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

Cleveland is hopelessly addicted to the fallacy of gun control

  • Print
Published on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 13:52
Written by Philip Mulivor

The Ohio Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments in the case of City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio. The outcome will determine whether Ohio's cities can enact firearms restrictions above and beyond existing state law. If the State of Ohio prevails, gun laws will remain uniform throughout the state. If Cleveland prevails, municipalities will be free to create a patchwork of conflicting ordinances that could turn law-abiding gun owners into felons as they simply drive from one township to the next.

The most intriguing question in this case is why the City of Cleveland has insisted on advancing the nonsensical idea of contradictory gun laws.

Second Amendment advocacy today has reached its most vibrant crescendo since the American Revolution, and goofy gun laws are about the last thing Ohio — including Cleveland — needs to stem its exodus of college graduates or to attract new business. Why would Cleveland’s politicians fight to turn their city into an enclave known for capricious firearms restrictions?

Consider these points:

  1. America's large cities are the nation’s fountainhead of crime and social deterioration. Mayors and city councils are the primary front-line tacticians charged with controlling and fixing this problem.
  2. The problem likely requires complex, long-term remediation, involving profound changes in the criminal justice system, public schools, and other major institutions.
  3. In the meantime, mayors and city councils appear incompetent and ineffective.
  4. To create the immediate appearance of competence and effectiveness, politicians in charge of large cities must substantially divert the public's attention from #2 above to a substitute issue they claim is the "real problem" and on which they seem up to the task. This decoy issue is “gun control.” Note: The decoy requires its sponsors to constantly ignore or deny decades of scientific inquiry which have established that law-abiding armed citizens reduce crime. (See More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, 3rd edition, by John Lott.)
  5. Nevertheless, experienced city politicians employ this decoy argument as a permanent cover story: They can forever claim that their tireless effort to control guns (despite that darn Constitution) bestows the mantle of heroic leadership, while their inability to control guns (that darn Constitution) certifies their blamelessness for deteriorating cities.

And that brings us back to Cleveland.

The city must fight for its own firearms laws because its leaders are intractably immersed in — and hopelessly addicted to — the red-herring fallacy of gun control. For Cleveland and cities like it, this was nearly inevitable. Hollywood filmmakers for decades have spuriously portrayed guns as archetypal tools of evil — a Lotto jackpot for city politicians. Harnessing the awesome power of a pervasive pop-culture stereotype, mayors and city councils have found it more expedient to manipulate public sentiment with Hollywood-inspired gun anxiety than to create a cogent plan for the restoration of order and safety in their cities. As Oscar Wilde observed, life imitates art more than art imitates life.

Let's hope for a victory in City of Cleveland vs. State of Ohio, but let's also hope that people see the case for what it truly is: proof that the mayoral gun control movement, now a mature institution in American politics, has become one of the most cynical disinformation campaigns in American history.