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 |
House Sends Journalist Loophole Reform To Governor
- Published on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 14:52
- Written by Jeff Garvas
Today the Ohio House of Representatives took up Substitute House Bill 9 and considered amendments made by the Ohio Senate. As you may recall, Representative Tom Brinkman amended HB9 on the House Floor to create an opt-out system that would allow concealed handgun licensees to deny journalists access to their private information. You may have read on our website that the Ohio Senate modified this opt-out system with a compromise.
Represenative Oelslager compared it to a compromise on autopsy records. Instead of being able to obtain actual photos (or in our case, photo copies), the requesting journalist may see the records of license holders and take notes. Sheriffs will no longer be permitted to distribute bulk photo copies. This change will make it more difficult, if not financially prohibitive, to obtain entire lists of license holders for the sake of intimidation tactics made popular by newspapers like The Cleveland Plain Dealer.
However, if a journalist wishes to use the information as it was originally intended, they may still research whether or not a specific individual has been issued a license to carry a handgun for self-defense.
After a lengthy description of the changes, Representative Bill Seitz, a well-known friend to gun owners, rose to oppose the bill because the Ohio Senate removed a provision that would make it possibly for people to get information on slum property owners. He also spoke in opposition to the removal of a system that would create an intermediary to use when records were denied. The only form of recourse now is to hire an attorney and litigate denials.
Most importantly, Representative Seitz commented on the inadequacies of the concealed carry compromise fashioned by the Senate. Seitz reminded us that although HB9 prevents photo-copying records, it still allows a journalist the ability to write down all of the information they request. In his opinion, this means that the media's abuse of this information could continue.
Finally, Representative Seitz voiced concerns over Senate amendments that seem to protect journalists and fund lawyers with mandatory attorney fees. He was concerned with the fact that the House language that permitted certain time limits to produce records was significantly rewritten and includes mandatory attorney fees. Even mandatory fees to litigate the original mandatory legal fees. Seitz then said if Trafficant were still in the State House he'd call on Scotty to "beam me up".
The Representative concluded that the bill is aimed at appeasing journalists and the law firms that represent them. He then strongly urged the House to oppose concurrence and return during the next session to reconsider the needs of the people when a new privacy sub-committee would be able to more appropriately deliberate upon the issues that are not addressed in the current version of the bill.
The question to concur was called. A vote of 52-39 sent Substitute House Bill 9 to the Governor for his decision. Based on the minimal opposition from the Ohio Newspaper Association and urging from the news media to sign this bill into law, we do not believe it will be vetoed.