city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

srtalkalot · Post by **srtalkalot** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:20 am

I just talk to a lawyer and got a meeting April 9. He said I won't cost me any thing to take the city of Trotwood to court to force them to change the firearm ordnance and to get them to remove there sign from the park that was posted at the end of 2012. I contacted the mayor and police chief and all I got back was we'll look in to it. Well you know how far that went. I guess im now its up to my lawyer.

BriKuz · Post by **BriKuz** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:29 pm

Welcome to the forum...

951.02 (e) Possession of Firearms Prohibited. No person shall possess, carry or use any firearms, air guns or missiles within the municipal park lands or facilities.

Guess their law is wrong... good luck getting it solved...

Werz · Post by **Werz** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:10 pm

srtalkalot wrote:... won't cost me any thing to take the city of Trotwood to court to force them to change the firearm ordnance ...

Curious thing for a lawyer to say. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

BobK · Post by **BobK** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:29 pm

Werz wrote:
srtalkalot wrote:... won't cost me any thing to take the city of Trotwood to court to force them to change the firearm ordnance ...
Curious thing for a lawyer to say. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

If he only has 30 billable hours a month because he has no practice, maybe he figures the statutory justification for legal fees is worth his risk. Because any other scenario doesn't hold up.

MyWifeSaidYes · Post by **MyWifeSaidYes** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:48 am

srtalkalot wrote:I just talk to a lawyer and got a meeting April 9. He said I won't cost me any thing to take the city of Trotwood to court to force them to change the firearm ordnance and to get them to remove there sign from the park that was posted at the end of 2012. I contacted the mayor and police chief and all I got back was we'll look in to it. Well you know how far that went. I guess im now its up to my lawyer.

srtalkalot-

1) Welcome to the forum!

2) Thank you for taking on a 9.68 violation on your own. Please know that we will be happy to help however we can.

3) Can you post which city ordinances are in violation, and where any invalid signs are posted? Pictures are best, with a short description of where they're posted, such as "at the west entrance gate".

4) For educational purposes, could you please post the email or letter that you sent to, or what you said if you called, the city? Also post any responses that you received. Since all that info is a matter public record, there is no problem with posting it here. It's also a good backup in case anything happens to your original records. I had an email provider once delete my account accidentally, and all my email history with it.

5) Did you contact the city law director? When I have contacted cities with "Directors of Law" established in their City Charter, such as Trotwood has, I have had more luck in getting responses from them than others, such as mayors, council members or police chiefs. The Law Directors actually have to know the law. Not so with those other positions.

6) Thanks, again!

Brian D. · Post by **Brian D.** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 1:54 pm

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:Did you contact the city law director? When I have contacted cities with "Directors of Law" established in their City Charter, such as Trotwood has, I have had more luck in getting responses from them than others, such as mayors, council members or police chiefs. The Law Directors actually have to know the law. Not so with those other positions.

MWSY, I can say with some certainty that it's more like law directors are supposed to know the law. Many do, within reasonable limits, but others are woefully lacking. To give an example, in the municipality I work for, we had a sort of running (but on-point) gag about a previous law director. It was alleged that there were only two items on the desk in his office:

1) A telephone
2) A Yellow Pages phone book opened to the first page of the 'Attorneys' listings.

This was not literally the case of course but not as far from it as some might believe. Never once in his two or three terms would he answer a legal question directed to him during a council meeting by either the council or mayor. Often it was because he had no dang idea off the top of his head, regardless of the area of law being discussed. He had a law degree but more than that I really wouldn't vouch for. In those days the town's council minutes were published and mailed out to anybody who wanted a copy, every time. It didn't take forever for voters to notice the perennial 'I'll have to research that and get back to you' responses from the guy.

From what I've observed since, this phenomena was/is not unique to my town.

BriKuz · Post by **BriKuz** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:03 pm

mwsy:

BriKuz wrote:Welcome to the forum...

951.02 (e) Possession of Firearms Prohibited. No person shall possess, carry or use any firearms, air guns or missiles within the municipal park lands or facilities.

Guess their law is wrong... good luck getting it solved...

lol

MyWifeSaidYes · Post by **MyWifeSaidYes** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:24 pm

I made a records request for srtalkalot's letter so we could post it here.

Here's what I got:

Sent: 3/24/14
To: Quincy Pope
Subject: To who it may concern.

Hi my name is "srtalkalot" I want to inform you that the city ordinance for guns in parks is in violation of state law not including the posting of the signs . City of Trotwood firearm ordinances is in violation of 9.68. Also as a conceal carry permit holder I am entitled to to be in the city parks with my firearm wich is conformed by OFCC v city of Clyde .If I am stopped,it will result in a lawsuit for violation my constitutional rights. Also under federal law any officer cannot claim immunity from lawsuits. I will wait for a response. Any response to this email will be forwarded to my lawyer. Failure to respond will result in civil litigation against the city of Trotwood to force the removal of the ornaments and signs also under 9.68 orc the city will be possible for my legal fees.

Sent: 3/25/14
To: "srtalkalot"
Subject: RE: To who it may concern.

"srtalkalot",

I have received your email and reviewing the matter.

Best Regards,

Chief Pope

Sent: 3/25/14
To: Quincy Pope
Subject: Re: RE: To who it may concern.

Thanks for getting a hold of me in a timely manner. I hope we can resolve the issue a professional manner thank you.

BriKuz · Post by **BriKuz** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:59 pm

srtalkalot ,

You may want to point out that NO CHL is required to OPEN carry in their park, as well...

tbrew85 · Post by **tbrew85** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:07 am

He may also want to use a spell checker or have someone review for proper grammar/word use in the future. You know, to keep it professional and all…

pirateguy191 · Post by **pirateguy191** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:06 pm

Any follow up on this one?

MyWifeSaidYes · Post by **MyWifeSaidYes** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:35 pm

I don't know.

srtalkalot is not very talkative.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

Re: city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

Re: city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

Re: city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

Re: city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

Re: city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

Re: city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

Re: city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

Re: city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

Re: city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

Re: city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks

Re: city of Trotwood no gun signs in city parks