May 24
Thursday
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

Ohio Responds To Cleveland Lawsuit

  • Print
Published on Friday, 27 April 2007 08:05
Written by Jeff Garvas

When a state statute is challenged the Ohio Attorney General's office is required to defend the law and the actions of the legislature in adopting that law. When Cleveland decided to pursue litigation against Ohio's statewide preemption law the Ohio Attorney General's Office did just that.

On April 17th the State of Ohio responded to Cleveland's lawsuit. The nine page answer is relatively "boring" compared to some previous legal documents we've shared here, but it does bring up some interesting defenses.

Most importantly, the State of Ohio has adopted the position that statewide preemption is constitutional in all respects. Interestingly enough the State points out that Cleveland has "failed to join all parties" required by law. This technicality probably won't result in the case being thrown out as much as having it dealt with.

Most encouraging is the fact that the State of Ohio has asked the court to dismiss with prejudice (so that the case can't be brought again) and to have the City of Cleveland pay all costs.

According to the court docket website a pre-trial hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, May 2nd, at 2:00pm.