May 22
Tuesday
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

Editorials: No problems (AND NO FIXES!) for OhioCCW

  • Print
Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
Written by Jeff Garvas

After a quick concession from the Hamilton Journal-News, which admits "we believe Ohio’s concealed-weapons law has worked well in its first nine months — especially here in Butler County," the newspaper immediately turns its editorial focus on what (but not why) not to improve in Ohio’s CCW law.

    While proponents of the new law are happy with the numbers coming out of Butler, Clermont and Montgomery counties, they are complaining that 36 of Ohio’s 88 county sheriffs are placing undo additional restrictions on the permit process, such as requiring applicants to make appointments.

    But we don’t believe having to make an appointment is an undo burden on an applicant.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry, which this newspaper uses as a source, but fails to name, has first opposed appointments because they violate the spirit (and in some cases even the letter) of our “shall issue” law, and second because we can document that appointments are suppressing license-issuance. Why do the editors fail to address these issues? The editorial doesn’t say.

    We also don’t believe the law should be amended to restrict access to the names of those who receive concealed-carry permits. Therefore we are against a proposal by Rep. Bill Seitz, a Cincinnati Republican.
The closet thing to a reason offered for opposing closure of the Media Access Loophole appears as follows:

    The law as crafted does permit concealed-carry but also includes safeguards. Those need to be preserved.
How has the Media Access Loophole been utilized to safeguard the public? The newspaper doesn’t say.

In the Akron Beacon Journal, a similar editorial has been published.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

In its latest editorial, the Akron Beacon Journal admits that "in the Akron area, the process for getting a permit to carry a loaded handgun has gone smoothly. Fears among law enforcement officials of potentially violent encounters have not materialized."

Good news, then, right? No. The Beacon Journal editors then continue on to argue that because "the sheriff's office has not seen any incident involving a concealed weapons carrier, either as aggressor or victim", the entire program "is more questionable than ever".

Apparently, to these editors, only if lives are saved in Summit County is a program worth anything. OFCC has documented several instances of CHL-holders protecting themselves in the first year, and, of course, most instances of self-defense never make the headlines.

The paper finishes by attempting to twist patterns of lower CHL-issuance in Ohio's urban areas as proof that "those from urban areas followed the persuasive argument that having more loaded weapons around wouldn't make their community safer."

As with the Hamilton Journal-News, the Beacon Journal editors did not address the proof OFCC has provided that urban sheriffs' restrictive appointment schedules are what may be the largest factor hampering issuance in those counties. Additionally, it is newspapers in these urban counties that are abusing the Media Access Loophole in an effort to deter applicants.

Acknowledging the facts just wouldn't fit with these newspapers' anti-gun agenda.