May 23
Wednesday
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

Lawyers Looking for a Way Around Pesky Law

  • Print
Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
Written by Daniel White

Last month, President Bush signed into law the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (S. 397) ending politically motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers. S. 397 had passed both chambers in Congress with broad bipartisan support.

Now, a group of lawyers in Buffalo are upset because their lawsuit against firearms manufacturer Hi-Point and a local firearms distributor may get dismissed because of the new law.
"[The] defendants persisted in making these guns available to criminals who the defendants knew or should have known were using them in crimes," the lawsuit charges.

This is exactly the kind of frivolous lawsuit the law was designed to block.

(Click 'READ MORE' to continue...)

Over two years ago, Daniel Williams of Buffalo survived a drive-by shooting. The shooter used a Hi-Point pistol, and Williams' attorneys filed suit against the Ohio based manufacturer and a local distributor after it was determined that the firearm had been illegally purchased at a gun show in Dayton.

Despite the fact that a criminal misused the firearm and obtained it illegally, Williams' attorneys felt that the manufacturer and distributor were somehow liable for these criminal acts.

After the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed, they modified their lawsuit in an attempt to get around the new law.
"Our lawsuit withstands even the draconian gun-immunity bill," attorney Terrence M. Connors said. "The Williams family will have its day in court. This is a case that needs to be heard."

While any shooting is a tragedy, holding manufacturers and distributors liable makes as much sense as suing Ford and the local Ford dealership for a drunk driving accident.
"It's not fair [to blame the gun industry], and it's something that was not well-grounded in the law, even before the immunity bill was passed," John F. Renzulli, the attorney representing Hi-Point, said. "And now, the immunity bill makes it perfectly clear that gun manufacturers should not be blamed for those who criminally misuse their guns. The person who fires the gun creates the mayhem."

We agree. The NRA agrees. The U.S. congress agrees. The President of the United States agrees. And the majority of the country agrees that you can't hold a third party liable for a criminal act for which they have no control. The law was passed for a reason, and no amount of complaining or searching for a loophole is going to change any of that.