West Jefferson - Parks

[MyWifeSaidYes]

It's time to start checking your local ordinances.

I found out about an "issue" in West Jeff and decided to check their ordinances. Sure enough, no firearms in parks. (ordinance 957.08)

Here is the initial email I sent last night. I'll post any responses I receive.

If you want to play along at home, there is a sticky topic in this forum with a list of place to look for your village and city ordinances. If you can't find yours, feel free to call your town council and ask where to look.

Dear Mayor and Council members-

Can you please advise me on the rules regarding firearms at Garrette Park and other parks in West Jefferson?

I prefer to openly carry my handgun in a hip holster. I was advised by an acquaintance that firearms are not allowed at the park, whether openly carried or concealed.

Since this goes against state preemption (ORC 9.68), I was hoping you could confirm for me what the rules actually are.

Thanks!

-"MYSY"
February 1, 2014

[MyWifeSaidYes]

So, now we have a reply from the Mayor of a municipal corporation in the state of Ohio that freely admits they are violating Ohio Revised Code 9.68 by restricting firearm possession in a park. They probably are not aware of THIS Ohio Supreme Court decision.

Dear "MWSY"

Your acquaintance is correct, firearms are not allowed in any of the parks in West Jefferson.
I am forwarding your email on to our police chief Terry Ward, perhaps he will have something To add to this.

Thanks for your email,

Darlene Steele, Mayor
Village of West Jefferson

Tomorrow, I will send them a nice email suggesting they and their law director review "Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde" and send them a link to that decision. I'll post that when I send it.

I'm not sending that reply tonight because I want to first make a public records request for a copy of the Mayor's email to me.

Wouldn't want her to accidentally delete possible evidence, would we?

[pirateguy191]

Wow, people really are that dumb.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Wow, people really are that dumb.

As much as I would like to associate DUMB with ELECTED, I won't.

The West Jeff ordinance was probably already on the books when she became Mayor, and nobody has ever brought it up before.

That is the whole reason I approach them passively.

There is no reason to yell at someone for doing something they HONESTLY did not know was wrong.

And, since the state has no active mechanism for updating municipalities of changes in the law that may affect them, it falls upon the citizens of the state to let them know and to ask them to correct the issue.

She COULD have told me it IS okay to carry. In that case, they know the law, but simply forgot to update the published ordinance.

In this case, she doesn't know the law, and I don't expect to get a different answer from the LEO, so we move on to the law director.

[Stryker74]

...and, not giving them an 'excuse' - but West Jefferson is a pretty small village. Nice little community - the New - New Rome in some sense.

However, we cannot ascertain if they elected one or more of their idiots.


So MWSY is gentle in the beginning.....

[BriKuz]

Oh, so its THAT time of year again? Anyone looked up Oberlin?

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Oh, so its THAT time of year again? Anyone looked up Oberlin?

We're gonna leave that one all to you, BriKuz!

I want to focus on communities in Franklin and the surrounding counties.

There were quite a few folks here that made some dents all around the state last year.

Hopefully, they'll take the reins once again and we can make the state just that much safer for gun owners.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

My reply:

Mayor Steele-

Thanks for your quick response!

The first paragraph of the Ohio Supreme Court decision in " Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 120 Ohio St.3d 96, 2008-Ohio-4605", states:

" The issue presented in this case concerns whether Clyde Ordinance
2004-41, which prohibits licensed handgun owners from carrying concealed
handguns in Clyde city parks, is a valid exercise of the municipality’s home-rule
power according to Section 3, Article XVIII, of the Ohio Constitution. Because
the ordinance is an exercise of the municipality’s police power that conflicts with
a general law, the ordinance is unconstitutional. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the court of appeals."

I am not a lawyer, but this makes me believe that your city ordinance is in violation of R.C. 9.68.

Could you please ask the village council to modify or repeal the ordinance restricting possession of firearms in village parks?

You may also want to ask your law director to review village ordinances for any other firearm restrictions that violate state law, so that they may also be modified or repealed.

Bringing village ordinances into compliance with state law will avoid any possible lawsuits filed under R.C. 9.68, which allows for costs and attorney fees to be awarded, in addition to any other relief awarded to the entity that files such a suit.

Could you please let me know how the village will be proceeding?

Thanks!

-"MWSY"
February 4, 2014

[Werz]

In this case, she doesn't know the law, and I don't expect to get a different answer from the LEO, so we move on to the law director.

I think you're beginning to see the reality of the situation. Folks in these forums - compared to the general population - are obsessed with gun rights. The vast majority of Ohioans (including many, many licensed attorneys) would tell you there is nothing wrong with having ordinances prohibiting guns in the parks. For most officials in small municipalities, the issue is not even on the radar. That doesn't mean they will like their ordinances being displaced by state law once they learn about it, but until someone tells them, they really have no idea.

In fact, some city councils have members who are rather pro-2A, and they don't know about it, either. Their reaction is usually something to the effect of "Really?! Cool!"

[MyWifeSaidYes]

...In fact, some city councils have members who are rather pro-2A, and they don't know about it, either. Their reaction is usually something to the effect of "Really?! Cool!"

And I have run into more of those than I've expected. It's always nice to find one.

It's better to inform and ask nicely at first. It seems to keep them from becoming defensive right away.

There is a time for torches and pitchforks open carry walks, but that's after they are aware that they are wrong and insist on staying wrong.

[BriKuz]

...In fact, some city councils have members who are rather pro-2A, and they don't know about it, either. Their reaction is usually something to the effect of "Really?! Cool!"

And I have run into more of those than I've expected. It's always nice to find one.

It's better to inform and ask nicely at first. It seems to keep them from becoming defensive right away.

There is a time for torches and pitchforks open carry walks, but that's after they are aware that they are wrong and insist on staying wrong.

what about open carry of a pitchfork? Art1 Sect4 protects the right to bear ARMS, not just firearms Anyone want to work out some martial arts techniques for the proper deployment of a pitchfork or a torch?

[MyWifeSaidYes]

I would LOVE to have a compelling reason to push for statewide preemption of knife laws.

We only got firearm preemption because cities were screwing around with what the state wrought.

At some point in the future, we will show the Ohio General Assembly that we use knives to prevent theft of carried firearms and that concealed knives should be covered by our CHL.

That will require knives to be added to R.C. 9.68, or the enactment of a similar statute just for knives.

Pitchforks may take a little longer.

[BriKuz]

hey, some of my cousins dies in WWII trying to fight off tanks with pitchforks and shovels...

[Brian D.]

Folks in these forums - compared to the general population - are obsessed with gun rights.

I prefer the descriptor "enthusiastic" or even "enthralled" over "obsessed" but your point is well taken.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

I'm actually "obsessed" with retaining and restoring ALL of our rights.

Firearms rights just seem to need the most help.

Thanks, ACLU!