Page 2 of 3

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

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:06 pm
by jgarvas
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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 :)

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

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:43 am
by researcher87
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.

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

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:09 am
by Morne
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.

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

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:32 am
by McM
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.

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

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:55 am
by rickt
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.

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

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:01 pm
by JSLACK7851
rickt wrote: If we get a good ruling from the OSC this autumn, these municipalities will have zero wiggle room after that.
Aggreed. +1

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

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:12 pm
by pleasantguywhopacks
So did Campbell repeal the ordinance tonight?

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

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:31 pm
by sodbuster95
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:

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

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:45 am
by Jim-in-Toledo
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:25 am
by jgarvas

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

Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:00 am
by SMMAssociates
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,

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

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:27 pm
by ohioborntexan
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.

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

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:55 pm
by TJW815
Wow, necro-thread!

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

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:24 pm
by Javelin Man
TJW815 wrote:Wow, necro-thread!
Nah, just brought it back from the dead...

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

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:23 pm
by ohioborntexan
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.