News coverage of developments in Wonderland (Clyde, OH)

As expected, Attorney General Petro's move to intervene in interve in Ohioans For Concealed Carry, Inc. v City of Clyde is bringing new attention to our suit against the city.

The Toledo Blade has published an excellent report on these developments.

From the story:

In a lawsuit that could have statewide implications for Ohioans who carry concealed weapons or for those who try to limit them in certain places, Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro has stepped into a legal fray in Clyde.

There, City Council has banned guns in parks, but proponents for concealed carry rights said the city's ordinance contradicts Ohio's one-year-old law that allows adults with permits to carry concealed firearms.

Last year, Ohioans for Concealed Carry Inc. filed suit against the city.

Mr. Petro has asked Sandusky County Common Pleas Court Judge Harry Sargeant for a summary judgment, arguing that the law should be applied uniformly, rather than being fragmented by multiple, piecemeal regulations from around the state.

Chad Baus, a spokesman for Ohioans for Concealed Carry, agreed: "It's impossible to drive from Clyde to Toledo and to Archbold or wherever and know the different municipal laws."

A ruling - expected sometime this summer - could have implications in Toledo where a local gun owner has challenged the city on its ban on guns in parks.

The Blade story notes that a ruling in the Clyde case could eventually impact the City of Toledo, and then offers this Twilight Zone explanation of officials' actions in Clyde:

Clyde Mayor Nina Pascua said the city plans to fight on, in part, because the issue is as much about the right of an elected body to represent its taxpayers as it is about guns in Clyde's parks.

Clyde residents, she said, supported the ban on firearms in parks, and council passed it 5-0.

"A lot of people say, 'Why don't they just stay out of our city? It's our city. It's our kids, our safety," she said. "The law says a park is public. It's paid for by taxpayers' money, and we're representing them."

Where did Mayor Pascua get the impression she only represents taxpayers who agree with her?

For more coverage on the latest activity in this case from the Columbus Dispatch, Sandusy Register, and Fremont News Messenger, click on the "Read More..." link below.

Columbus Dispatch: Petro joins fight against city’s limits on concealed weapons

Clyde defended the ordinance as a proper use of its home-rule powers, and it challenged the state’s authority to enact a concealed-carry law that prevents regulation by local governments.

"We believe the concealed carry law is an issue of statewide concern that, much like a boating license, is a general law that would supersede this ordinance," Petro said.

In a legal brief filed yesterday, Petro said, "If boat and trailer park licenses are matters of statewide concern in which state law prevents municipalities from enacting regulations because that regulation would necessarily conflict with the state regulatory scheme, then so too is concealed carry.

"The licensing and carrying of a concealed handgun can be effectively addressed only through statewide regulation. Otherwise, licensed citizens would not be capable of carrying at all, because he or she would have to be aware of multiple, piecemeal regulations throughout the state."

Chad D. Baus, a spokesman for Ohioans for Concealed Carry, said the case will set statewide legal precedence.

"License holders should be allowed to travel the state’s roads without constantly facing harassment and threat of criminal charges from activist local governments that are attempting what amounts to a referendum by fiat," he said.

Baus’ group asked the Sandusky court to strike down Clyde’s ordinance and stop anyone from enforcing it. It also asked the court to bar other local concealed-carry ordinances, such as requiring gun owners to carry identification cards.

In addition to straightforward coverage of the lawsuit and Petro's Motion, the Columbus Dispatch also deserves credit for having been the first newspaper in the state to mention that Petro recently issued an opinion declaring that county fair boards may not post "no guns" signs on fairgrounds other than on buildings, and conceal/carry by licensed individuals is not prohibited there.

Fremont News Messenger: Separate motions filed in Clyde gun fight

The Fremont News Messenger headlined today with news that motions had been filed Monday from both sides in Ohioans For Concealed Carry, Inc. v City of Clyde.

From the story:

Clyde officials elected to ban concealed weapons in city parks, arguing they were a charter government and have a legal right to restrict weapons in the parks. The Second Amendment advocacy group, however, countered with a lawsuit, arguing that the city ban cannot override state law and that the ban was unconstitutional.

Clyde officials still refused to allow guns in the parks until Sandusky County Common Pleas Court Judge Harry Sargeant Jr. granted a temporary restraining order in the case. The restraining order bars the city from enforcing its ban on concealed weapons.

State law bans concealed weapons from places such as schools, law enforcement agencies and government buildings. Public parks are not mentioned in the law.

Although the claim that public parks are not mentioned in the law is commonly made in newspaper stories, what is important is what the newspapers are NOT mentioning:

R.C. § 2923.126 (A), “Except as provided in division (B) and (C) of this section, a licensee who has been issued a
license under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code may carry a concealed
handgun anywhere in this state if the licensee carries a valid license and valid identification
when the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed handgun.” (emphasis added.)

Again, from the News-Messenger:

Ken Hanson, the attorney representing Ohioans for Concealed Carry in the case, said the group mailed its motion Friday afternoon. The brief included two separate sections.

The first section argues that Clyde's ban is unconstitutional, because a city law cannot override state law. It argues that Clyde's status as a charter government is immaterial, because state law supersedes all city ordinances.

"The Supreme Court ruled some time ago that charters have no greater or lesser authority than statutory governments do," Hanson said.

The second section of the motion asks that the court issue a pre-emptive order that would prevent Clyde officials from trying to pass several other types of laws or ordinances that would restrict conceal carry laws. The motion asks the court to prevent any request from the city to:

1. Create park rules for firearms.
2. Restrict ammunition or magazines that can be used.
3. Require gun owner ID cards.
4. Add a ban on "ugly guns," including Saturday night specials .

   Hanson also cited an opinion issued by Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro last Friday, which states that restrictions on concealed handguns in parks are not mentioned in Ohio House Bill 12, Ohio's concealed carry law. In his brief, Petro argues that because of a need for uniformity in Ohio's gun laws, cities cannot create additional restrictions that would override state law.

Next, readers of the News Messenger are treated to a hint of the Alice In Wonderland approach officials in the City of Clyde made in their own Motion:

In response, Barry Bova, attorney for the city of Clyde, filed a motion Monday arguing that the concealed carry laws do not operate the same way throughout the state. The motion argues that by granting exceptions to concealed carry laws, such as private property, the law is not uniformly enforced throughout the state and therefore cannot be considered a general law.

The motion argues that if it is not a general law, then Clyde's ordinance banning concealed weapons in parks cannot be in conflict with state law. The motion also argues that the city has the right to create laws to "protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens" and that the ordinance is a purely local concern.

Bova was in court Monday and was not available for comment.

Responses to the motions are due the first week of June. Hanson said he expected a final decision by the second week of June. He added that this case will set a precedent to other challenges that may arise to the conceal carry laws.

"A lot of places are sitting and watching to see what happens in Clyde," he said.

Are we hearing this right? Is Clyde arguing it wishes to be considered a private entity instead of a public one? Good luck trying to collect taxes after that winning that argument...

Sandusky Register: Petro files motion in concealed carry case

Clyde's municipal parks -- full of basketball courts, playgrounds and fishing ponds -- do not conjure images of lawyers
arguing for constitutional rights to carry firearms.

But the parks are the epicenter of a legal battle pitting the small city
against the state of Ohio in a fight over where people should be
permitted to bring their guns.

The Clyde City Council passed an ordinance last May restricting citizens
holding a concealed carry license from bringing deadly weapons into its
municipal parks. After repeated warnings, Ohioans for Concealed Carry, a
lobbyist group supporting the law, filed suit against the city seeking
an injunction to invalidate the ordinance.

Monday, Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro's office intervened in the case,
filing a motion for a summary judgment with Sandusky County Common Pleas
Judge Harry A. Sargeant Jr. asking him to uphold the priority of the
state's concealed carry laws.

After providing a short history of the law, and explanation of a few of the places where CCW is banned, the story continues:

In Section 9 of the law, it states that, "no municipal corporation may
adopt or continue in existence any ordinance...that attempts to restrict
the places where a person possessing a valid license to carry a
concealed handgun may carry a handgun concealed."

Clyde had challenged the constitutionality of this provision under
Article XVIII, section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, known as the Home
Rule clause. City officials say the concealed carry law infringes on the
city's right to "adopt and enforce within the their limits such local
police, sanitary and other similar regulations."

Clyde City Manager Dan Weaver said citizens are still allowed to carry
concealed firearms elsewhere in the city. He expressed concern that most
municipal parks are near local schools, places where guns are already
prohibited.

"We feel responsible for protecting hundreds of children (who) play in
our parks," Weaver said. "It doesn't feel right that people should be
able to carry guns onto those premises."

This quote reveals quite a bit about what we're dealing with in Clyde. It isn't about the rule of the law, it's that a few city bureaucrats don't feel right. Since when is it appropriate to violate laws when one doesn't feel right about them? Is this what Clyde residents should do if they don't like any other local ordinance - simply disobey it?

The Register story concludes:

After the concealed carry laws were passed, Clyde was one of a handful
of cities that enacted some form of legislation altering the bill. OFCC
sent letters threatening legal action to these governments, and all but
two -- Clyde and Arcanum, near Dayton -- dropped their ordinances.

After another round of letters from the OFCC, Clyde remained the only
municipality not to repeal its ordinance.