"Is this the real life, or is this just fantasy?"

Will someone with more experience than me fact check this, please?


http://www.nranews.com/cam/video/ca...n-control-ordinance-in-violation-of-state-law

The "couple" of lawsuits that BFA won against Cleveland in which they paid BFAs lawyer fees.

When we rewrite history, we lose not only the moral high ground, but also our credibility
As my buddy werz is fond of saying "Accuracy is important"

I'm guessing that COL will be along soon with some case numbers

Chuck! said:

The "couple" of lawsuits that BFA won against Cleveland in which they paid BFAs lawyer fees.

Click to expand...

BFA didn't actually win any lawsuits. They did sue Cleveland at one time, but that suit was put on hold when Cleveland filed its challenge to RC 9.68.

Here is the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas web site. Click on Court Docket if you want to see what happened with BFA's lawsuit. Case number is CV-09-685734

http://cp.cuyahogacounty.us/internet/index.aspx

Well, Cleveland was spanked by the Ohio Supreme Court in Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135, 2010-Ohio-6318. The NRA (National Rifle Association) and the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) filed amicus curiae briefs, but I could find nothing from BFA (Buckeye Firearms Association). That decision reversed the decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cleveland v. State, 2009-Ohio-5968, where the NRA filed an amicus curiae brief. That was allowed after the NRA and OFCC (Ohioans for Concealed Carry) were denied an opportunity to join as parties. The NRA and OFCC were still parties in a companion case because they had moved to intervene in the trial court proceedings and had been denied; that denial was upheld in the court of appeals: City of Cleveland v. State, 2009-Ohio-6106.

The case went through the trial court with just two parties, the City of Cleveland and the State of Ohio: City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, Case No. CV-07-618492. And summary judgment in favor was of the State of Ohio was delayed while the trial judge (who is now the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney) was waiting for a decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in another related case. What case was that?

Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 120 Ohio St.3d 96, 2008-Ohio-4605.

I searched, but I could not find Buckeye Firearms Association mentioned anywhere. Just sayin' ...

BUCKEYE FIREARMS FOUNDATION, INC. - PLAINTIFF - CV-09-685734
BUCKEYE FIREARMS FOUNDATION, INC. - ET AL. v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO ETC. - ET AL.


People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

color of law said:

BUCKEYE FIREARMS FOUNDATION, INC. - PLAINTIFF - CV-09-685734
BUCKEYE FIREARMS FOUNDATION, INC. - ET AL. v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO ETC. - ET AL.


People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Click to expand...

Oh. I thought we were talking about a case where they prevailed and received attorney fees, not a case which was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff, followed by an appeal which was dismissed for appellant's failure to file a brief, and once again, with costs to appellant.

Maybe I was mistaken.

Werz said:

Oh. I thought we were talking about a case where they prevailed and received attorney fees, not a case which was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff, followed by an appeal which was dismissed for appellant's failure to file a brief, and once again, with costs to appellant.

Maybe I was mistaken.

Click to expand...

You came to the same conclusion I did. But, almost doesn't count?????

color of law said:

You came to the same conclusion I did. But, almost doesn't count?????

Click to expand...

Well, I guess that depends on almost what. Almost this?

"... and strangely enough, with Cleveland, Ohio, the Buckeye Firearms sued, and we took it to the Supreme Court on a couple of occasions, and they were nice enough to pay our attorney's fees ..."
-- Sean Maloney

Click to expand...

I'm having a difficult time finding any evidence of that. I guess they could be referring to themselves previously being part of Ohioans for Concealed Carry, but since there was a lawsuit filed by OFCC against BFA in February 2006, I assume they were different entities by then. In fact, since attorney fees weren't available through R.C. 9.68 until its effective date on March 14, 2007, I'm trying to figure this out.

BFA and its hierarchy is no different from OFCC and its hierarchy - both have shaded the truth or outright lied on various occasions.

For instance, I recall a certain founder of OFCC claiming that the organization had "spearheaded" an effort to inform municipalities of ORC 9.68 - which was the furthest thing from the truth.

Since the OP has a position in OFCC's hierarchy, his "baffled" posting here is simply disingenuous, to say the least.

BB62 said:

Since the OP has a position in OFCC's hierarchy, his "baffled" posting here is simply disingenuous, to say the least.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of personal and organizational vendettas here, and nobody wants them all aired because nobody is blameless.

My point is limited to one thing: public statements versus verifiable public records, i.e., court dockets. The egos involved in the Ohio gun rights movement are a story best left untold.

Ego, believing in the need to control all aspects of the subject matter, self importance, a need to destroy and tear down those around them to achieve self worth and the craving to be appreciated contributes to the sniping that exists between organizations.

An organization is the veil for the human desires of the creators. No one organization can be all things to all people. Yet, when other organizations or individuals step forward to fill a void the organization that believes they are all things to all people begin to snipe.

What organizations despise most is those that step forward to correct a wrong for no personal beneficial gain; done at their own cost and possible loss of their liberty.

Of course those that snipe believe they are not the ones doing the sniping.

But, as Werz said: “The egos involved in the Ohio gun rights movement are a story best left untold.”

Which means everyone is good at something; quit tearing down the organizations or individuals for being good at the thing that you are not good at.

Remember, those outside would love to see their enemy destroy themselves from within.

I'm just saying.

BB62 said:

...Since the OP has a position in OFCC's hierarchy, his "baffled" posting here is simply disingenuous, to say the least.

Click to expand...

Werz said:

There are plenty of personal and organizational vendettas here, and nobody wants them all aired because nobody is blameless.

My point is limited to one thing: public statements versus verifiable public records, i.e., court dockets. The egos involved in the Ohio gun rights movement are a story best left untold.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're including me in the group of people you referenced, but I have no problem discussing such things things publicly or privately with those whom I respect.

You have my number, so IF your comment was meant to be inclusive, call and let's air things out - on the subject of "vendettas", "ego", both, or whatever. Ill-informed or uninformed commentary gets old.

...Caught in a landslide, No escape from reality.

Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see...!