May
23
Wednesday
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
Time to Level Playing Field for Gun Makers
- Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
- Written by Jeff Garvas
April 26, 2005
Investors' Business Daily
By John R. Lott Jr.
Every product has illegitimate uses and undesirable consequences, but even lawsuits have had their limits. In 2002 in the U.S., car accidents killed 45,380 people and injured another 3 million, 838 children under the age of 15 drowned, 474 children died from residential fires, and 130 children died in bicycle accidents.
Fortunately, local governments havent started recouping medical costs or police salaries by suing auto or bicycle companies, pool builders or makers of home heaters.
All sorts of products, including cars and computers, are also used in the commission of crimes. But again, no one yet seriously proposes that these companies be sued for the losses from these crimes.
People understand what makes a car useful for everyday life also makes it useful to escape a crime and that you can't hold a car company liable for a product thats working exactly as it should. They understand that the penalty should be on the person who uses the product improperly.
Yet suing manufacturers for costs cities incur from gun injuries and deaths is exactly the theory behind government lawsuits by cities against gun makers. George Soros, via the Brady Campaign, has funded most of these suits.
Last week, the House Judiciary Committee marked up their version of a bill to limit these suits, and the Senate will finally decide within the next couple of weeks whether these suits will continue. Last year the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" to rein in these suits was defeated when Democrats added amendments to extend the so-called assault weapons ban.
Generally, suits against gun makers haven't had any more legal success than if similar suits had been brought against car companies. There have been some short term victories such as a decision last week by the D.C. Court of Appeals that will let the city sue makers of so-called "assault weapons" used in crime.
But while gun control advocates can dream about more such victories, the Brady Campaign had more practical goals: imposing large legal costs on gun makers.
Click here to read the entire op-ed.



