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 |
City of Clyde Appeals To The Ohio Supreme Court
- Published on Thursday, 24 May 2007 11:18
- Written by Jeff Garvas
Last week the City of Clyde appealed a decision out of the Sixth District Court of Appeals in favor of Ohioans For Concealed Carry from our case, OFCC v. City of Clyde, where we challenged the city's authority to enact ordinances that contradicted with state law and prohibited carrying concealed firearms in a park. The Sixth District ruled in response to a motion of supplemental authority that Ohio's statewide preemption made the matter moot, and no local government could enact gun control as the City of Clyde had.
Citing various claims based on Toledo v. Beatty and arguing that the Sixth District ignored its own precedent or the decisions in Beatty, the City of Clyde is fighting the home rule argument as if the Ohio Supreme Court never made a decision in American Financial Services. Their basis for the claim that they have the right to do whatever they please is a stretch at best, and often times drifts off topic.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry is not surprised by the appeal, and as we said during a live NRA show from the NRA Convention in St. Louis, this is probably the best case scenario for statewide preemption to date.
Should the Ohio Supreme Court take up this appeal, which we will not object to and will most likely welcome with open arms, the potential to head off all future challenges to the constitutionality of statewide preemption may very well be within our grasp.
Further, since the City of Clyde raised Beatty and relied upon the Sixth District's opinion that HB12 was not a general law, Ohioans For Concealed Carry could be poised to set the record straight on HB12 being a general law. The fact that private property owners can choose to prohibit or not prohibit a person from entering their property doesn't make HB12 inconsistently applied statewide.
The ability of a private property owner who is not otherwise statutorily prohibited, such as a daycare business, to post or not post private property is equally applied and equally available to all private property owners on a statewide basis, and as such, HB12 meets every prong of the general law test.