Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell filed

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby jgarvas » Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:06 pm

Kowboy wrote: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

Shouldn't your lawyer have known this?

Kowboy


Kowboy: Absolutely. With respect to the Ohio SAM event we researched this and found history of similar security requirements that made the rules "content neutral" -- but with respect to this event in Campbell is it NOT an OFCC event. This is a YAL event that they invited us to after they scheduled it and had a permit to use the facilities. They negotiated an hourly rate of the police officers time, and the money goes directly to the cops, not the City of Campbell. The City isn't getting any revenue from this unless the cops kick it back. If the cops made around $25/hr I'd expect this to cost $300 for six cops @ 2 hours... The Campbell issue isn't over. After the Rally, I have a feeling you're going to see this issue potentially go to court. Campbell keeps making stupid mistakes like admitting that they were OK with a "rally for the troops" but are opposed to the open carry rally. In my mind, charging "upwards of $2,000" and then backing down all the way down to more than 75% less shows them admitting it was intimidation. Their attorney should vet what they say in the news media :)
Jeff Garvas, President
Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Contrary to a popular belief when I brag about OFCC accomplishments I'm not looking for your thank you or personal recognition. I'd much prefer you send me an email telling me when you are going to get involved in doing what I've been doing since 1999. We are only as effective as we make ourselves. We need the next generation of OFCC to step to the plate.

Is that you?

To Contact Me: Use This Form and pick my name.
jgarvas
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 3131
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Northern Summit County

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby researcher87 » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:43 am

JSLACK7851 wrote:How do these people think they can get away with passing a law that violates 9.68?
Perhaps someone can answer this great question cause I don't get it ether. If I, an ordinary citizen, break a law, I get arrested, ticketed, or some other nasty consequence. But if politicians knowingly violate a law, in this case ORC 9.68, nothing of consequence happens to them. If the mayors of Campbell (and Cleveland) had immediate ramifications for violating the law, this kind of nonsense would stop. It should not take a lawsuit to stop something that is already against the law.

Those who are elected agree to uphold our laws. If they can't, they shouldn't be in office. It's really that simple.
Support your 2nd amendment rights.
researcher87
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:40 am

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby Morne » Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:09 am

researcher87 wrote:If they can't, they shouldn't be in office. It's really that simple.

"Shouldn't be" and "aren't" are two VERY different things.

Simple? Geez, we can't hardly get folks to agree on which way the sun rises. Ain't nothing here simple.
Thus spoke Zarathustra.

Footsoldier in the Conservative Insurrection of the GOP.

Remember, only you can prevent big government!
User avatar
Morne
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 10450
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: Wayne County

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby McM » Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:32 am

Morne wrote:Simple? Geez, we can't hardly get folks to agree on which way the sun rises. Ain't nothing here simple.


Tastes great.
Not one of the " 'more-equal animals' ".

Hippies make me laugh. Bleeding hippies make me laugh REALLY HARD! -Morne
User avatar
McM
 
Posts: 3705
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: Western Pennsylvania

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby rickt » Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:55 am

researcher87 wrote:
JSLACK7851 wrote:How do these people think they can get away with passing a law that violates 9.68?
Perhaps someone can answer this great question cause I don't get it ether. If I, an ordinary citizen, break a law, I get arrested, ticketed, or some other nasty consequence. But if politicians knowingly violate a law, in this case ORC 9.68, nothing of consequence happens to them. If the mayors of Campbell (and Cleveland) had immediate ramifications for violating the law, this kind of nonsense would stop. It should not take a lawsuit to stop something that is already against the law.

Those who are elected agree to uphold our laws. If they can't, they shouldn't be in office. It's really that simple.


Until the Ohio Supreme Court rules on 9.68 in the Cleveland case, there will continue to be an element of uncertainty about 9.68 that municipalities will take advantage of. If we get a good ruling from the OSC this autumn, these municipalities will have zero wiggle room after that.
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby JSLACK7851 » Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:01 pm

rickt wrote: If we get a good ruling from the OSC this autumn, these municipalities will have zero wiggle room after that.


Aggreed. +1
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
Citizen of Ohio, United States of America
JSLACK7851
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:29 am
Location: Vermilion, open carry town

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby pleasantguywhopacks » Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:12 pm

So did Campbell repeal the ordinance tonight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOxXpNBdrVE
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Life Member NRA
User avatar
pleasantguywhopacks
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 16746
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Whitehouse, OH

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby sodbuster95 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:31 pm

McM wrote:
Morne wrote:Simple? Geez, we can't hardly get folks to agree on which way the sun rises. Ain't nothing here simple.


Tastes great.


Less filling.

/Why? Because someone had to. :lol:
NRA Benefactor Life Member

Information posted in these forums is my personal opinion only. It is not intended, nor should it be construed, as legal advice.
User avatar
sodbuster95
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 6765
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:14 pm
Location: Maumee

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby Jim-in-Toledo » Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:45 am

pleasantguywhopacks wrote:So did Campbell repeal the ordinance tonight?

"..snip.. Wednesday night, city council unanimously repealed the law banning gun stores. ..snip.."

http://www.wkbn.com/content/news/local/ ... rp8zw.cspx
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Robert Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
I am the expert on my opinion.
And no one else's.
User avatar
Jim-in-Toledo
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:14 am
Location: If you can't figure it out, I'm not telling.

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby jgarvas » Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:25 am

Jeff Garvas, President
Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Contrary to a popular belief when I brag about OFCC accomplishments I'm not looking for your thank you or personal recognition. I'd much prefer you send me an email telling me when you are going to get involved in doing what I've been doing since 1999. We are only as effective as we make ourselves. We need the next generation of OFCC to step to the plate.

Is that you?

To Contact Me: Use This Form and pick my name.
jgarvas
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 3131
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Northern Summit County

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby SMMAssociates » Mon May 10, 2010 2:00 am

Dunno if this was posted elsewhere (I've been out of town), but the local rag (The Vindicator) indicates that the ACLU is acting in this case FOR the YSU Students group....

I wonder if the ACLU actually read the papework :mrgreen:....

Regards,
Stu.

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

(Why do those who claim to wish to protect me feel that the best way to do that is to disarm me?)

יזכר לא עד פעם
User avatar
SMMAssociates
 
Posts: 9496
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
Location: Youngstown OH

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby ohioborntexan » Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:27 pm

researcher87 wrote:
JSLACK7851 wrote:How do these people think they can get away with passing a law that violates 9.68?
Perhaps someone can answer this great question cause I don't get it ether. If I, an ordinary citizen, break a law, I get arrested, ticketed, or some other nasty consequence. But if politicians knowingly violate a law, in this case ORC 9.68, nothing of consequence happens to them. If the mayors of Campbell (and Cleveland) had immediate ramifications for violating the law, this kind of nonsense would stop. It should not take a lawsuit to stop something that is already against the law.

Those who are elected agree to uphold our laws. If they can't, they shouldn't be in office. It's really that simple.


Ohio should enact something along the lines of the Florida law that allows politicians to be fined personally in cases like this.
God bless America, and please hurry!

When I was young I knew all the answers. When I got older I started to realize I just hadn’t quite understood the questions.-Me
User avatar
ohioborntexan
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:39 pm

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby TJW815 » Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:55 pm

Wow, necro-thread!
User avatar
TJW815
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:13 pm
Location: Warren County

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby Javelin Man » Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:24 pm

TJW815 wrote:Wow, necro-thread!


Nah, just brought it back from the dead...
Famous last words: "I just drank What?!-Socrates

bruh bruh is slang for "complete and total moron" -sodbuster95

The following is a list of children's books that didn't quite make it to the printing press...
1. What Is That Dog Doing to That Other Dog?
2. Daddy Drinks Because You Cry
3. You Were An Accident
4. Bi-Curious George
Javelin Man
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 6918
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Sandusky County

Re: Municipal Re-education 101: OFCC v. City of Campbell fil

Postby ohioborntexan » Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:23 pm

ohioborntexan wrote:
researcher87 wrote:
JSLACK7851 wrote:How do these people think they can get away with passing a law that violates 9.68?
Perhaps someone can answer this great question cause I don't get it ether. If I, an ordinary citizen, break a law, I get arrested, ticketed, or some other nasty consequence. But if politicians knowingly violate a law, in this case ORC 9.68, nothing of consequence happens to them. If the mayors of Campbell (and Cleveland) had immediate ramifications for violating the law, this kind of nonsense would stop. It should not take a lawsuit to stop something that is already against the law.

Those who are elected agree to uphold our laws. If they can't, they shouldn't be in office. It's really that simple.


Ohio should enact something along the lines of the Florida law that allows politicians to be fined personally in cases like this.


The 2014 Florida Statutes 790.33 (3)PROHIBITIONS; PENALTIES.—
(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
(d) Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.
God bless America, and please hurry!

When I was young I knew all the answers. When I got older I started to realize I just hadn’t quite understood the questions.-Me
User avatar
ohioborntexan
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:39 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Tweed Ring's Ohio Politics and Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron