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 |
DC v Heller - Rule or Remand?
- Published on Monday, 17 March 2008 06:50
- Written by Gene Helms
U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement has filed a brief for the imminent Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller that will allow the highest court in the land to rule whether or not the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an individual right like every other that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Clement asked that the case be remanded to the DC Circuit Court to see if the law can withstand intermediate scrutiny under the Second Amendment. His reasoning is that,
Although the Court of Appeals correctly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it did not apply the correct standard for evaluating respondents Second Amendment claim.
The Court of Appeals appears to be using a categorical approach where Second Amendment could be construed to categorically preclude any ban on a category of Arms that can be traced back to the founding era of our nation. If the Supreme Court of the United States were to analyze this case in the same way, it could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation banning the possession of certain types of firearms, including machine guns.
Another brief signed by the President of the United States Senate Dick Cheney, 55 members of The United States Senate, and 250 Members of the House of Representatives states,
The lower courts categorical approach in holding a prohibition on handguns to be unconstitutional per se was correct.
Where Congress has sought to restrict certain firearms, some of which may have characteristics which overlap with handguns, it has defined them in term of specific categories. A holding by this Court that the Districts pistol ban violates the Second Amendment would not apply to such firearms which are restricted under other categories.
This case involves nothing more than the right of law-abiding persons to keep common handguns and usable firearms for lawful self-defense in the home. Accordingly, no purpose would be served by remanding this case for further fact finding or other proceedings.
I believe that the decision will be that DCs handgun ban is unconstitutional. I also agree with the brief signed by Vice-President Cheney in that there is no reason to send this case back to the lower court.
Oral arguments are to begin on March 18, 2008. We will soon know the courts decision on this matter.