Mansfield letter writing campaign needed!

I was wondering if someone could help me with a letter writing campaign against some laws i have found on file for Mansfield Ohio that i feel are not legal. I haven't done this before and don't know who exactly to write about these. i have found a few and they are to lengthy to post all of them here if noone is interested in helping but i will list one below that i think is illegal. Thanks....

549.10 CARRYING OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS.
(a) No person shall knowingly carry, transport or have ready at hand in or upon any public place any firearm, brass knuckles, blackjack, karate stick, by whatever name known, or any switchblade knife, spring knife or gravity knife, or any similar device or instrument manufactured, fashioned, designed or used as a dangerous or deadly weapon, or a knife having a blade over two and one-half inches in length which is designed or specially adopted for use as a weapon or is possessed, carried or used as a weapon.


(b) As used in this section, "public place" means any place to which the general public has access and a right to resort for business, entertainment or other lawful purpose, but does not necessarily mean a place devoted solely to the uses of the public. It shall include the front or immediate area of any store, shop, restaurant, tavern, or other place of business, and any street, ground, park or other area where persons may congregate.


(c) This section does not apply to officers, agents, or employees of this or any other State or the United States, or to law enforcement officers or certified private security personnel authorized to carry weapons and acting within the scope of their duties.


(d) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section of carrying or having control of a dangerous or deadly weapon, that the actor was not otherwise prohibited by law from having the weapon and that any of the following apply:


(1) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while he was engaged in or was going to or from his lawful business or occupation, which business or occupation was of such character or was necessarily carried on in such manner or at such time or place as to render the actor particularly susceptible to criminal attack, such as would justify a prudent man in going armed.


(2) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while he was engaged in a lawful activity, and had reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack upon himself or a member of his family or upon his home, such as would justify a prudent man in going armed.


(3) The weapon was being transported in a motor vehicle for any lawful purpose, and was not on the actor's person, and if the weaponwas a firearm, was carried unloaded and in compliance with the following:


A. In a closed package, box or case;


B. In a compartment which can be reached only by leaving the vehicle;


C. In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder made for the purpose;


D. In plain sight with the action open or the weapon stripped, or if the firearm is of a type on which the action will not stay open or which cannot easily be stripped, in plain sight.


(4) The weapon was being lawfully transported to a school of instruction in the use of such weapons approved by the Chief of Police.


(5) If a firearm, the weapon was carried and/or used on a legal firing range, approved by the Municipality or while unloaded at a public firearms display, show or exhibit or while being lawfully transported to such range, display, show or exhibit.


(6) The weapon was being carried from the place of purchase or repair to the owner's residence or from his business or residence to the place of purchase or repair.


(e) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

I am by no means an expert in Ohio law--yet. I intend to get there.

But, IIRC, preemption applies only to firearms. So the part that tries to restrict the possession of firearms more than State law does would be preempted, but the rest of the law would stand. However, that does not mean that you won't be in for the hassle of your life if the city is not set straight before you try to carry in that town.

Maybe it's just me, but I see this, as you posted.

"(1) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while he was engaged in or was going to or from his lawful business or occupation, which business or occupation was of such character or was necessarily carried on in such manner or at such time or place as to render the actor particularly susceptible to criminal attack, such as would justify a prudent man in going armed."

"carried or kept ready at hand by the actor" would mean someone with who is OCing or CCing. Obviously, while OCing or CCing, you are carrying it for defensive purposes, and you shouldn't be breaking any other law while doing so, therefore you are well within their codes.

If someone else sees this differently, please correct me.

wording

(1) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while he was engaged in or was going to or from his lawful business or occupation, which business or occupation was of such character or was necessarily carried on in such manner or at such time or place as to render the actor particularly susceptible to criminal attack, such as would justify a prudent man in going armed.

that section says, lawful business or occupation. so that leaves it open to interpetation by the leo. the section i wondered about is the following but it is also open for iterpetation. like i said though this is just one example.

(2) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while he was engaged in a lawful activity, and had reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack upon himself or a member of his family or upon his home, such as would justify a prudent man in going armed.

rast1971 said:

(1) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while he was engaged in or was going to or from his lawful business or occupation, which business or occupation was of such character or was necessarily carried on in such manner or at such time or place as to render the actor particularly susceptible to criminal attack, such as would justify a prudent man in going armed.

that section says, lawful business or occupation. so that leaves it open to interpetation by the leo. the section i wondered about is the following but it is also open for iterpetation. like i said though this is just one example.

(2) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while he was engaged in a lawful activity, and had reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack upon himself or a member of his family or upon his home, such as would justify a prudent man in going armed.

Click to expand...

No, you're right. I misread that the first time. Good eye.

As found at http://www.conwaygreene.com/municipalCodes.htm

You will want to look at 549.11 as well. They restrict carry in parks, but they can't.

The portion of their laws that reference firearms ownership and possession are preempted by ORC 9.68. The fact that the uncorrected laws are still on the books is the problem, and that is how you should address it. If someone gets charged with an invalid law (as Terry Wolfe did in Alliance), the city may face a solid civil suit if they KNEW the law was invalid.

So tell them.

Their city council doesn't have to change the law, the state did that FOR them with 9.68. Mansfield just has to update the language in their ordinances.

You don't always need a campaign. Have you talked (not emailed or played phone tag) to the law director yet? Do that first. Here is his page on the city web site:
http://www.ci.mansfield.oh.us/index.php/city-government/law-director

Sounds like this is right up my alley. I'll start researching it Monday. Thanks for the links MWSY.

JSlack7851 said:

Sounds like this is right up my alley. I'll start researching it Monday. Thanks for the links MWSY.

Click to expand...

Let me know what response you get. I'm originally from Mansfield, so I might be willing to show up for a city council meeting if a simple request goes nowhere.

And I'll have to remember to start carrying openly when I go to visit my family. Maybe I can talk my brother into doing the same.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

If someone gets charged with an invalid law (as Terry Wolfe did in Alliance), the city may face a solid civil suit if they KNEW the law was invalid.

Click to expand...

I don't think Terry was actually charged; I think he was just threatened with the potential of a criminal charge.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

You will want to look at 549.11 as well. They restrict carry in parks, but they can't.

Click to expand...

An interesting aside: Mansfield owns the Clearfork Reservoir Recreation Area, even though it's miles outside the city, past Lexington. Oddly enough, they allow shotgun and bow hunting outside the picnic area.

more

Yes mwsy i saw that one also here is a few more if you would like to look at them 549.11-mentions not in parks, 377.02- says no firearms on the bike trail that the city built, 971.02- is about clear fork resivoir a lake and park areas owned by the city. i would be happy to make the call i just want to get all my ducks in a row first, knowing all the laws and right language to us.

Werz said:

Let me know what response you get. I'm originally from Mansfield, so I might be willing to show up for a city council meeting if a simple request goes nowhere.

Click to expand...

Roger that-

rast1971 said:

I was wondering if someone could help me with a letter writing campaign against some laws i have found on file for Mansfield Ohio that i feel are not legal. I haven't done this before and don't know who exactly to write about these. i have found a few and they are to lengthy to post all of them here if noone is interested in helping but i will list one below that i think is illegal. Thanks....

549.10 CARRYING OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS.
(a) No person shall knowingly carry, transport or have ready at hand in or upon any public place any firearm, brass knuckles, blackjack, karate stick, by whatever name known, or any switchblade knife, spring knife or gravity knife, or any similar device or instrument manufactured, fashioned, designed or used as a dangerous or deadly weapon, or a knife having a blade over two and one-half inches in length which is designed or specially adopted for use as a weapon or is possessed, carried or used as a weapon.


(b) As used in this section, "public place" means any place to which the general public has access and a right to resort for business, entertainment or other lawful purpose, but does not necessarily mean a place devoted solely to the uses of the public. It shall include the front or immediate area of any store, shop, restaurant, tavern, or other place of business, and any street, ground, park or other area where persons may congregate.


(c) This section does not apply to officers, agents, or employees of this or any other State or the United States, or to law enforcement officers or certified private security personnel authorized to carry weapons and acting within the scope of their duties.


(d) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section of carrying or having control of a dangerous or deadly weapon, that the actor was not otherwise prohibited by law from having the weapon and that any of the following apply:


(1) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while he was engaged in or was going to or from his lawful business or occupation, which business or occupation was of such character or was necessarily carried on in such manner or at such time or place as to render the actor particularly susceptible to criminal attack, such as would justify a prudent man in going armed.


(2) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while he was engaged in a lawful activity, and had reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack upon himself or a member of his family or upon his home, such as would justify a prudent man in going armed.


(3) The weapon was being transported in a motor vehicle for any lawful purpose, and was not on the actor's person, and if the weaponwas a firearm, was carried unloaded and in compliance with the following:


A. In a closed package, box or case;


B. In a compartment which can be reached only by leaving the vehicle;


C. In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder made for the purpose;


D. In plain sight with the action open or the weapon stripped, or if the firearm is of a type on which the action will not stay open or which cannot easily be stripped, in plain sight.


(4) The weapon was being lawfully transported to a school of instruction in the use of such weapons approved by the Chief of Police.


(5) If a firearm, the weapon was carried and/or used on a legal firing range, approved by the Municipality or while unloaded at a public firearms display, show or exhibit or while being lawfully transported to such range, display, show or exhibit.


(6) The weapon was being carried from the place of purchase or repair to the owner's residence or from his business or residence to the place of purchase or repair.


(e) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

Click to expand...

And the author of above laws is guilty of violating the US constitution. How does that crap get made into law?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Old statutes

CornfedinOhio said:

And the author of above laws is guilty of violating the US constitution. How does that crap get made into law?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I have not researched these city ordinances, but my guess is these are all old clones of former Ohio statutes, all of which predated O.R.C. 9.68 and its effect. Cities normally don't purge their statutes until they're aware of a need to do so, or worse, until they can't avoid it. I doubt very much these were enacted recently - more likely they're dinosaurs. Besides -- Mansfield/Richland County isn't exactly the most progressive area in Ohio, anyway, so if they're behind the curve, big surprise ??!?

So, anyway, like MWSY said earlier, tell them their statutes are now invalidated AS A MATTER OF LAW by 9.68 (see City of Cleveland v. Ohio). One of two things will happen once you put them on notice:

1) their Law Director researches it, says "whoops, we need to update our city code !!", and all the offending sections get removed in due course - eazy-peazy;

2) their Law Director insists on being a Richard like the Law Director up in Cleveland Heights, when Ohioans For Concealed Carry started inquiring of CH as to why they still had ordinances on the books that were invalidated by 9.68; he refuses to seek an amendment to the ordinances; somebody gets charged under a statute, despite the City already being on ACTUAL NOTICE of its invalidity; civil suit results against the City. LD has major egg on his face for not doing his job when it was pointed out to him the ordinance was invalid.

The guy at Cleveland Heights hung up on callers inquiring (including yours truly), laughed at OFCC officers who called him, and basically mocked the whole effort to get CH to clean up their act. Then, when OFCC finally had to file suit to force them to do what was right, he whined to the Court that OFCC had never given them a chance to change their ordinances, but that they HAD changed it after OFCC filed suit, so OFCC should not be entitled to any attorneys' fees. A quick research of that suit will show that didn't hold, and OFCC got the statutory attorney fees provided for.

OFCC's forujm on their website should have tons of templates for nice, concise letters to Mansfield's law director, but it's not complicated (your city code contains these sections; they are all now invalid under state law; here's why; please advise when you are going to correct the situation). I'm sure a moderator at that forum would be happy to help direct you to a good source for a letter.

The important part is simply laying out dispassionately, without emotion or argumentativeness, the fact that their ordinances are invalid, and why. If their Law Director is worth a fig, he'll see that he simply needs to update the city ordinances, and it will be taken care of in fairly quick order. Personally, I prefer to assume the guy is professional and competent until he proves me wrong.

JSlack7851 said:

Roger that-

Click to expand...

I'll try making some phone calls on Monday. My last 5 letters have been ignored. 2 Ag. Societies, 1 outlet mall, a councilman in Wooster,and 1, I don't remember. The political subdivision / Ag. Society's have spoken to council and are waiting for me to sue them.

Mansfield Codified Ordinances

549.10 CARRYING OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS.

(A) (2) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes, while he was engaged in a lawful activity, and had reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack upon himself or a member of his family or upon his home, such as would justify a prudent man in going armed.

Wouldn't this section authorize the carrying of concealed weapons? "While engaged in a lawful activity", ie: carrying with permit.

docachna said:

The guy at Cleveland Heights hung up on callers inquiring (including yours truly), laughed at OFCC officers who called him, and basically mocked the whole effort to get CH to clean up their act. Then, when OFCC finally had to file suit to force them to do what was right, he whined to the Court that OFCC had never given them a chance to change their ordinances, but that they HAD changed it after OFCC filed suit, so OFCC should not be entitled to any attorneys' fees. A quick research of that suit will show that didn't hold, and OFCC got the statutory attorney fees provided for.

Click to expand...

I regret having to write this here, as I have previously done in the OFCC forums, but I contest that assertion. There was no judgment in that case. And nobody will post a copy of the settlement agreement. Until I see it in writing (and I don't mean some press release), I cannot accept that is what happened. And if the settlement agreement contains a condition that the terms of settlement cannot be publicized, someone should at least have the cojones to say so.

JSlack7851 said:

I'll try making some phone calls on Monday. My last 5 letters have been ignored. 2 Ag. Societies, 1 outlet mall, a councilman in Wooster,and 1, I don't remember. The political subdivision / Ag. Society's have spoken to council and are waiting for me to sue them.

Click to expand...

Wooster's issue was resolved three weeks ago. I spoke at the meeting and saw the vote.

Werz said:

Wooster's issue was resolved three weeks ago. I spoke at the meeting and saw the vote.

Click to expand...

Right, I know that. I sent my letter to the Wooster councilman, maybe a week b/4 you showed up to address council. My letter went unanswered. My question was about Mansfield, you haven't been there yet, have you? Tell ya what, I won't write any letters, make any calls, or show up, just to say I did, I'll leave it to you. You do a fine job, and I won't spend hours researching stuff you already know.

JSlack7851 said:

Right, I know that. I sent my letter to the Wooster councilman, maybe a week b/4 you showed up to address council. My letter went unanswered. My question was about Mansfield, you haven't been there yet, have you? Tell ya what, I won't write any letters, make any calls, or show up, just to say I did, I'll leave it to you. You do a fine job, and I won't spend hours researching stuff you already know.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to depreciate your contributions. It's usually good to show a governmental entity that "somebody notices." They really have no motivation to change the status quo unless somebody complains; that's just human nature. The real issue is their reaction to that initial notification; that determines what steps need to be taken next.