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
Search OhioCCW
Join OFCC Today!
Upcoming Events
| 2012 Party In The Park When: August - TBD |
Don't Hold Gun Makers Liable for Criminals
- Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
- Written by Daniel White
A California newspaper, the Appeal-Democrat ran an editorial today in support of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."
After a long string of political defeats that culminated in the Democratic Party's loss of control in Congress in 1994, gun-control activists decided to take a new tack. They would litigate instead of legislate, and gain in the courts what they had been unable to achieve in the political arena: the effective repression of private firearms ownership in America.
(snip)
Inspired by the recent success of the plaintiff's bar against the tobacco industry, the leaders of city after city filed lawsuits against the firearms makers. And what they sought was more than billion-dollar judgments, though visions of such surely danced in their heads. They sought what Brady Center attorney Dennis Hennigan called a doctrinal framework for the eventual liability of the gun industry - one that, in the words of Temple University law professor David Kairys, would hold that gunmakers profit from crime and so they should pay the public costs of crime.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the jackpot: Suit after suit was thrown out of court. In rejecting Cincinnati's lawsuit, the Ohio state appellate court noted that to accept the gun-control lawyers' reasoning would open a Pandora's box and might well lead to suits against the manufacturers of matches for arson, or automobile manufacturers for traffic accidents or breweries for drunk driving.
Click here to read the rest of this insightful editorial.