Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: New news from Oberlin...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    203

    New news from Oberlin...

    The Plain Dealer editors thought we were bluffing...

    Press release at OFCC

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    suburban Nashville TN
    Posts
    58

    When WILL they learn ??

    Quote Originally Posted by BriKuz View Post
    The Plain Dealer editors thought we were bluffing...

    Press release at OFCC
    Go get 'em !!

    (My aunt and uncle live in Creston. Good folks....nice town).

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    A slam dunk yes?

    But the penalty is minimal, unfortunately.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by BriKuz View Post
    The Plain Dealer editors thought we were bluffing...
    Meanie!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    209

    Re: New news from Oberlin...

    This. Is. Awesome.

    These cities need to see what will happen if they choose to ignore the law, or pretend it doesn't apply to them.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

  6. #6
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Hareuhal View Post
    This. Is. Awesome.

    These cities need to see what will happen if they choose to ignore the law, or pretend it doesn't apply to them.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
    I love how they are trying to act all innocent "oh we tried to do the right thing even though it pained us so!" when they were told that this wording wasn't legal from the word "go".
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If the law is found to violate 9.68, is the city on the hook for the legal expenses involved in bringing the suit?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Findlay, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If the law is found to violate 9.68, is the city on the hook for the legal expenses involved in bringing the suit?
    ORC 9.68
    ....
    (B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.
    IANAL, but, yeah, I'd say so.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by JustJack View Post
    IANAL, but, yeah, I'd say so.
    I knew the answer. I just wanted someone else to post that there would be a significant penalty to the city of Oberlin should they lose this suit, so that everyone would see the moronic post from the troll for Connecticut for what it is.

    But, hey he knows everything on all subjects, even the law in all other States.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by JustJack View Post
    IANAL, but, yeah, I'd say so.
    Jeff G. told me once that when they defeated Clyde, they didn't collect expenses. I don't remember if he said why, but I seem to remember it was more trouble than it was worth. I could be mistaken, it could of been getting a judgement is way different than collecting one.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Batavia
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by JSlack7851 View Post
    Jeff G. told me once that when they defeated Clyde, they didn't collect expenses. I don't remember if he said why, but I seem to remember it was more trouble than it was worth. I could be mistaken, it could of been getting a judgement is way different than collecting one.

    I think the Clyde case was because 9.68 didn't allow fee collection at the time the original case was filed. The original case started before the currently 9.68 wording took effect to allow recovery of the fees. The appeal was filed after 9.68 was in full force but I think the appeals court denied collecting fees since it wasn't law on initial filing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •