July 14, 2004
Sidney Daily News

To the editor:

I read Toby Hoover's letter congratulating your newspaper for illegally publishing the names and addresses of the CCW holders in Shelby County. Why would someone give congratulations on a criminal act? Her letter is typical of the anti-gun movement.

They rely on fear mongering to scare people. Ms. Hoover stated that the new law increased the safety risk to the public. That is not true. Every state that has passed CCW has shown a decrease in violent crime.

Ms. Hoover also says that there is a "boycott" of places posted with no gun signs, and that is also not true. I personally will not do business with an establishment that is posted, and have told them that. The results are that the more truth these establishments receive the more the signs come down. In a two-week period here in Ohio, five different violent crimes occurred on properties marked "no guns."

It seems that the criminal element tends to ignore the law, so the only thing that these signs accomplish is disarming the honest citizen. And based on these FACTS you will continue to see more and more signs removed.

As far as her contention that open carry would be a better alternative, that is ridiculous. Then the criminal element would again have the upper hand, being able to pick and choose based on who is or isn't carrying. Now they have no idea, and that uncertainty may just provide enough second thoughts to dissuade an attack.

Ms. Hoover speaks of mass violence and shootings. Well, that is occurring as we speak...in places where guns carried by law abiding citizens are banned. The Kansas City shootings ... 9-11 ... Columbine, all preventable by one armed citizen. Yet Ms. Hoover wants stricter gun laws, ignoring the fact that the highest crime rates in the United States are in the exact places with the strictest anti-gun laws.

One more thing, she gives statistics on the number of people who do and do not have concealed carry licenses, those numbers are misleading. Americans support concealed carry laws, and even if they didn't, the wants of the many should never ever circumvent the rights of the few or even the one.

Steve Lewis

Related Story:
Toby Hoover congratulates newspaper under investigation for law-breaking

Special Prosecutor Appointed to Investigate Release of Protected Records

July 14, 2004
Fremont News Messenger

Clyde faces gun fight
Group threatens suit if city doesn't rescind weapons ban in parks

CLYDE -- City officials continue to receive outside pressure to rescind an ordinance enacted by city council last month banning weapons from city parks.

The most recent threat has come from Ohioans for Concealed Carry, a Second Amendment advocacy group, which, in a letter received by the city last Friday, advised administrators to repeal the ordinance or be prepared to go to court.

align="right">
"We will be suing Clyde if you do not immediately rescind this ordinance," the letter said. "The mere presence of your ordinance is actionable ... Clyde should consider this opportunity the last clear chance to avoid litigation."

Clyde is one of several communities statewide that has passed such an ordinance on the heels of the Ohio's concealed-carry law going into effect April 8. All of those communities have received letters similar to the one sent to Clyde and, thus far, have taken heed to the group's threats.

"The majority of the cities that have received the letter have either not passed the ordinance or have rescinded the ordinance," said Ken Hanson, legal council for OFCC. "We want a response from Clyde within the next couple weeks with the idea we'll be filing (lawsuits) the first week of August."

So far, Clyde has been silent.

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

UPDATE! July 14, 2004, 5:25 p.m. ET
Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The state's three-month-old concealed weapons law passed its first test on Wednesday when a unanimous Ohio Supreme Court threw out a lawsuit that claimed county sheriffs do not have the resources to conduct thorough background checks of permit applicants.

The court, without comment, dismissed the lawsuit filed by the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, which promised to keep fighting the law.

The Legislature passed the law after nine years of debate, and Gov. Bob Taft signed it on Jan. 7. It went into effect April 8, and the coalition sued the sheriffs the next day.

The law, which bars people who have been institutionalized against their will from obtaining permits, does not provide adequate resources for checking the records of applicants who have a history of mental illness, the coalition said.

The law also does not provide enough money for sheriffs to process the applications, the group said. The $45 fee applicants pay for the permits is split among law enforcement groups that conduct the checks and process the permits.

Under the law, most Ohioans can carry hidden guns but not in government buildings, day-care centers, bars or on property where the owner prohibits them. Gun owners also must pass a background check and complete 12 hours of safety training.

The lawsuit also contended the court already had ruled that the ban on concealed weapons was constitutional and that the new law interferes with Ohioans' right to safety.

Toby Hoover, the coalition's executive director, said she had hoped the Supreme Court would consider the lawsuit, but the coalition would likely refile it in a common pleas court.

"Eventually, it would end back up with the Supreme Court anyway, which is why we wanted to take the fastest vehicle," Hoover said.

Later Wednesday, the coalition released a statement saying it would "continue to pursue remedies to this danger to our families through other avenues."

Rep. Bill Seitz, a Cincinnati Republican and a member of the House Criminal Justice Committee, said he was pleased with the court's dismissal.

"I am satisfied that Ohio took the constitutional and lawful first steps toward joining 44 other states" that have some type of concealed weapons law.

He said he is more interested, though, in a Cuyahoga County lawsuit that questions a provision of the law that requires weapons in cars to be locked up or in holsters. He said the requirement goes against the rest of the law and the Legislature should try to change it in its next session, which begins in January.

The provision was put in by the Senate to persuade the State Highway Patrol to drop its opposition to the bill. Taft had insisted that the patrol not oppose the bill before he would sign it.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for the text of the unanimous Supreme Court ruling, and for commentary.