for commercially available compartments if intent is such a good shield?
* If a hidden compartment is found, is that a guarantee of arrest?
 
Several committee members said that they did not want to lose their right to make or modify compartments, and other members expressed concern about innocent people being charged. Lt. McGinty repeatedly said that the OSP needs to prove intent before an arrest, a statement that has been deemed incorrect by OFCC attorneys.

The committee will hold proponent/opponent/interested party testimony on Tuesday, May 22 at 4 p.m. and Wednesday, May 23 at 9 a.m. at the statehouse. The bill could be voted out of committee on Wednesday, May 23, and passed by the full House on Thursday, May 24. The bill is on a "fast track" which appears not to allow time for amendments that would correct the problems that OFCC has identified.

Tell your friends about the perils of this bill. Call and write your representative to express your opposition. Encourage friends to do the same. OFCC leadership is working hard to see that this dangerous bill does not get to the governor’s desk. We need everyone’s help to stop it.

OFCC carries its opposition of SB 305 to the Ohio House

  • Print
Published on Wednesday, 09 May 2012 21:58
Written by Philip Mulivor

Since SB 305, the "hidden compartment" bill, passed the Ohio Senate on May 3, OFCC has turned its attention to members of the State House of Representatives. The following letter was recently sent to all 99 House members:

Dear Representative,

Since before SB305 was introduced in the Ohio Senate, Ohioans For Concealed Carry (OFCC) has been concerned with this legislation's treatment of the private property rights of law abiding citizens. Our objection is not just about the transportation of firearms -- it is about the safe, lawful storage of anything a person might wish to secure from today's smash and grab thieves.

Let us be clear: We don't advocate protecting criminals or drug trafficking mules. Nevertheless, we oppose the idea that the next step in the war on drugs must criminalize the possession of empty containers on the basis of what a police officer believes the future intent of that container might be. The recent suggestion that a citizen accused under this legislation can simply "prove their intent in court" turns Fourth Amendment jurisprudence on its head.

Read more: OFCC carries its opposition of SB 305 to the Ohio House

SB305 opponent testimony to be heard May 1

  • Print
Published on Monday, 30 April 2012 03:27
Written by Philip Mulivor

Opponent testimony for SB 305, the "hidden compartments" bill, will be heard on Tuesday, May 1, 3:15 p.m., in the North Hearing Room at the Statehouse in Columbus.

OFCC members are encouraged to attend. It would be helpful (but not absolutely necessary) to wear an OFCC shirt so that legislators can visually gauge the number of OFCC members in attendance.

The latest version of SB 305, which still does not address several of OFCC's major concerns, can be found here. Troublesome elements in this bill include:

  • If a citizen manufactures their own private compartment, they can be prosecuted. 
  • If a citizen modifies an OEM compartment, they can be prosecuted.
  • There now is an exemption for commercially manufactured boxes, as long as there is no drug "residue" in the box. How is residue defined? (Most U.S. paper currency carries measurable traces of cocaine and other drugs).

OFCC Website Updates

  • Print
Published on Friday, 30 March 2012 08:35
Written by Jeff Garvas

Over the past few weeks we've been moving some website changes into production.   Some of these changes have been a work in progress that is almost a year old!   Please know that as of today we believe that all of our standard functions (for instance the DNPWA, the Attorney Database, the Concealed Handgun Training Course calendar to name a few) should be fully functional.

You may not even realize some of the changes we've introduced since many are transparent to a visitor, but the system running our website is undergoing numerous improvements.

We are looking for people who believe they have a very solid understanding of the law and have the ability to write content for our website to help explain the law.  Is that you?  If so, drop me an email by using the Contact Us link of our website.  Put my name into the pull down field.

In the coming weeks were are going to slowly begin to introduce new functionality to the website.   Our long term goal is to make it possible for members of the organization to login to the website and have added functionality, including the ability to renew their membership or update their address information.

OFCC Position Statement on SB 305

  • Print
Published on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 15:13
Written by Jeff Garvas and Philip Mulivor

From time to time, the good citizens of Ohio are confronted by proposed legislation that is so farfetched in its premise, ill-conceived in its language, overreaching in its provisions, and abusive of principles in our state and federal constitutions, that it must be immediately and completely opposed.

We face this challenge today with Ohio Senate Bill 305, which would criminalize hidden compartments in vehicles.

Just four weeks ago, we published an article called Hidden Compartment Bill Raises Red Flags, in which we questioned the proposal's impact on law-abiding citizens.

Under the provisions of this bill, Ohioans driving a vehicle with an added compartment, box, or container can quickly be charged with a felony. Instead of receiving a simple traffic ticket after missing a stop sign or forgetting to signal a turn, a driver with an extra storage device on board could be led away in handcuffs and incarcerated. Cars, trucks, motorcycles, trailers, RVs, and motor homes are all targeted by the bill.

Read more: OFCC Position Statement on SB 305