People can pack heat in Clyde parks

COLUMBUS -- The Ohio Supreme Court on Sept. 18 struck down a Clyde law that banned people from carrying concealed guns in public parks, saying it conflicts with a state law that established a uniform policy on firearms.

In a 4-3 decision, the court said the city of Clyde's home-rule powers don't allow it to override the 2004 state law that allowed people to get a permit to carry concealed weapons in public, except in public buildings such as schools, courthouses and stadiums. No exceptions were made for parks.

"It means the fight's over. We lose again as a community," Clyde City Manager Dan Weaver said last week. "If you are a lawfully-licensed, conceal-and-carry person, you can bring in a 9mm or 45 (caliber gun) and have it concealed under your clothing," Weaver said, about what the law will mean in Clyde parks. But he pointed out there are still few people who have the permits.

The city's civil action that began in Sandusky County Common Pleas Court complained that the state gun law allows owners of private property to ban concealed weapons but denies public entities the same option and therefore should not be considered a general law with uniform statewide application, the city argued.

Weaver pointed out that the high court decision only applies to those people who are lawfully licensed to carry a gun - the city law still bans all others from having weapons in city parks.

"They still can't carry concealed weapons in the buildings," the city manger pointed out about people who have gun permits.

"We were never against 'conceal carry'; We were against Ohio saying it was a general law," he added.

Justice Terrence O'Donnell, writing for the majority, disagreed and said there's always a distinction between private and public property.

"Public property is owned by the taxpayers and is accessible to all," O'Donnell wrote. "If there were no distinction made between public and private property as the dissent suggests, then a municipality could in the future choose to expand the prohibition from public parks to public sidewalks and roadways, and eventually to all public property."

The ruling was a victory for Ohioans for Concealed Carry, which sued the city and argued that parks are a prime spot for criminals and that park visitors should be able to protect themselves.

"I think this is an important decision for individuals, because now anyone traveling in Ohio knows they have to follow state and federal law and they don't have to worry about inconsistent local laws that could trap them," said Daniel Ellis, an attorney for the group.

Attorneys in the case said the decision puts other Ohio cities that try to restrict concealed carry use in a precarious legal position.

A small number of cities have similar laws to Clyde, including Independence near Cleveland, said Jeff Garvas, president of Ohioans for Concealed Carry.

Ohio Deputy Solicitor General Stephen Carney said the court did not make a decision about whether having guns at parks was good or bad, only that the state law prevents the establishment of local concealed carry laws.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Paul Pfeifer said there is no rational basis to distinguish between the legal rights of private and public property on this issue.

"Clyde owns its municipal park. Is there any reason why the owner of this property, where families gather and children play, should be forced to allow people with guns to enter, while the private owner of a public space such as a shopping mall can bar from entry any gun-carrying citizens?" Pfeifer wrote.