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 |
Further Proof: Cleveland Heights Law Director knew of ORC 9.68 Intimately
- Published on Thursday, 20 October 2011 01:40
- Written by Jeff Garvas
In August of this year we published a story on our website Cleveland Heights, Law Director: On Notice Since 2008 in which we discredited the notion that OFCC hadn't been communicating with the City of Cleveland Heights about their illegal gun laws.
As part of the preparation for our lawsuit Ohioans For Concealed Carry made numerous public records requests to the City of Cleveland Heights. As one can imagine the city drug its feet in providing us the information we requested. In settlement discussions the City of Cleveland Heights offered a scenario that required Ohioans For Concealed Carry to rescind one of its public records requests.
Nothing puts up red flashing lights in my mind than a request like that. We refused.
Today, Ohioans For Concealed Carry received a partial response to the records requests we have issued to the City of Cleveland Heights. This particular record that we have acquired is a settlement agreement that the City of Cleveland Heights entered into in March of 2010 with a former contributor to our forums known as "freedom_fighter777" (Joseph Ponikvar Jr.) in which the City of Cleveland Heights ordered him to the ground at gun point and forcibly detained him for openly carrying a firearm.
Despite his efforts to educate them with the Attorney General's handbook they wanted to hear nothing of what the actual law was. You can "watch" a YouTube video of that incident here (Its mostly blacked out with audio)
Ponikvar Jr. (freedom_fighter777 on our forums) entered into an agreement that required him not to reveal the monetary amount of the settlement:
4) Except as necessary to enforce any of the terms and conditions of this settlement agreement, Joseph Ponikvar shall keep the monetary amount of the settlement confidential. If you've read our forums, you know that Ponikvar never revealed the financial terms of his settlement and it frustrated many people who wanted to know just how successful he might have been. Just how much was the City of Cleveland Heights willing to pay him for what they did? Unfortunately, not all that much taking into consideration how much an attorney charges hourly:
(A) $ 5,000 shall be paid to plaintiff by draft made payable to plaintiff and his attorney Robert N. Stein Co LPA (with the intent that these funds shall be used to pay plaintiff's attorney fees with the remainder, if any, going to the plaintiff).
Looking back at that offer to settle with Ohioans For Concealed Carry if we were willing to rescind our public records request over a $5,000 settlement doesn't seem all that significant, does it? Parties familiar with the settlement aspects that were discussed on our website already know that this was a part of the agreement:
2) Commencing no later than March 15, 2010 the City of Cleveland Heights shall train all its personnel connected with law enforcement with respect to the provisions of 9.68 Revised Code, unless it has already done so.
This doesn't seem like such a big deal. Until you realize who signed the agreement on March 18th, 2010:
In other words, further proof that Cleveland Heights Law Director John Gibbons not only should have fully understood Ohio Revised Code 9.68 - his office and the City of Cleveland Heights committed in a "Stipulated Dismissal Entry" filed in federal court to train all it's personnel connected with law enforcement with respect to the very law Ohioans For Concealed Carry sued them for violating.
In fact, the city's blatantly ignoring their obligation to comply with ORC 9.68 is further proof that our lawsuit was not only justified, but a necessary catalyst to force them to comply with Ohio Law.
Tax payers in the City of Cleveland Heights should be disgusted with their city leadership's open check book for violating individual freedoms and ignoring state laws.