Sorry for the long post - this is from the OFCC site
OFCC's appeal of our loss in the Clyde Case has been successful!
In a very straightforward decision, the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals ruled that, "due to the passage of H.B. 347, we reverse and instruct the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of appellants" on Friday, April 13, 2007.
The road to this victory was long and hard. The City of Clyde Ohio passed a ban on concealed carry in its public parks soon after HB 12 went into effect. Ohioans For Concealed Carry sued the City, arguing that the ban was a violation of Section 9 of HB 12, which stated that the intent of the Ohio legislature was to enact HB 12 as a general law and to preempt attempts of local municipalities to further restrict the places a person with a concealed handgun license could carry their firearm. An injunction against enforcing the ordinance was granted while the case is adjudicated.
After Bruce Beatty's case against Toledo was lost, the judge in Clyde Ruled against OFCC based on that decision. OFCC immediately filed an appeal, and the injunction was kept in force. Then Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed a brief to intervene on OFCC's behalf, asking the court to reverse the lower court's decision.
In the Sixth District's ruling, they noted that Beatty's loss was partially dependent upon the determination that Ohio's concealed carry law was not a general law. In the appeal, two arguments were raised challenging this assertion, that the court errored in ruling that ORC 2923.126 was not a general law, and that the court erred in determining that Ohio's ccw law does not preempt Clyde's ordinance banning all firearms in city parks.
The court notes that during this appeal, HB347 passed and specifically codified preemption into the Ohio Revised Code, and that the next section "supra indicates the Ohio Legislature's clear intent that the concealed carry laws have general and uniform operation throughout Ohio."
"Therefore, Clyde Codified Ordinance 2004-41 is pre-empted by R.C. 9.68 and 2923.126, and summary judgment must be entered in appellants' favor. Appellants' assignments of error are well-taken."
Now that Clyde has been indisputably won, we will investigate how this judgment will affect the recent challenge the City of Cleveland has made to statewide preemption. It is a good day for Ohio gun owner