May
17
Thursday
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
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 |
OFCC submits opposition detail to House conference committee members
- Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
- Written by Jeff Garvas
The following was submitted as a cover letter to House members of the Conference Committee on Am. Sub. HB12, by request, and details our principle points of opposition to Am. Sub. HB12. Accompanying this letter was a line by line commentary on the Senate's changes. Anyone who is contemplating the merits of "taking what we can get" with Am. Sub. HB12 should read this!
Serious Problems With Substitute House Bill As Passed By The Ohio Senate
In an effort to focus debate on the actual provisions in Am. Sub. HB12, OFCC volunteers reviewed and compared the legislation as it left the House and Senate, as well as the current law.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry opposed HB274 as passed by Ohio Senate in December of 2002, and we conclude that HB12 as passed by the Ohio Senate in June 2003 is even worse than the December 2002 legislation. We oppose House Bill 12 as passed by the Ohio Senate, for many reasons.
Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.
Not only does Substitute HB 12 as passed by the Senate eliminate existing affirmative defenses it also makes existing misdemeanors into felonies.
Passing terrible legislation is worse than passing absolutely nothing at all, and House Bill 12 as passed by the Senate is so bad that it cannot fairly be called a concealed carry reform bill.
Even a cursory review of the Senate language reveals numerous changes made without regard to their impact on existing statutes or other sections of the legislation. Various changes made by the Senate either contradict or invalidate language adopted by the Ohio House. Yet those contradictory sections are still included in HB 12 as passed by the Senate.
A perfect example of this is the peaceable journey language adopted by the House in committee. The Senate added numerous exclusions including one that basically invalidates the carry permit on school premises this contradicts the provision for a peaceable journey in a school safety zone rather than deleting it. The House version was in accord with existing Federal Law.
The Ohio Senate adopted provisions so severe that persons who get licenses will have difficulty complying. Did they intentionally create a bill that would cause numerous people to be arrested? For instance, in numerous sections the knowingly standard has been changed to recklessly, which is a lower standard. The Senate made these changes to existing laws as well as to the carefully crafted HB 12 that the House passed.
Further, the size of print used on posters and in brochures is defined, but standard language and character size are not specified for the signage that HB12 allowed on private property. We highly suggest a minimum of one-inch letters, or a standard that reflects the requirements of roadway signs in terms of parking lot signage. A small sign, combined with the lack of an actual warning, appears to be an intentional trap for the unwary.
If House Bill 12 is enacted with the requirement that a licensee must carry a firearm openly in a car while in possession of a concealed firearm license, we oppose the legislation. Ohioans regularly wear coats and shouldnt be forced to reveal a holstered firearm whenever they ride in their own vehicles. This provision makes it virtually impossible for someone to carry concealed without being charged with inducing panic or disorderly conduct.
The Senate requires licensees to transport your firearm differently in the presence of a child, even in the licensees own vehicle. Even if that age is changed from 18 to 16, we strongly oppose HB12. If you can walk with your children and a handgun for self-defense, you should be able to drive them with it safely and securely holstered. These changes, made under the guise of safety, create extremely dangerous situations. Rather than dealing with generalities, we include section and line numbers for the problems which we have identified and which we request be reconsidered.