Comments on: Ohio Supreme Court: Guns OK in Public Parks http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2008/09/ohio-supreme-court-guns-ok-in-public-parks/ University of Akron School of Law Blog Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:05:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Gaston Sauer http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2008/09/ohio-supreme-court-guns-ok-in-public-parks/comment-page-1/#comment-375 Gaston Sauer Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:26:50 +0000 http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/?p=368#comment-375 I would also add that State Parks have been allowing it since the CHL law went into effect. This ruling only pertains to the few cities that defied the original bill. (generally cities around Toledo and other liberal bastions) Many city parks elected NOT to ever post against Concealed Carry, and people legally carried with no problems. While we were debating in court whether a law-abiding citizen could carry in a public park, I read many articles about citizens being robbed at gunpoint in Ohio public parks. Goodyear Heights, for one. Seems the criminals weren't waiting for the ruling. I would also add that State Parks have been allowing it since the CHL law went into effect. This ruling only pertains to the few cities that defied the original bill. (generally cities around Toledo and other liberal bastions) Many city parks elected NOT to ever post against Concealed Carry, and people legally carried with no problems.

While we were debating in court whether a law-abiding citizen could carry in a public park, I read many articles about citizens being robbed at gunpoint in Ohio public parks. Goodyear Heights, for one. Seems the criminals weren't waiting for the ruling.

]]> By: Gaston Sauer http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2008/09/ohio-supreme-court-guns-ok-in-public-parks/comment-page-1/#comment-374 Gaston Sauer Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:22:54 +0000 http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/?p=368#comment-374 This is nothing new, really. All that the Supreme Court really did was uphold what the CHL law originally said, and what the 2007 Statewide pre-emption bill reaffirmed. Just another city with a political motivation, looking for a loophole to get their way. This is nothing new, really. All that the Supreme Court really did was uphold what the CHL law originally said, and what the 2007 Statewide pre-emption bill reaffirmed.

Just another city with a political motivation, looking for a loophole to get their way.

]]>