May
24
Thursday
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 |
Ohio Gubernatorial Hopefuls on 2nd Amendment
- Published on Saturday, 09 September 2006 01:00
- Written by Daniel White
The Dayton Daily News recently ran the answers to a survey they presented to the two top contenders for the Ohio Governorship, OFCC endorsed candidate Ken Blackwell(R) and Ted Strickland(D). Both candidates are on record and being pro-gun and in support of concealed carry in Ohio.
Their answers on many of the questions were very similar, and at times identical. One question in particular, though, gave cause for concern.
When asked "what is your view of the Second Amendment?", the two men gave very different answers.
Strickland's response was, "I think it is a part of our constitutional system that keeps us a free people. It is something I take seriously and have throughout my political career."
While seemingly a very pro-gun statement, it does leave itself open to interpretation. It could, in fact, be seen as having underpinnings of some of the main arguments used by anti-gun forces.
It is, possibly by design, a politically neutral statement that says a lot without really saying anything. Is it the right of the people? Or just the militia? Does the ability to personally defend ourselves against criminal attack what keeps us free, or is it the military and militia that accomplishes that task? How does he take it seriously? Does he believe in it personally, or know that being publicly against it will hurt his political career? Many politicians realize that while being anti-gun can no longer be counted on to win you elections, it certainly can cause you to lose them.
Blackwell's answer had no such ambiguity, "I support the Second Amendment right of every law-abiding Ohioan to keep and own firearms for hunting, personal protection and any other lawful purpose."
The statements in principle are right there, with no beating around the bush. "Right of every law-abiding Ohioan" and "hunting, personal protection and any other lawful purpose". That second part knocks out another tactic the anti-gunners take when they try to ban firearms by claiming they have no legitimate sporting purpose. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, and Blackwell knows it.
Since Strickland's statement truly is open to interpretation, it could go either way. Perhaps he really is on our side. Ohio gunowners might get a chance to find out on November 7th.
Will Blackwell become Governor and leave Strickland's true feelings to remain a mystery? Or will we get a chance to see if Strickland is another Bob Taft, who claims to be in support of gun rights, only to double-speak himself out of that support once the election is over?