Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Today Ohioans For Concealed Carry filed a lawsuit against the City of Campbell, Ohio in response to their obstinate handling of an illegal gun ban they adopted as emergency legislation. Despite over two months of communications and demands from our legal representation to repeal their ordinance, and despite two occasions where the City of Campbell's law director has been printed in the Vindicator indicating that the law must be repealed and the city can not accomplish what it wants under Ohio law, the city tabled legislation to repeal the law and sent it back to committee.

As recently as yesterday, the city suggested that it had home rule authority. In yesterday's Vindicator coverage of this weekend's rally Juanita Rich indicated that the repeal legislation will meet opposition in council. Ohioans For Concealed Carry feels that we have no other option but to seek a legal remedy and have filed a lawsuit today.

Read all of the details here

Go here for Rally information: http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=41671" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And please consider a donation to Ohioans For Concealed Carry today.

You have been very patient...

With the letter you have sent to the Police Chief regarding lawful open carry, should someone get arrested for same it seems like a slam dunk for a payoff.

BobK wrote:With the letter you have sent to the Police Chief regarding lawful open carry, should someone get arrested for same it seems like a slam dunk for a payoff.

well.... Maybe. The City is on the verge of being taken over by the State of Ohio due to fiscal emergency. An officer would likely have qualified immunity (although there is another way to put him on the hook). Regardless, neither would have the funds for a "payoff". But in the words of Brian D. it can't be about lack of education anymore in Campbell.

jgarvas wrote:The City is on the verge of being taken over by the State of Ohio due to fiscal emergency.

When the state takes over, I "assume" that does not mean all debts get repudiated? Of course, Ohio itself isn't in much better shape . . .

To make sure I understand correctly, they recently (I'm guessing the last day or two) adopted a total gun ban city wide? Probably in response to our walk? Or is this "gun ban" still the original denial of the gun repair shop?

Should those attending anticipate "problems"?

I am not trying to discourage anyone, simply trying to understand fully, so I can prepare properly.

Thanks for everything you have done and continue to do.

daddy wrote:To make sure I understand correctly, they recently (I'm guessing the last day or two) adopted a total gun ban city wide? Probably in response to our walk? Or is this "gun ban" still the original denial of the gun repair shop?

Should those attending anticipate "problems"?

I am not trying to discourage anyone, simply trying to understand fully, so I can prepare properly.

Thanks for everything you have done and continue to do.

1. The lawsuit is in response to the ban on the sale of firearms that was adopted as emergency legislation months ago
2. They mentioned to the Young American Liberty group organizer some kind of fear of AK-47 rifles and suggested they could take some type of action if they saw someone carrying one around. In response to hearing that third party we sent them this letter today:

RE: Possession of Firearms - Young Americans for Liberty Rally

3. Should you anticipate problems? No, but be prepared with how you will react, speak, and/or who you'd call if arrested - because the Chief of Police apparently has a problem understanding the law. This city has shown no respect for gun owners or our attempt to have this legislation repealed. We're told the Chief of Police caused the repeal to be delayed and put into committee.

4. We have their attention now. Their law director, who has always publicly agreed with our position, has communicated with our attorney today. Unfortunately it took two months and a lawsuit to make that happen.

Thanks for the clarification. It sort of sounded like they adopted new emergency legislation to ban all firearms city wide. Glad that wasn't the case.

daddy wrote:Thanks for the clarification. It sort of sounded like they adopted new emergency legislation to ban all firearms city wide. Glad that wasn't the case.

we'd have sought an injunction

There was a good article in the campus paper, TheJambar today.....

http://media.www.thejambar.com/media/st ... 6524.shtml

How do these people think they can get away with passing a law that violates 9.68? Where do they think they are, Cleveland? I'm going 2 hours early, taking chairs and have fresh batteries in my Voice recorder. Plus I'm bringing a camera with my spouse who's not going to be armed JIC.

JSLACK7851 wrote:How do these people think they can get away with passing a law that violates 9.68? Where do they think they are, Cleveland? I'm going 2 hours early, taking chairs and have fresh batteries in my Voice recorder. Plus I'm bringing a camera with my spouse who's not going to be armed JIC.

I'm going to be there early, too...

See you guys there.

Jeff:

"When OFCC began to advertise the rally the city demanded the YAL group pay $2,000 in law enforcement wages for their peaceful protest. There was talk of the rally becoming a protest, which caught the attention of the Youngstown Vindicator newspaper yesterday.
The Young American Liberty organizers have negotiated that down to a much more reasonable rate, and donations raised in this discussion thread allowed Ohioans For Concealed Carry to contribute $400 to the cause since it was our presence that nearly cancelled the YAL rally they so graciously invited us to speak at."

These fees hardly seem to meet the Supreme Court’s requirements of "narrowly drawn, reasonable, and definite standards":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth_Co ... t_Movement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shouldn't your lawyer have known this?

Kowboy

Do the Tea Party Rally's have to go through the same thing that you are discussing here?