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 |
The Crying Begins Over So-Called "Public Records"
- Published on Friday, 09 March 2007 21:50
- Written by Jeff Garvas
We all know that the media loophole that gave access to the personal information of concealed handgun license holders was never intended to become public record and available in bulk. Even The Cincinnati Enquirer's latest story, 7 Secrets Government Keeps, admits that Governor Taft "compromised" on a solution that made the records anything but public.
Originally, the legislature intended to create a system where the news media could ask if an individual had a license to carry a concealed handgun and the Sheriff would respond with the name, county of residence, and date of birth. This was supposed to be a "check and balance" upon the system to ensure that criminals were not receiving licenses from dishonest Sheriffs. Since passing HB12 into law, some members of the news media have blatantly misused their loophole to acquire and publish complete lists of licensees with no other reason than to ostracize our law-abiding CHL community. The Enquirer's story goes on to evoke emotion over a shooting that occurred some time ago. A shooting, by the way, that was ruled as a justified use of self-defense force by Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters.
Effective Tuesday, however, a state law will impose new rules on viewing, making it more difficult for reporters to find out if someone has a concealed-carry permit.Sure, without those records, it's possible the police wouldn't release such information. They are not required to. That information is not public record! They also aren't releasing the medical history of the gentleman that had to shoot in self-defense. Why isn't the Enquirer enraged over that? The article also makes no mention of the fact that changes taking effect on March 29th (not this Tuesday as they erroneously reported) would not prohibit them from determining if someone like Bennie Hall Jr. has a license to carry a handgun for self-defense.
Without those records, the public wouldn't know, for example, that Bennie Hall Jr. - who shot a 14-year-old who was stealing his car in Kennedy Heights last October - had a license to carry a gun.
In fact, what is really taking place that makes the records any less available to journalist than they were to begin with? Nothing... but it sure was good fodder for the latest Enquirer story on public records that were never public records to begin with.
Unfortunately, this is yet another example of an anti-gun agenda that uses emotion and misdirection instead of fact and logic to attack the Constitutionally protected right of Ohioans to bear arms for their defense and security. Perhaps people around the state will join me in contacting The Cincinnati Enquirer and politely asking why they do not report the truth.