Ohioans For Concealed Carry, NRA file Supreme Court Merit Briefs

• 
• 

Published on Monday, 28 January 2008 22:15

Written by Jeff Garvas

On Monday attorneys for Ohioans For Concealed Carry and the Ohio Attorney General's office filed Merit Briefs with the Ohio Supreme Court in our landmark case Ohioans For Concealed Carry v. City of Clyde. (Court of Appeals Case Nos. S-0-039, S-06-040) It's been nearly a decade since Ohioans For Concealed Carry has been a part of firearms litigation that has made it to the Ohio Supreme Court, last with Klein v. Leis, and we couldn't be more pleased with the merits of this case today.

(PDF Links to all six briefs at the very end of this article)

Last week the National Rifle Association filed a friend of the court brief co-authored by the very famous constitutional Attorney Stephen P. Halbrook, but the NRA's involvement in this specific litigation dates back to day one when Ohioans For Concealed Carry brought it to their attention and sought their involvement.

Just last year we succeeded in getting HB347 to become law after the Governor Bob Taft's failed attempt to veto that legislation, only to find that it would be the motivation for a court to reverse course and decide in our favor after the stunning decision in Beatty. Now, just months after Ohio's statewide preemption became law, the Ohio Supreme Court is poised to concur with the appellate court and test statewide preemption in Ohio. If we win, no local government may pass or enforce most gun related legislation as it will become a matter of statewide concern. If we lose, the places that local governments may try to ban concealed carry could eviscerate the purpose and viability of concealed carry, and the court has been duly advised of this dire potential.

Those familiar with the case will recall that OFCC pursued litigation against the City of Clyde after their council enacted an emergency ordinance that prohibited concealed carry in their city parks shortly after concealed carry became law in Ohio. That case was delayed for quite some time while Bruce Beatty dealt with similar criminal charges in Toledo. The courts ruled against Beatty, and thus our court ruled against our case based on the precedent in Beatty since both cases took place within the Sixth District of Ohio. We never had the opportunity to argue the merits of our case in the lower court.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry appealed the decision to the Sixth District Court of Appeals, and in the interim, the Ohio General Assembly has passed and HB347 became law. Our attorneys immediately filed briefs with the Appellate court bringing the change of law to the attention of the court which then ruled in our favor. Until that point in time it was highly likely, if not inevitable, that the Sixth District Court of Appeals was going to rule against us simply due to the precedent set in Beatty's case. Thanks to the success of statewide preemption in Ohio, we'll really never know.

The City of Clyde appealed that decision to the Ohio Supreme Court and in a very rare move attorneys for Ohioans For Concealed Carry responded with the endorsement of Clyde's request and pleaded with the court to take up the appeal. In other words, we want the Ohio Supreme Court to review the lower court's decision in our favor and rule on the constitutionality of HB347. The Ohio Supreme Court obliged and parties began to file written briefs stating their position in December of 2007.

Ohio has an organization that represents the interests of municipalities, the Ohio Municipal League. This organization has been opposed to concealed carry since the onset and has fought to allow cities to enact whatever contradictory prohibitions it chooses. In material leaked to OFCC in the past the OML advised municipalities that "a gun group" would strongly oppose any efforts to pass local restrictions on concealed carry. Consequently, cities like Clyde began passing anti-gun ordinances as emergency legislation before anyone could even realize it was on the docket, let alone tip off Ohioans For Concealed Carry.

In legislative alerts the OML encouraged municipalities to oppose HB12 and HB347 and in OFCC v. Clyde they filed a friend of the court brief much like the NRA has in this case, but taking the side of opposition on behalf of municipalities. If you live in Beachwood, Cincinnati, Dublin, Kettering, New Albany, Orange Village, Shaker Heights, or the City of Toledo be advised that each of these cities have "signed on" to The OML's friend of the court brief and "...have an interest in being able to control their parks and other municipally owned properties without unlawful interference from the Stete of Ohio. The slippery slope of "no CCW in this city" begins if the OML gets it's way.

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, a liberal left wing anti-gun Mayor who wants to blame all crime in his urban city on the law abiding gun owner, didn't hesitate to file a friend of the court brief on behalf of the City of Cleveland. As our attorneys point out the City of Cleveland appears to be encouraging the court to legislate from the bench because HB347 has done what it should: Prevent cities like Cleveland from enacting, enforcing, and imposing absurd gun control under the guise of protecting the public. HB347 does that by making all gun laws short of zoning restrictions consistent statewide, as they always should have been. Despite Mayor Jackson's raving and ranting that HB347 ruined Cleveland's ability to "deal with gun crimes" his police department is now engaged in a very well publicized massive sweep of criminal activity involving guns, proving yet again that actual criminal misuse of firearms can be fought while Ohio's gun laws are consistent statewide.

Reading the opponent briefs prior to reading that submitted by Ohioans For Concealed Carry is encouraged, since our attorneys have refuted claims made by Cleveland, the OML, and the City of Clyde.

Since Ohioans For Concealed Carry challenged Clyde then Attorney General Jim Petro intervened on behalf of the State of Ohio, and Attorney General Marc Dann has continued that effort without hesitation. The Attorney General's office is challenged with defending the statutes that the legislature enacts, and the effort and work product that has come out of the Attorney General's Office in this case is excellent.

Our hope is that the Ohio Supreme Court will hold oral arguments sometime in the fall of 2008 or sooner. The court's proceedings are open to the public and available online. After the attorneys are given approximately twenty minutes each to argue their case and answer questions posed by the Justices the court adjourns and a decision is not handed down for quite some time.

The Supreme Court briefs in Ohioans For Concealed Carry v. City of Clyde, filed by all of the parties, can be found here in PDF format:

Clyde Merit Brief
Municipal League Merit Brief
Cleveland Merit Brief
NRA Merit Brief
Attorney General Merit Brief
OFCC Merit Brief

• < Prev
• Next >