Need some 2A help

If your hearing this evening is an open meeting on the general wisdom of the ordinance prohibiting carry, and your problem is political, then the only genuinely persuasive argument I see is for a lot of people to turn out and voice their displeasure with the prohibition.

Maybe 20 years ago I attended a session of the city council when the topic was a measure to prohibit "assault weapons", a measure supported prior to the meeting by every member of council. For an hour and a half people rose to express their reasoned opposition.

The measure did not pass.
 
When dealing with these political groups one must always remember the first duty of a politician is to get re-elected. everything else is secondary. If they don't get elected they won't have the same ability to advance their agenda and/ or personal fortunes.
 
IMHO the previous 2 posts are spot-on, particularly considering that we're talking about LOCAL politics.

Local elections often have minimal turnout, and their outcome may be strongly influenced by a relatively small but well-organized and dedicated single-issue group. Council members are almost always cognizant of this.

Although this sounds cynical (and it is to some degree), council members will be far more impressed by large numbers and apparently solid organization than by well-reasoned arguments presented by only 1 or 2 people. T-shirts and yard signs will go farther than one speaker's knowledge of SCOTUS cases. :)
 
If there is a Federal law that backs up your right to own and/or carry a weapon, then the State and town cannot supersede it.
We got into a row with the Condo Commandos down at our place in Florida
about having a Service dog allowed on the premises. The Association took my neighbor to court and the Judge threw it out immediately stating that no association,town nor State law can super cede Federal law guaranteeing that a Service dog cannot be barred from living in a no dog condo. Hope I said this right.
If so, make sure you got all your ducks lined up and I hope you win.
Doc
 
Armed Chicagoan said:
What state is this?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don't choose to publish my location on the Internet. I'm sure most 13-year olds could find my exact home address in less than half an hour, but I still cling to the pretense that I'm somewhat anonymous.
 
Sorry, but I don't choose to publish my location on the Internet. I'm sure most 13-year olds could find my exact home address in less than half an hour, but I still cling to the pretense that I'm somewhat anonymous
Click to expand...

I would usually take that as a challenge. However, as I suspect you my be a fellow vet, I'll restrain myself.
 
Posted Monday 10/12.

I'm prepping to do battle with my town's town council) about being able to carry a loaded handgun under a State-issued carry permit. Currently there's a town ordinance prohibiting such carry. There's a hearing scheduled for Wednesday evening.
Click to expand...

Wednesday 10/14?

Did you have your Hearing already?
 
What I would do is find out if there are any other cities in your state that have passed similar ordinances. My guess is that your city has looked into this, perhaps run it by their city attorney and that they aren't the first one to take this on. If they are, then they may be treading on thin ice. If they are one of a string of cities that have similar ordinances, then I'd get a copy of those other ordinances and see if your city is trying to broaden the scope of what has already been done.

It's really going to depend on your State's laws. I would think that the a State issued permit would preempt a total ban on carrying firearms within city limits.

Another thing you can do is write your state's attorney general and ask him to issue an opinion on whether a city can completely ban concealed carry as it pertains to state-licensed permit holders inside the city's limits - you may or may not get an opinion and it will take time.

I don't see how cities can have a ban on concealed carry when individuals are licensed by the state. Just traveling through a portion of the city limits of a town could cause you to be arrested or fined. Cities pass stupid ordinances all the time. One city in the state I live in passed an ordinance banning the Devil from the City. Yes, like as in Satan, Beelzebub, enemy of righteousness - that's the one.
 
From Skans:
"I would think that the a State issued permit would preempt a total ban on carrying firearms within city limits."

I too agree, but look at New York. A state issued permit isn't valid in NYC. (Maybe it specifically excludes NYC??)
 
Steve4102 said:
Wednesday 10/14?

Did you have your Hearing already?
Click to expand...
Life intervened. I was in the hospital, recovering from a minor cardiac event. My attorney was prepared to be there to present our arguments.

Need to talk to my attorney for details, but my understanding is that the discussion of the ordinance was removed from the meeting agenda. My attorney spoke with the town's attorney on Wednesday and explained to him why their proposed changes didn't in any way resolve the issue, and that if they adopted the changes as proposed they would still be defending against a lawsuit.

Supposedly the town's attorney finally heard what she was saying and was going to advise the town to wait a month and revise the revisions before voting on it.

I will be talking to my attorney this afternoon -- if I can catch up with her.
 
Life intervened. I was in the hospital, recovering from a minor cardiac event.
Click to expand...

As reasons to miss a meeting go, that's top notch.

Skans said:
I don't see how cities can have a ban on concealed carry when individuals are licensed by the state.
Click to expand...

I have watched this game unfold in my state over the last couple of decades.

To begin with, my city has a specific charter within state government that permits departure from general statewide laws in some respects. This is a "home rule" amendment. Significantly, the political demeanor of the city differs considerably from that of the state. Politically, Cleveland is like Detroit. This sets the stage for the political conflict of the last several years.

When Ohio finally passed a concealed carry law and permit system, Cleveland attempted to use its home rule authority to significantly impair the new laws. The sheriff for the county (the Cleveland Metropolitan area covers several counties, but the city itself is located in Cuyahoga County) refused to open an office to accept permit applications. The restrictions the city imposed were upheld by local courts with reasoning that did not pass the laugh test.

After having lost on these issues in the state Supreme Court, the city has again passed additional burdens on firearm ownership, including registration of all sales within the city with the police department. The complaint seeking invalidation of the new restrictions was filed within a day of the passage of the new law.

Most amazing is that all this transpired in the shadow of the state legislature's clear intent that the state law will control:

9.68 Right to bear arms - challenge to law.




(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68
 
Last edited:
Town councils are not interested in the Constitution. They will do whatever they can get away with, and can only be stopped when a court steps in. Now matter how eloquent your Constitutional argument is, it will not pursude them to change their ordinace. If their ordinance violates the Constitution or your state's(whatever it is) laws, you need a court case to force them to remove it. If they are not forced to remove it, it will remain. You don't fight an unlawful ordinace with politics. You do it in the courts, or you go over their heads.

No, I only have one fight. It's expensive enough to fight a small town. I can't afford to take on a state.
Click to expand...

I think you are reading that all wrong. The state laws are really your greatest asset, as they validate your position.

First think I'd do is get on the phone and call your state representives and senators, and get their opinions as to whether what your town is doing is even lawful. If it is, I'd be making the case to THEM to shut it down in deference to state laws. Ohio blew city ordinaces out of the books years ago. It is unreasonable to expect a lawful carrier to know all the laws of every jurisdiction he travels through on a given day. That is your argument.
 
Politicians are also not especially concerned about a little detail like state preemption. Ask anyone in or near Philadelphia how that state preemption thing is working out.

I couldn't find it when I looked for it a few evenings ago, but not too long ago there was a video on Youtube of a meeting of some government board -- either a city council or a county board of commissioners. They were discussing some anti-gun ordinance. It was pointed out that the law of whatever state it was preempted the proposed ordinance. One of the councilmen stated outright that he knew the ordinance was nullified by state preemption, he knew it couldn't be enforced, but he was going to vote for it anyway because "We've got to do something."

If anyone has a link to that video, I would greatly appreciate your sending it to me. It's a classic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top