Of all the choices the Associated Press has for a story on today (Sheriffs refusing to follow the law, getting sued, etc.), they have elected to (finally) cover the issue that cities are illegally banning firearms, in violation of Section 9. And of course, their coverage is sympathetic only to the gun-grabbers.

The Associated Press
4/8/2004, 2:16 p.m. ET

Cities worry that new gun law could eliminate weapons bans in parks

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Mayors are worried that the state's concealed weapons law, which took effect Thursday, will override local bans on guns in parks and other outdoor public places.

The law prohibits people from bringing concealed weapons into public buildings but doesn't restrict them from carrying them into public areas such as parks, pools and bike paths, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman said Thursday.

Until Thursday, Columbus and other cities across Ohio could ban weapons from parks, Coleman said.

The new law is "a travesty for our city and for our state," he said.

Directors of city, county and state parks across Ohio are concerned about the change, said Michelle Parks, executive director of the Ohio Parks and Recreation Association. She said officials are particularly worried about having weapons around youth sports events where tempers often flare.

Parks lobbied unsuccessfully to include public areas such as pools and bike paths in the prohibited areas under the new state law. She and Coleman said they will try again to persuade legislators to change the law.

Commentary:
This biased story cloud has a silver-lining: The City of Columbus obviously recognizes that Section 9 preempts their ability to enforce concealed carry bans.

The Cities of Elyria and Dover recently passed bans directly in the face of this law, and it is believed they were aware of Section 9 when they did so.

To review the advisory OFCC's legal counsel is sending to violators, click here.

For a complete list of Section 9 violators, click here and look under "Taxpayer-funded entities".

Further coverage:
Columbus ThisWeek: City seeks limitations on concealed-carry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For further information, contact Attorney Ken Hanson

WRIT OF MANDAMUS SOUGHT
AGAINST CUYAHOGA COUNTY SHERIFF MCFAUL

Suit was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court today (Case No. 04-585) against Cuyahoga County Sheriff Gerald McFaul, seeking to have the Supreme Court order Sheriff McFaul to accept and process applications for concealed handgun licenses during normal business hours. The suit was filed within two hours of McFaul’s office refusing to accept a concealed carry application from Cuyahoga County resident James Irvine.

McFaul has been quoted as saying he will not accept or process concealed carry applications until new office space is ready in late May, 2004.

Mr. Irvine, a long-time member and spokesman for Ohioans for Concealed Carry, has filed for what is technically known as a peremptory writ of mandamus and an alternative writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court. Mandamus is the term used to describe a legal order coming from a Court to an elected official ordering that official to fulfill their duties. Ohio’s mandamus statute also provides for the County to pay for the complaining party’s attorney’s fees if they succeed.

“I think the people of Cuyahoga County have some very serious questions to ask Sheriff McFaul,” said attorney Ken Hanson of Firestone and Brehm, Ltd. the law firm representing Mr. Irvine. “The law could not be more clear – Sheriff McFaul must accept and process these applications. The only remaining question is whether he is going to process the applications in an orderly manner, as other Sheriffs in Ohio are doing, or whether he wants to do it one applicant, and one set of attorney fees, per lawsuit.”

Ohioans For Concealed Carry is making logistical support available to the Plaintiff in this suit, given its statewide import.

UPDATE: Jim Irvine's Writ Of Mandamus Court Documents

COVERAGE IN CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER: Cuyahoga turns away gun owners
Jim Irvine, of Strongsville, came to the Sheriff's Department in the Justice Center early Thursday morning and asked to apply for the license. When he was told by a member of the sheriff's staff that the applications could not be processed, Irvine responded, "That's unacceptable.

"For years, gun owners have complied with laws we didn't like, and today we expect the sheriff to comply with the law," he said.

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

Franklin County accepting license applications

OFCC Central Ohio Coordinator Gerard Valentino was on hand today to witness the Franklin County Sheriff's office accept the first applications in that county. The office had previously been publicizing a later start date, which would have represented an illegal delay.

The applicants did NOT have an appointment, but the office indicated they had an equipment problem that would require the applicants to return tomorrow to be fingerprinted.

If you are a resident of Franklin County, and were deterred by the earlier reports of delays, you have every legal right to the expect the same service that these early applicants received today in Franklin County.

Click here to hear an Ohio Public Radio interview on the subject with Day 1 applicants at Franklin County, via RealAudio streaming.

UPDATE: Franklin County has refused to issue a citizen a temporary emergency license, without basis. More to follow.

Other reports are coming in from applicants across the state, and they will be posted here throughout the day. Click on the "Read More..." link below to read the good news!