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!

In recent days, there have been more and more reports of Ohio sheriffs who claim to be having problems meeting the April 8 start-date for Ohio's new concealed handgun licensure law.

Across Ohio, thousands of men and women are eager to be armed

Youngstown Vindicator

March 28, 2004
by Patricia Meade

BOARDMAN — "Hold up your trigger finger, look at it and tell yourself: This is my gun's safety."

Firearms instructor Bob Magnuson's words echoed in my head as I stood in front of the bedroom mirror and practiced drawing my .357-caliber Magnum Ruger from its brand-new holster. The natural inclination was to put my right index finger on the trigger (instead of alongside it) as I pulled out the gun.

Practice included keeping my finger away from the trigger as I slid the gun back into the holster on my hip without looking at it. Visions of Billy the Kid popped into my head, though he was wearing leather chaps, not Tweety pajamas like me.

"Concealed carry means you have to draw from a holster, kind of like the Old West gunfights," I could hear Magnuson saying inside my head. "You can't ask the bad guy to wait."

My six-shot revolver wasn't loaded that night, but it would be the next day when I, along with 24 others, had to demonstrate for Magnuson that we could safely handle and shoot our firearms.

If I didn't keep my finger off the trigger until ready to fire at a target and ended up shooting my right foot or Magnuson ("No. 1 rule on the firing range: Don't shoot Bob"), I'd flunk the 12-hour concealed-carry training course.

Across Ohio, thousands of men and women are training with a firearms instructor certified by either the National Rifle Association or Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission. Magnuson, a sergeant with the Canfield Police Department and commander of the Mahoning Valley Law Enforcement Task Force, is OPOTC certified.

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

For 150 years, Ohio law has disarmed defenseless citizens and protected criminals from the possibility of encountering an armed victim. During that time, pro-gun groups never advocated breaking the law. Rather, Ohioans For Concealed Carry, the Second Amendment Foundation, The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the National Rifle Association fought for reform - in the Ohio legislature and in the courts.

Now that the tables have turned, however, Ohio's main gun ban lobbyist has twice advocated law-breaking, in a matter of weeks.

In a March 22 email alert, Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence founder Toby Hoover encouraged city councils to pass laws enforcing bans on city-owned property, and even in private businesses:

"Kansas City passed a resolution encouraging businesses to prohibit concealed carry license holders from carrying in their places and posting signs to do so.

Ohio law does not have the size and wording restrictions but we encourage cities to do a similar action. (emphasis added)

ASK YOUR CITY COUNCIL TO PASS A RESOLUTION..."

Of course, having fought over every letter of every page of House Bill 12 during the lobbying phase, Hoover surely must know that any such action by city councils would be an illegal action - a violation of Section 9 of HB12, which states, in part, "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."

This is not the first time Hoover has resorted to an advocation of law-breaking as an expression of her post-HB12-passage desperation.

In February, Toby Hoover's Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence issued a press release in which she advocates a course of action that will waste our law enforcement officers' precious time, and perhaps endanger CHL-holders:

"If you see someone with a gun, continue to assume their activity is suspicious. There is no way for you to determine the 'law abiding' from those with criminal intent. Call law enforcement to investigate and leave the area."

As if Ohio law enforcement doesn't have enough to do. Not only is Hoover guilty of openly encouraging the act of burdening Ohio law enforcement community with frivolous prank calls, she is shamelessly telling supporters to run away before the officers they called arrive on the scene. Could this be because she knows prank callers might wind up being the ones charged with inciting a riot or disturbing the peace?

We've said it before, and we'll say it again - those who seek concealed handgun licenses (CHL) are some of the most law-abiding citizens in our society - certainly more-so than Ms. Hoover, of late.

Related Story:
Proof positive: Anti-gun extremists are the true sufferers of paranoia

The following was submitted to www.ohioccw.org by an Ohio law enforcement officer and OFCC supporter.

Super America gas station 5984 Sawmill Rd in Columbus has posted a sign prohibiting firearms. Below is my letter to the store manager....

Store Manager
Super America
5984 Sawmill Rd.
Columbus, OH 43017

I am a regular patron of your store, buying gasoline there at least once a week. When I entered your store today I was disturbed to notice a sign near your front door stating that firearms and other weapons were prohibited on your premises. This disturbs me because I carry a firearm on a daily basis. I am a police officer with more than 2000 hours of advanced tactical training and I am sworn to protect you and your patrons 24 hours a day. I cannot perform that function without my weapon.

I fail to see how posting a sign prohibiting firearms in your store will keep you or your employees any safer. The criminals will not obey the instructions. By definition, criminals do not obey laws. You will only keep law abiding police officers and concealed carry permit holders from entering your store. These law-abiding citizens present no danger to you or your customers and may actually be in a position to save the lives of your employees and patrons in a dangerous situation. Barring legally carried firearms in your store merely creates an area where criminals can commit violent felonies knowing that they will not encounter resistance from any of the victims they encounter. It is a misguided policy that is likely to get someone killed.

If you care so little about my safety and the safety of your staff, I cannot in good conscience continue to do business in your store. I will be shopping at another store that welcomes my business and my legally carried firearm.

Sincerely,

Greg Ellifritz
Columbus, OH

From the headline to the last line, there is no doubt that the Akron Beacon-Journal has used more "news" space to foster their anti-gun editorial opinion. Surely journalists at this newspaper were taught to get quotes from BOTH sides in preparing a story, or to make sure the "expert" doesn't have a strong bias. This writer did neither.

Please note that this news writer was unable to find a single businesses (aside from an exempt day-care) willing to have their name put in this story, and that even the paper admits many are reluctant to put up discriminatory signs.

Stop guns with signs

Businesses wrestle with concealed weapon law

by Erika D. Smith
March 29, 2004
Akron Beacon Journal

APRIL 8 is a high noon of sorts for Akron-area businesses.

That's the first day Ohioans can apply to carry a concealed weapon, although it will take another 45 days for anyone to get a license to pack heat legally.

In the meantime, business owners who want to keep guns out of their offices and shops should start thinking about posting signs. Under the state's new concealed carry law, that's the only way employers can prohibit them.

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