|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Wednesday, 13 June 2007 |
Good news is being reported from one of the last lone dissenting states in the U.S. that denies its citizens their right to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. Only Wisconsin joins Illinois in scoffing at the irrefutable historical data and plain common sense that proves that a law-abiding citizen deserves to be able to exercise their Constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms to protect their life and the lives of their family.
The White County Board, led by gun rights supporters Mike and Valinda Rowe, has passed a resolution that clearly states how they feel state law is in conflict with their own beliefs. The Rowes have worked with others for some time to fight for concealed carry in their state.
The Resolution passed by the board reads:
"Whereas, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed as an individual right under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and;
"Whereas, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people of White County, Illinois, and;
"Whereas, the people of White County, Illinois, derive economic benefit from all safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting and shooting conducted within White County using all types of firearms allowable under the U.S. Constitution . . .
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Jeff Garvas
|
|
Thursday, 07 June 2007 |
On Thursday June 7th West Virginia's HB3074, a reciprocity reform bill passed a few months ago, became law. On Friday, June 8th, Ohio and West Virginia might finally put an end to the most common reciprocity question we get:
"When will Ohio and West Virginia come to some kind of agreement with reciprocity?" For more than a year now we've been telling people that the problem was in West Virginia, not Ohio, since officials in that state would not enter into an agreement with Ohio.
To the best of our knowledge Ohio has never had a problem with West Virginia's process, but was unable to enter into an agreement. Today Ohioans For Concealed Carry has learned that Ohio and West Virginia are expected to enter into a formal agreement on Friday, June 8th, 2007. Upon completion of a reciprocity agreement the only bordering state that won't "recognize" the Ohio license will be Pennsylvania where, unlike West Virginia, a non-resident license is easily obtained by an Ohioan.
Indiana and Ohio do not have reciprocity, but Indiana technically recognizes virtually any license or permit to carry a firearm. As such, the Indiana license is not recognize or honored by the State of Ohio and will not be unless the two states enter into a mutually binding agreement.
We congratulate the amazing work of Jim Mullins and the West Virginia Citizens Defense League for their success in getting their attorney general to aggressively interpret a reciprocity bill that they once tried to have vetoed due to its restrictive nature. |
|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Wednesday, 06 June 2007 |
It is being reported that Pennsylvania may not be honoring non-resident Concealed Handgun Licenses any longer. As Ohio does not have reciprocity with our neighbor to the east, many CHL holders (including this author) has received a New Hampshire or other non-resident license that allows us to carry in PA.
A letter written by the Pennsylvania Attorney General has been posted on www.handgunlaw.us that says in part:
... we [the AG's office] have been advised that some law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania, including the Pennsylvania State Police, are taking the position that our reciprocity agreements with other states do not confer a right to carry a firearm in Pennsylvania on those license holders who do not reside in the state in question...
Please be aware of the alledged change in policy and be sure to carry within the law when visiting Pennsylvania. |
|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Wednesday, 06 June 2007 |
Ohioans For Concealed Carry has learned through long-time legal representation and friend of the organization, Attorney Dan Ellis, that the case brought against Dan Sayers by the City of Oregon, OH has been dismissed. All property confiscated from Mr. Sayers at the time of his encounter is to be returned.
You may recall that on May 30, 2006, Mr. Sayers was open carrying two handguns while patronizing a Sunoco gas station. He paid for his purchase, cleaned his windshield, and checked the oil level in his car. At some point during this activity, a "concerned citizen" took it upon himself/herself to jump to wrong conclusions and call 911 to report a "man with a gun" even though Mr. Sayers had not done anything threatening or menacing.
Oregon police pursued Mr. Sayers and performed a felony stop, shouted contradictory commands at him, forcing him to exit his vehicle through the window. The officers then approached him at riflepoint while he lay facedown on the pavement.
Thankfully, the prosecutor in this case has wisely dismissed the case. Hopefully cities and towns throughout Ohio will think twice about overreacting to legal carry of firearms reported by nervous citizens ignorant of the law so that other Concealed Handgun License holders will not have to undergo the same dangerous harassment.
You can read more about this incident and all previous stories in the OFCC archives. |
|
Written by Terry Jeffries
|
|
Friday, 01 June 2007 |
I’ve spent way more time on the Ohioans For Concealed Carry website, especially the popular Discussion Forums that they provide, than anyone in their right mind can possibly justify, and am constantly inspired by the collective wisdom of our posters. I find comfort in the relative safety provided by the forums, and feel free to post my own opinion once in a while, but in doing so, also realize that I’m usually just preaching to the choir.
While it is safe and comfortable to simply preach to the choir, if we expect things to change, we have to step outside that zone of comfort and safety and express our views and opinions to those with the power to do so. Prior to HB12, HB347, and several other successful bills passing into law, how many people outside our grassroots community actually thought we’d be where we are today? We got there because we were inspired here, and ventured outside our comfort zones and into the political arena with the same passion we shared among ourselves.
In a moment of inspiration, I penned two letters to my senator to help remind him that he’s not in office because he’s Sherrod Brown, but because he’s not Mike DeWine. While Democrats and Republicans won’t always find common ground, Americans should.
The first letter I sent him was regarding anti-gun provisions hidden in the controversial
immigration amnesty bill that is before Congress:
Dear Senator:
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Friday, 01 June 2007 |
OFCC member John J. Myers has had his excellent Letter to the Editor published in various newspapers regarding the Virginia Tech tragedy. Further publications are still pending. The lawful gun owners of Ohio should follow Mr. Myers' example and utilize their own editorial pages. If we remain silent, only illogical anti-gun voices will be heard.
From The-Daily-Record.com:
Virginia Tech lesson
Are we ready to learn something from the Virginia Tech massacres?
If not we likely never will. What we should have learned and accepted is the answer to the question: What stops a man with a gun? ANSWER: Another man (or woman) with a gun.
This world is not perfect. There will always be emotionally unstable individuals who feel that killing innocent individuals is the only way to make their point. We can initiate all manner of safeguards to protect ourselves and our children in schools and colleges, but a dedicated assassin always manages to reach and kill his victims.
Calling 911? Calling the Police? Too little too late! Till law enforcement arrives on the scene the victims are wounded, dying or already dead. Random shootings call for an on-sight immediate and lethal response by a man or woman with a gun.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Friday, 01 June 2007 |
There has been yet another incident of a legally licensed citizen that successfully used their concealed handgun to end a deadly threat situation. It is being reported by The Cleveland Plain Dealer that Raphael L. Owens was approached in the Akron area by four armed robbers and used his legal firearm to diffuse the situation and save his life.
Akron man with concealed gun shoots at robbers
Posted by Donna J. Miller June 01, 2007
A man legally carrying a concealed handgun shot at an armed robber in Akron.
Four teenagers approached 24-year-old Raphael L. Owens at about 11:30 Wednesday night near the corner of Elmore Avenue and South Portage Path. One pointed a chrome-plated gun at Owens and demanded his cell phone. Owens gave up the phone.
The robber then asked, "what else do you have?"
Owens tried to run, but the robber grabbed his arm. Owens broke free, pulled out his own gun and fired one shot, missing the teens, who took off running.
They ran south on Elmore while Owens ran toward a pay phone. When he got to Grand Avenue at West Exchange Street, he saw the suspects up the street, at Grand and South Portage Path. Again, one teen leveled a gun at him. Again, Owens fired a shot and missed.
The suspects fled as Owens called police from the pay phone at West Exchange and Dodge Avenue.
...
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Jeff Garvas
|
|
Wednesday, 30 May 2007 |
The City of Perrysburg in Northwest Ohio posted signs prohibiting concealed carry at their parks at some point since concealed carry became law, and after HB347 became law they didn't take their signs down. We began to hear about the signs from a number of people and even received some digital snap shots of the signs.
A few weeks ago we wrote the City a polite letter explaining the limitations of Ohio law with respect to posting no-guns signs and enacting illegal ordinances. The letter also detailed the decision in Ohioans For Concealed Carry v. City of Clyde recently handed down by the the Sixth District Court of Appeals in which Revised Code 9.68 was upheld.
Finally, we quoted sections of the revised code and explained to the City that we felt that any person or organization could potentially sue them over their park signs or any other gun control and the city would be required to pay both costs and attorneys fees. We formally requested the city remove their signs within 14 days and begin the process of repealing any gun control ordinances invalidated by HB347.
We had heard that the city knew what they were doing wasn't technically permissible by law and that they intended to leave the signs there as a deterrent to license holders. When the city "acknowledged" receipt of our letter without comment we figured they were about to dig their heals in or ignore us like Clyde. So it came as a surprise this week when we began to hear reports from local residents that Perrysburg has taken down "every" sign in all of their parks!
If your city is prohibiting concealed carry in a park
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Jeff Garvas
|
|
Monday, 28 May 2007 |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OHIOANS FOR CONCEALED CARRY AND NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION FILE MOTION TO INTERVENE IN CLEVELAND PREEMPTION LAWSUIT
Cleveland, Ohio, May 29 /USNewswire/ -- Ohioans For Concealed Carry (OFCC) and the National Rifle Association (NRA), today filed a motion in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas seeking to intervene in City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, in which the City of Cleveland has challenged firearms preemption enacted by the Ohio legislature to clarify and ensure uniform application of gun laws throughout the state.
A temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing its local gun laws in direct opposition to State and Federal laws was also sought from the court in Tuesday’s filing. Co-affiants who are members of either one or both organizations supported the motion to intervene as representatives of the NRA and OFCC, including city residents, Ohio residents, non-resident Ohioans, and residents of other states who travel to or through the City of Cleveland.
Legal Documents:
Motion To Interevene And Memorandum And Order
Answer & Counter Claim
Exhibit B - Cleveland Firearm Ordinances
Exhibit C - Chris E. Cox Affidavit
Exhibit D - VK Gay Affidavit
Exhibit E - Calvin Kittinger Affidavit
Exhibit F - John Joseph Affidavit
Exhibit G - Thomas Dickerson Affidavit
Exhibit H - Section 109.69 and Reciprocity
Notice of Filing Affidavits 12-24
Notice of Filing Affidavits 1 - 12
Service Letter
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Jeff Garvas
|
|
Thursday, 24 May 2007 |
Last week the City of Clyde appealed a decision out of the Sixth District Court of Appeals in favor of Ohioans For Concealed Carry from our case, OFCC v. City of Clyde, where we challenged the city's authority to enact ordinances that contradicted with state law and prohibited carrying concealed firearms in a park. The Sixth District ruled in response to a motion of supplemental authority that Ohio's statewide preemption made the matter moot, and no local government could enact gun control as the City of Clyde had.
Citing various claims based on Toledo v. Beatty and arguing that the Sixth District ignored its own precedent or the decisions in Beatty, the City of Clyde is fighting the home rule argument as if the Ohio Supreme Court never made a decision in American Financial Services. Their basis for the claim that they have the right to do whatever they please is a stretch at best, and often times drifts off topic.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry is not surprised by the appeal, and as we said during a live NRA show from the NRA Convention in St. Louis, this is probably the best case scenario for statewide preemption to date.
Should the Ohio Supreme Court take up this appeal, which we will not object to and will most likely welcome with open arms, the potential to head off all future challenges to the constitutionality of statewide preemption may very well be within our grasp.
Further, since the City of Clyde raised Beatty and relied upon the Sixth District's opinion that HB12 was not a general law, Ohioans For Concealed Carry could be poised to set the record straight on HB12 being a general law. The fact that private property owners can choose to prohibit or not prohibit a person from entering their property doesn't make HB12 inconsistently applied statewide.
The ability of a private property owner who is not otherwise statutorily prohibited, such as a daycare business, to post or not post private property is equally applied and equally available to all private property owners on a statewide basis, and as such, HB12 meets every prong of the general law test.
|
|
