You would think Clyde would know better...

A sub-forum for the purpose of discussing ORC 9.68 compliance. This sub-forum is strictly for the discussion of progress in individual cities and their respective parks.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Forum rules
This sub-forum is strictly for the purpose of submitting of, and status updates related to, ORC 9.68 compliance. This could mean park bans, open carry bans, or anything that is a compliance issue. Note the format in which original threads were created. We'll track each individual case here and post updates if assistance is needed, etc. You may start a new thread here to notify us of a non-compliant scenario. Please try to research contact information for each city, village, etc, Email, fax, and postal addresses are great. Digital photos of infractions (Signs) are ideal. With limited exceptions this is NOT a discussion forum.

READ THIS BEFORE POSTING
Post Reply
User avatar
JustJack
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
Location: Findlay
Contact:

You would think Clyde would know better...

Post by JustJack »

But I actually found an ordinance on the books that violates ORC 9.68. According to their Codified Ordinances found on ConwayGreeneCo.
951.02 ACTIVITIES ON CEMETERY GROUNDS PROHIBITED.
(a) Carrying of firearms, except for ceremonial purpose, is prohibited.
Now, I'd presume since the city owns and maintains the cemetery, as well as enforces all their rules, regulations, etc. this would be a pretty clear violation of ORC 9.68. I'd also presume that if any municipality should know better, it would be Clyde(or Cleveland as well).
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
BriKuz
Posts: 698
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: Ashland County, OH

Re: You would think Clyde would know better...

Post by BriKuz »

we REALLY need to get working on giving 9.68 some teeth... (and I'd prefer if it was expanded to cover knives and other common arms)
User avatar
JustJack
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
Location: Findlay
Contact:

Re: You would think Clyde would know better...

Post by JustJack »

BriKuz wrote:we REALLY need to get working on giving 9.68 some teeth... (and I'd prefer if it was expanded to cover knives and other common arms)
I know man, I agree completely. In a perfect world we'd all just have Constitutional Carry and the anti's could suck on it.
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
BriKuz
Posts: 698
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: Ashland County, OH

Re: You would think Clyde would know better...

Post by BriKuz »

Funny thing, Clyde still has a ban in parks...

955.07 PROHIBITION OF DEADLY WEAPONS IN CITY PARKS.
(a) No person located within the confines of any City Park shall knowingly carry or have, on or about his person or readily to hand, any deadly weapon, irrespective of whether such person has been issued a license to carry a concealed handgun pursuant to Ohio R.C. 2923.125 or pursuant to a comparable provision of the law of any other state.

I thought we won a court case about this? Where's the writ of Mandamus against the City Council?
User avatar
JustJack
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
Location: Findlay
Contact:

Re: You would think Clyde would know better...

Post by JustJack »

BriKuz wrote:Funny thing, Clyde still has a ban in parks...

955.07 PROHIBITION OF DEADLY WEAPONS IN CITY PARKS.
(a) No person located within the confines of any City Park shall knowingly carry or have, on or about his person or readily to hand, any deadly weapon, irrespective of whether such person has been issued a license to carry a concealed handgun pursuant to Ohio R.C. 2923.125 or pursuant to a comparable provision of the law of any other state.

I thought we won a court case about this? Where's the writ of Mandamus against the City Council?
That copy of the ordinances is Certified as of January 2013 as well, so they can't claim that they haven't updated them since prior to the lawsuit either.
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
Post Reply