May
22
Tuesday
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 |
Sheriffs: How is YOUR elected official doing?
- Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
- Written by Jeff Garvas
Ohioans For Concealed Carry volunteers have recently completed a comprehensive survey of Ohio's 88 county sheriffs, seeking to determine where the law is being implemented well (i.e. where citizens will find it easy to apply for a CHL), and where there is work to be done.
Out of 88 sheriffs, 48 accept applications at least 5 days per week (with 21 applying appointment schedules that can reduce the number of applicants each week to just 40 or so).
Another 5 sheriffs accept applications 4 days per week (3 of those require appointments).
14 sheriffs restrict applications to just 3 days per week (with 5 of those restricting the ability to apply for a CHL even more by requiring appointments).
9 Ohio sheriffs are only accepting CHL-applications 2 days per week (with 3 of those offering restrictive appointment schedules).
12 Ohio sheriffs are only performing their duty under the law 1 day per week (and 5 of those still have the nerve to require appointments, limiting to just a handful the number of citizens who can apply each week).
Suffice it to say that considering the challenges applicants have faced in the first 180 days (and which many still do face), the fact that 38,476 licenses have been issued to Ohio residents sends a strong message that the choice for armed self-defense is, in fact, in serious demand in our state.
It is important to remember that most Ohio Sheriffs are serving their constituents and their duty under the law quite well. They backed passage of this law and they are working hard to issue licenses.
On the other hand, there are too many sheriffs who leave much to be desired, and seem to need to be reminded that they are elected officials. Two defiant Sheriffs have lost lawsuits filed against them, and third is still being investigated. Cuyahoga Co.'s Sheriff McFaul settled a lawsuit, paid all attorney's fees and court costs, and began issuing licenses after a short delay last spring. This fall, Ohio Supreme Court told Franklin Co.'s Sheriff Karnes he was wrong to demand from applicants additional 'proof' that a temporary emergency license was needed. In a third case, a special prosecutor is (still) investigating Shelby Co. Sheriff O'Leary for releasing protected information about CHL-holders to the media.
This survey reinforces the importance of the "adjoining county" provision, which allows applicants who live in counties where restrictive, even obstructionist, sheriffs are in power, to go to another county to apply for a CHL.
OFCC has and will continue to attempt to work with the Buckeye State Sheriff's Association (BSSA) to encourage those sheriffs who are employing restrictive application schedules to make improvements to their services. And we applaud the many sheriffs in Ohio who continue to defend and fight for the rights of their constituents to bear arms for self-defense.
Click to read the survey - Sheriffs: How is YOUR elected official doing?