Menu Content/Inhalt

What is this?

CCW Training

Find CCW Instructors
OFCC Joins in Beatty Appeal PDF Print E-mail
Written by Daniel White   
Friday, 29 September 2006

On September 1st, the 6th District Court of Appeals ruled against Bruce Beatty in a 2-1 opinion.

Beatty had been arrested in Toledo for violating a park rule against concealed carry after he threw a much publicized "birthday party" to celebrate the one year anniversary of Ohio's concealed carry law. Beatty argued that the park ban was in conflict with State of Ohio law permitting concealed carry in Parks, since he had received a concealed handgun license. The City argued that it had the authority under Home Rule to ban all weapons in its Parks.

After his conviction in the lower courts, Beatty appealed to the higher court. The 6th District Court of Appeals ruled that, despite an explicit statement of intent by the Ohio legislature, Ohio's CHL law was not a general law and upheld the conviction.

Beatty then sought Ohioans For Concealed Carry's assistance to help appeal the case to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The 6th District Court ruled the CHL law is not a general law on the basis that private businesses have the ability to decide for themselves whether to ban customers from carrying a concealed firearm. The 6th District Court held that this exception causes non-uniform application of the law because some business chose to ban concealed carry while others permit it. OFCC believes that the law is applied uniformly throughout the state because all businesses have the same ability to make a choice to permit concealed carry on their property.

On the strength of a very strongly worded dissent, OFCC will be taking up the case and assisting Mr. Beatty to overturn this decision and ensure the mandate of the Ohio legislature to permit law abiding citizens access to the means to protect themselves if they choose to apply for and meet the requirements to obtain a concealed carry license.

In the wake of the 6th District decision, several other cities (including Columbus) are considering enacting their own patchwork quilt of local laws precluding the lawful carry of firearms, despite the fact that Ohio's CHL holders have acted responsibly and proven that they are not a "danger" over the past 2-1/2 years. In Clyde, the decision was used to rule against OFCC's lawsuit challenging that city's park ban.

When will the politicians elected to represent the people realize that everyone has the right to defend themselves from violent criminals and laws disarming law abiding citizens’ access to the means to that defense only promotes the victimization of its citizenry, not their protection?