March 29, 2004
Crain's Cleveland Business

If you plan to get a license to carry a concealed weapon, don't go to
Cuyahoga County Sheriff Gerald McFaul's office. At least not right away.
Although the new Ohio law goes into effect April 8, Pat Kresty, chief of
staff for Sheriff McFaul, said the office won't be ready to process licenses
until sometime in May.

"We're going to be giving out licenses to carry out deadly weapons," Ms.
Kresty said. "We want to make sure we do it right."

Ms. Kresty said the office is remodeling a room on the first floor of the
Justice Center in downtown Cleveland, where the applications will be
processed. She said the county is spending $150,000 to modify space and
$30,000 for new equipment to handle concealed weapon license applications.

The licenses cost $45 for people who have lived in Ohio for more than five
years and $69 for people who have lived in the state less than five years.
The fees, which will be used to cover criminal background checks, are in
addition to the cost of a required certification course, which runs about
$150 to $200.

----------------------------
Ohioans For Concealed Carry and the Buckeye State Sheriff's Association wish to remind Ohioans that the law gives sheriffs NO discretion in terms of when they may begin accepting applications, nor for adding additional requirements, nor for delaying the acceptance of license applications via mandatory appointments.

Buckeye State Sheriff's Association Executive Director Bob Cornwell stresses that sheriffs have a "duty under the law" to accept applications on April 8 to "everyone who shows up and files one", and to issue licenses to qualified applicants, within 45 days. Sheriffs must also be prepared to issue temporary emergency licenses to those meeting the requirements, on April 8.

OFCC will take any failures to comply with this shall-issue law with the utmost seriousness.

Related Story:
BSSA Exec. Dir.: Sheriffs have ''duty under law'' to accept apps April 8

UPDATE: Frisch's Inc. signs coming down!

Ohioans For Concealed Carry first brought word of a new interstate policy discriminating against CHL-holders at Frisch's Inc. on March 1.

This particular ban is one of the most baffling we've seen, since Frisch's Inc. has allowed patrons of Golden Corral, Frisch's and Big Boy in states such as Kentucky, Indiana and Tennessee to bear arms for self-protection in their restaurants for years.

On March 4th, Frisch's began distributing a letter to concerned patrons from President & CEO Craig F. Maier. This letter moved the story from baffling to insulting.

In it, Maier states Frisch's Inc. is now taking the official position that "your personal safety is not being compromised by our prohibition of concealed weapons in our restaurants." Maier goes on to state that Frisch's management "prefer that the only people in our restaurants with weapons are police officers."

Does Mr. Maier honestly think that criminals who come to rob Frisch's stores or to harm it's patrons will care about his "preference"?

Publication of Maier's letter spawned another round of calls and letters from customers, but apparently Frisch's still intends to post their discriminatory signs beginning April 8, 2004. The following letter is the latest communication from Frisch's on the subject:

Dear [Customer]:

Mike Cigolotti
Marketing Department
2800 Gilbert Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45206

----------------

If you want to make
your voice heard, visit http://www.frischs.com/contact2.asp.

And of course, when the signs go up, you can always express yourself with your ''No Guns-No Money'' Cards, and with your dollars. There will always be restaurants nearby which respect the rights (and responsibility) of their customers.

There are no credible studies that show increased dangers to businesses because of concealed carry, yet many prove the benefits.

Ohio's media outlets are ramping up on coverage of the impending implementation of Ohio's new concealed carry reform law.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for a long list of links to Ohio media coverage.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry is happy to report that the Henry Bierce Company has removed their "no guns" signs, just two days after we first reported on the signs' existence.

According to a store representative, the whole thing was based on a big misunderstanding.

Representatives from the Henry Bierce Co. recently attended an informational meeting held by the Tallmadge Chamber of Commerce. At that meeting, information was handed out by the Tallmadge Police Department, advising businesses on the laws regarding businesses.

After their customer told them he was unhappy with the sign (and emailed OFCC), the store reviewed the information they received at the meeting. Turns out the store had misinterpreted the police department's literature.

Henry Bierce Co. now realizes it doesn't say businesses MUST ban - just informs them on how they could ban, if they wanted to. The Tallmadge Chamber of Commerce concurs, telling OFCC today that stores in Tallmadge should know that signs are NOT a requirement.

align="right">
The signs have come down at the Henry Bierce Co., and citizens can again peacefully shop their favorite hardware store, as they have for nearly a century.

Related Stories:
SIGNS COME DOWN: Marc's discount stores pull discriminatory signs

Discount Drug Mart: There will be no corporate policy on signs

More to call: Do Not Patronize While Armed

On March 24, 2003 Crain's Cleveland Business published an editorial opposing the reformation of concealed carry laws in Ohio. This editorial bore striking similarity to a letter printed in multiple Ohio papers, written by Lori O'Neill, president of the "Million" Mom March chapter of greater Cleveland. In that 2003 editorial, Crain's editors admitted that they were "a bit far afield" when they decided to take a position on HB12.

One year later, they've gone over the edge - bringing an extremely one-sided, anti-concealed-carry editorial into the news section of both their Cleveand and Detroit publications.

Get out your Rolaids, then click on the "Read More..." link below to read the story.

March 28, 2004
Youngstown Vindicator
by Patricia Meade

YOUNGSTOWN — Let's say you're in your 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, whatever, and moved a lot over the years — can you list each and every address going back to age 18?

Well, Ohio's application for a license to carry a concealed handgun requires such a list. The three-page application is now available online at the Ohio attorney general's Web site, www.ag.state.oh.us. Click on Citizen Services, then click on Ohio's Concealed Carry Law.

I've already completed the 12-hour firearms training course, so my next step is the application process at the Mahoning County Sheriff's Department. The law takes effect April 8.

I understand that applicants must say where they've lived in order for the sheriff's department and Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation to do a thorough background check.

Understanding is one thing, answering accurately is another. The instructions say to complete the address section "to the best of your knowledge."

The application has space for three prior residences — street address, city, state, ZIP code and county — which must be shown in chronological order, beginning with the most recent. The instructions say to attach another sheet if you need more space.

I definitely need to attach a sheet — or two.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

From the moment the first reports of counties or municipalities passing concealed carry bans on public property broke, Ohioans For Concealed Carry has been informing our website readers that these laws were a violation of Section 9 of House Bill 12. As of this week, the violators are also being put on notice.

Below is a copy of a letter served to the City of Chardon, Ohio. Similar letters are being served to cities, counties and townships across the state, when applicable. For a complete list of recipients, click here and consult the list of taxpayer-funded entities.

March 26, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR US MAIL

James Gillette
Law Director
City of Chardon
111 Water Street
Chardon, OH 44024
Facsimile: (440) 286-2658

Subject: Chardon Ordinance No. 2200 and
Am. Sub. H.B. 12, Section 9

Dear Mr. Gillette:

I am writing to you on behalf of Ohioans for Concealed Carry to advise you that Ordinance No. 2200 adopted by the City Council of Chardon on March 11, 2004 is in conflict with Am. Sub. H.B. 12, passed earlier this year by the Ohio General Assembly, and to ask that you recommend the immediate repeal of Ordinance No. 2200 to the Council of the City of Chardon at its regular meeting on April 8, 2004.

Section 9 of Am. Sub. H.B. 12 provides, in its entirety, as follows:

SECTION 9. The General Assembly finds that licenses to carry concealed handguns are a matter of statewide concern and wishes to ensure uniformity throughout the state regarding the qualifications for a person to hold a license to carry a concealed handgun and the authority granted to a person holding a license of that nature. It is the intent of the General Assembly in amending sections 1547.69, 2911.21, 2921.13, 2923.12, 2923.121, 2923.123, 2923.16, 2953.32, and 4749.10 and enacting sections 109.69, 109.731, 311.41, 311.42, and 2923.124 to 2923.1213 of the Revised Code to enact laws of a general nature, and, by enacting those laws of a general nature, the state occupies and preempts the field of issuing licenses to carry a concealed handgun and the validity of licenses of that nature. No municipal corporation may adopt or continue in existence any ordinance, and no township may adopt or continue in existence any resolution, that is in conflict with those sections, including, but not limited to, any ordinance or resolution that attempts to restrict the places where a person possessing a valid license to carry a concealed handgun may carry a handgun concealed (emphasis added).

Am. Sub. H.B. 12 is effective on April 8, 2004.

Ordinance No. 2200 purports to prohibit persons from “carrying a firearm or concealed handgun” onto “all buildings, lands and premises owned by the City of Chardon.” This would include city parks, the municipal cemetery, and city-owned parking lots.

The prohibition in Ordinance No. 2200 against carrying concealed weapons onto city property is clearly preempted by Section 9 of Am. Sub. H.B. 12. In addition, any attempt to prohibit open carry on city property or within the City of Chardon would be unconstitutional under the holding of Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537 (2003), that carrying a firearm is a fundamental right protected by Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution.

I want to thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. I am sure that there was no intent on the part of the council members to violate Ohio law. I have served on our city council myself, and I understand these issues are new to everyone involved. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call.

Best Regards,

John Fenton
Attorney at Law
Norwood, Ohio

---------------------
Ohioans For Concealed Carry was a funding co-plaintiff in the recent challenge to Ohio's concealed-carry ban, "Klein et. al vs Leis et. al", in which two Ohio courts unanimously ruled Ohio's laws prohibiting possession of a firearm by a law-abiding citizen violated numerous Constitutional and civil rights, including equal protection, due process and the right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

The Ohio Supreme Court, which ultimately decided the case, ruled that bearing arms for self-defense is a "fundamental individual right" under our Constitution.

We are prepared to vigorously defend attempts by these public entities to place restrictions on Ohio's new concealed carry law.

Please forward reports of any potential violations to info@buckeyefirearms.org.

Join the fight to protect your right by joining Ohioans For Concealed Carry!