May
21
Monday
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 Suppoerter: Taft's excuse for demanding public records left twisting in the
- Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
- Written by Jeff Garvas
The following was submitted by OFCC Supporter Paul Barnett.
(In Lee Leonard's recent Columbus Dispatch story on the delay of Ohio CCW, Governor Taft's spokesperson, Orest) Holubec said records show that more than 400 felons received permits in Texas. "We want to avoid that in Ohio," he said, "and the easiest way to avoid it is to allow the sun to shine on the records."
I'm getting tired of this statistic being spread around in the mainstream media, without any context. The complete story is this:
Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.
When the Texas CHL law was first enacted, a provision was put into the law to require the Texas Dept. of Public Saftey to issue a CHL within 90 days after application, unless they could show cause to delay it. The reason was to keep the DPS from using inaction as a defacto denial.
The CHL licensing unit was overwhelmed by the number of applications in the first year. They didn't have adequate staff (despite a significant application fee to fund it) and reportedly had several technical problems that caused further delays.
But, the real problem was that inquiries to other law enforcement agencies (outside Texas) were delayed or responses were slow. So, CHLs were issued as required by law, since there was no disqualifying info. Subsequently, the delayed responses to the out-of-state inquiries would arrive, and the DPS would revoke the CHL.
This information was compiled along with all of the other data about revocations and suspensions, but unless you looked closely at the date of the offense (which occurred before the CHL law was enacted -- some of them 20 years earlier), you wouldn't understand why.
The law was amended in 1997 to give the DPS up to 180 days to issue a CHL, but requires them to notify the applicant at 60 days, explaining the reason for the delay and estimating the additional time that would be required.
By the way, the law originally required reporting of all suspensions and revocations due to arrests, without regard to whether the CHL holder was subsequently convicted. That's one of the reasons that the CHL statistics for Texas appear to be inflated. It now limits that data to convictions, and I've compiled a summary of the most recent complete data at:
http://www.ptb.org/txchl/
I'm not sure why anyone would believe that publicizing the names of CHL holders would avoid this problem, unless they think the general public is going to be combing through criminal history records, looking for a match.