Wilmington Law Director: Maybe they'll sue Toledo instead of us

August 05, 2004
Wilmington News Journal

Is concealed-gun ban at city park legal?

A local gun rights supporter says signs banning guns at a Wilmington park don't comply with the state's concealed-carry handgun law, and has threatened legal action if the signs aren't pulled.

The city law director, however, says the city plans to keep the signs posted at J.W. Denver Williams Jr. Memorial Park until a legal case in Toledo on the same issue is resolved.

Meanwhile, the view of the state attorney general's office is that a person with the proper license is permitted to take a concealed handgun into a government-owned park.

"Our interpretation of the law as it stands is that you can carry in a park," said Kim Norris, spokeswoman for the office of Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro.

Wilmington Director of Law Kathryn Hapner said Wednesday, "I believe that the position we're taking is consistent with the position of the city of Toledo that the park is a facility owned by the city."

Gun rights advocate Tim Inwood of Wilmington acknowledges the concealed-carry law prohibits handguns inside buildings that are owned by a local municipality. "They [city of Wilmington officials] can post the buildings in the park but not the entire park," said Inwood.

Hapner said she is a "big supporter of the [U.S. Constitution's] Second Amendment" to bear arms. But she said Ohio's new concealed-carry law does not permit a licensed person to carry a concealed handgun everywhere.

"I just think that we need to use some common sense. I mean, why would you want to take a loaded weapon into the Denver Williams park? I mean to me that just seems ridiculous," said Hapner.

Inwood, for his part, said, "As a father and a licensed CCW [concealed-carry weapon] holder, I would like to be able to protect my children in the event I am accosted by criminals in the park, but the mayor has illegally blocked me from doing so. I assure you this will not stand."

Commentary:
No matter what support she professes for the Second Amendment, Ms. Hapner's bias against guns is evident in her willingness to risk taxpayer dollars in ignoring the State Attorney General and state law on this matter.

Hapner wonders why people would need a gun in an Ohio park. Here are three recent reasons: