Menu Content/Inhalt

What is this?

Featured Item


OFCC Gift Membership with commemorative lapel pin!



2009 OFCC Calendar

Sayers Case: Using the Sixth District Ruling For Dismissal PDF Print E-mail
Written by Jeff Garvas   
Tuesday, 12 September 2006

Its not often that you get to use an anti-gun ruling to fight for a win in another pro-gun legal action, but in the Clyde case we did just that. If you’ve read the case documents you’ll find that in Clyde numerous anti-gun rulings in the past have been used to justify some of the arguments in Clyde.

Late last week Dan Sayer’s attorney filed a Supplemental Authority and Memo in Support of Dismissing the State’s indictments. That brief, filed last week, uses the ruling in the Sixth District Court of Appeals to make a compelling and ironic argument against the prosecution’s position in the Sayer’s case (emphasis added by OFCC):

“The Oregon prosecutor argued to this Court that Oregon Municipal Ordinance 549.18 does not ban the licensed carry of concealed firearms because R.C. 2923.126(A) is a “general law” of the State. However, as the Sixth District Court of Appeals recently held, a municipality can ban the carry of concealed weapons in a park because [2923.126(A)] is not a general law.

Further, the Beatty court found that an ordinance banning the, “carry (of) firearms of any description” banned the carry of all weapons, concealed or not. In light of this recent decision, the Oregon prosecutor’s argument that Oregon Municipal Ordinance 549.18 does not ban the carry of concealed weapons is not supportable. The fact is, [the ordinance] bans any and all carrying of a firearm, and is therefore unconstitutional on its face”