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 |
OFCC Testifies in Support of Castle Doctrine
- Published on Thursday, 03 April 2008 09:58
- Written by Gary Witt
OFCC member Gary Witt was one of two witnesses testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of Senate Bill 184 (Castle Doctrine) on April 2, 2008. The Committee also heard from Students For Concealed Carry member Steve Feltoon in support of the bill and from two opponents of the bill. Testifying against the bill were representatives of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorney Association and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police.
Witt reports that the committee seemed favorable to the bill, asking tough questions of the representatives of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorney Association and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police.
Todays hearing was the fourth for the bill. A substitute bill was scheduled to be presented at this hearing for consideration but was not ready according to committee chair Senator Timothy Grendell. It will be introduced at a future, yet to be determined, hearing date.
The Senate Judiciary Committee normally meets on Wednesdays although not every week. Committee meeting schedules are posted on Friday afternoons for the following week at this link.
The complete text of Witts testimony is below:
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Gary Witt and I am here today speaking on behalf of Ohioans For Concealed Carry, Incorporated. OFCC is a proponent of this long overdue legislation and has asked me to address the committee today. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do this.
In Ohio, deadly force can only be used to prevent serious bodily harm or death. Senate Bill 184 does not change this. Senate Bill 184 does not relieve an individual of the need to meet the three criteria in establishing an affirmative defense of self defense or defense of another. Those conditions are 1) defendant is not at fault, 2) reasonable and honest belief of danger and 3) duty to retreat. Although there is no duty to retreat in one's own home, deadly force may be used by the occupant only if the individual reasonably and honestly believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent serious bodily harm or death. In all cases if it is determined that a person's use of deadly force was not justified, criminal charges may be pursued. Contrary to Mr. Burnside's testimony before the Committee on January 30 this year, in the event a shooting is found not to be justified, there can be civil recourse against the shooter.
The Committee, on January 30 this year, heard testimony from Toby Hoover representing the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence that, and I quote, "Senate Bill 184 allows the use of lethal force to protect property - giving the protection of property a value above the preservation of life", end quote. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Senate Bill 184 specifically addresses the criteria for establishing an affirmative defense of self defense or defense of another. Defense of property is NOT listed.
Ms. Hoover, in her testimony on January 30, stated her organization's belief that Senate Bill 184 attempts to convince the public that the bill is a solution to a problem where one does not exist. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, if any Ohio citizen justifiably defends him or herself or their loved ones against death or serious bodily injury and suffers financial or material losses as a result of that justifiable act, there is a problem. It is a problem of being victimized twice, once by an assailant and once by the civil court. It is a problem that can be corrected by passage of Senate Bill 184.
I will be glad to answer any questions that you have.
Thank you.