Ohioans For Concealed Carry is pleased to announce that Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro will serve as keynote speaker at OFCC Party in the Park II on July 30, 2005.
Mr. Petro has spent the past year administrating Ohio's concealed handgun license law, negotiating reciprocity agreements and, when necessary, issuing legal opinions and defending the law in court.
Please make plans to attend this second annual event at Liberty Park (corner of Liberty Rd. and Home Rd.) in Powell, Delaware Co., Ohio, on July 30th from 11am to 6pm – rain or shine.
The entire OFCC staff is looking forward to seeing familiar faces, and to meeting more of the people who have made us successful. It will be a fun day for the whole family.
Further details will be posted here.
Related Stories:
Petro running-mate to apply for CHL
OFCC's 1st Annual Party in the Park a great success

A full thirty minutes after park-ban protest leader Bruce Beatty and dozens of supporters arrived in Toledo's Ottawa Park yesterday, Toledo Police finally showed up and issued a citation to Mr. Beatty yesterday for carrying a concealed firearm in a city park.

Police cited Beatty for violating Toledo Municipal Code Section 131.02, Rule 18, which outlaws weapons in the city's parks. The citation, a minor misdemeanor carrying a fine of up to $150, is based an old section of law that had been in effect previous to the passage of Ohio's concealed carry law, and one that will no doubt be challenged as having been preempted by the state's new concealed carry law upon passage last year.

Several news outlets mentioned the fact that although several (13ABC put the number at five) other people were also carrying their firearms, police did not investigate beyond Beatty.

From NBC24.com (Toledo):

Beatty says the City of Toledo does not have the right to override the state's concealed carry law. Beatty tells NBC24, "The people spoke through the state legislature, who passed the law and sent it to the governor. And he signed it. That makes it the law of the land."

And the dozens of protesters who joined Beatty agree that they have the right to pack heat in public, especially in city parks.

Kim Sporer of Perrysburg states, "In the park, if I were alone, I would feel safer knowing that I was armed and could take care of myself, better than if I were unarmed."

But Mayor Ford feels a park, where kids and adults come to play and relax, is the wrong place for guns. Ford says the police, not the people, should be carrying guns. The mayor says, "We have a police department that is designated to protect folks. That's their job."

And from the Toledo Blade:

Sgt. Sandra Salinas cited Mr. Beatty for a minor misdemeanor, which carries a fine of up to $150. He is scheduled to appear in Toledo Municipal Court on April 19.

The officers did not check anyone else at the gathering, and they gave Mr. Beatty his gun back.

Mayor Jack Ford said yesterday that under home rule, Toledo has the right to prohibit guns in the parks and the responsibility to take care of its residents.

"We think we have the right, with home rule, to not have guns in certain places in the city," the mayor said.

Mr. Beatty said he has talked with several lawyers and may file a complaint against the mayor at the city prosecutor's office tomorrow, claiming the mayor is violating his rights.

He emphasized that the issue "isn't personal, it's business."

He asked his supporters to treat the police officers with respect after someone pretended to sneeze, saying an expletive, and told the officers that he sympathized with their having to enforce what he sees as an illegal law.

"I'm sorry the mayor has put you in this position," he said.

Beatty is scheduled to appear in Toledo Municipal Court on April 19.

The city of Clyde, Ohio, also tried to enforce a ban on guns in parks in spite of state law. Ohioans For Concealed Carry has taken that dispute to court, with final arguments in Sandusky County Common Pleas Court due June 17.

Click on the "Read More..." link below to review the park rules ordinance.

Given that Multiple Victim Public Shootings in places where guns are banned have been in the news frequently in the past few months, the conclusions in the following paper deserve even more attention that they have already received.

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement
JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

WILLIAM M. LANDES
University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
April 1999
University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 73

Abstract:
Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce "copycats." Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce "normal" murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.

TO DOWNLOAD, CLICK HERE (when the webpage window opens, scroll to bottom to find download links).

On the same day as headlines in Ohio report the latest example of Republican governor Bob Taft threatening to veto legislation that would protect the privacy of Ohio CHL-holders, the Cybercast News Service is reporting that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, signed a bill on Wednesday expanding his state's concealed carry law.
From the story:

House Bill 641, the Right-to-Carry Reform Bill, lowers the minimum age for permit applicants from 25 to 21; it makes concealed-carry licenses good for four years instead of two; and it allows police to enter into reciprocal agreements with other right-to-carry states.

"These changes will encourage more law abiding New Mexicans to apply for a license and protect themselves in a lawful, responsible manner," said Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) also applauded Gov. Richardson for signing a bill that it describes as a true reform measure.

"The law recognizes that young adults have just as much right to self-defense as older citizens, and that 21-year-olds in New Mexico are just as responsible as 21-year-olds in other states who are already legally-licensed to carry," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron.

"If they are old enough to carry a firearm to defend this nation, they're certainly old enough to carry a firearm to defend themselves," he added.

Gov. Richardson pushed for the original concealed carry law two years ago, Waldron noted. "Now he's signed common-sense reform legislation that expands this law, with the understanding that it will deter criminals and empower more New Mexico citizens to protect themselves."

House Bill 641, sponsored by State Rep. John Heaton (D), received strong bipartisan support.

Soon after her election in 2002, Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm (D) signed legislation loosening restrictions on the concealed carry law in that state as well, actually improving a law that was less than a year old at the time.
Ohio Republican Bob Taft, on the other hand, has been a thorn in the side of Ohio gun owners since day he took office. Many of the most restrictive and unnecessary provisions on Ohio's concealed handgun license law can be traced directly to his door, thanks to a veto-threat that deterred several term-limited Republican Senators from voting for the bill the claimed they wanted to vote for, in the name of "party solidarity" and because they were hoping for "life after the legislature" - job appointments from Taft.
At this time, Republican gubernatorial-hopefuls are jostling for position in preparation for what could be a bruising 2006 primary season. Pro-gun Ohioans have begun to take note of who among the candidates have a record of true support for self-defense rights, and which of them may be more likely only to pay lip-service to support for the Second Amendment, as a means of getting votes.
Will the OhioGOP finally nominate a pro-gun Republican for 2006? Will a pro-gun Ohio Democrat come forward to fight for the Labor votes lost over the gun issue every election season? As the primary season moves ahead, only one thing seems certain in Ohio:

No one wants another Bob Taft.
Speaking of which...:
2nd Amendment among Betty’s website ''keywords'', but content nonexistent

April 8, 2005
The (Martins Ferry) Times Leader
Dear Editor,
I am writing with hopes of educating local Ohio business owners and their management on the signs we all see posted on the front doors of some establishments stating "No Guns Allowed". Posting a sign banning guns on their property is pointless if the reason for posting the sign is preventing a gun crime. Do these business owners and their management really believe that these signs will prevent a crime or make a criminal with a gun go victimize a different store because of the sign? Will a would be armed robber approach the door of the targeted business, see the no guns sign and say "darn, a sign banning guns, I better go somewhere else"?

Lets get real, the only people obeying the "No Guns" signs are law abiding citizens. Some of whom have taken the time to meet the requirements and obtain an Ohio concealed carry permit which enables them to protect themselves against a violent crime. Those permit holders have received the required safety training, provided fingerprints, and have had a criminal background check run on them by the local Sheriff's office before the Sheriff issued the permit. These are not the people you need to worry about.

If local businesses are going to continue to display these signs banning guns they should consider this as an alternative sign:

"Attention Criminals! This is a defense free crime zone. All law-abiding patrons of this establishment have been disarmed for your convenience."

Sincerely,

Brady Stewart
Bellaire

Click in the "Read More..." link below to see how one more Ohio business has gotten the message!

April 9, 2005
With more than four out of five states allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, that argument is finished. Now, the nation's long-running argument over guns turns on how much to loosen the rules - should guns be allowed in judge's chambers? Bars? In workplace parking lots?
The work in state legislatures following the latest spate of fatal shootings shows how much the debate has changed. The 1999 Columbine school shootings sent moms marching into the streets for tougher gun laws, but this year, many state legislators are looking at ways to broaden access to weapons and ease training and other requirements.
"Where do you stand on self-defense?" said New Mexico state Rep. Thomas Anderson, a Republican who said local judges asked him to change the law to let judges carry weapons into their court chambers. "I believe in it."
His bill died in committee, but it will be back next year. New Mexico this year already broadened its concealed-weapons law, passed just two years ago, to drop the age requirement to 21 and allow the state to reach agreements with other states so gun-carriers can cross borders without worry.
Click here to read one of the most objective firearms-related articles to come out of The Associated Press in recent memory.