AmmoLand.com

Farm and Fleet Stores Post Anti-Gun Signage

Blain's Farm and Fleet Has No Problem Selling Firearms??

Wisconsin Carry

Wisconsin --(Ammoland.com)- Wisconsin Carry takes an “all of the above” approach to protecting and advancing the right to carry in Wisconsin.

In the past, individual members, and WCI as an organization have had success in getting stores who post signs prohibiting carry to take the signs down and allow carry as state law provides.

We don’t have the resources to get involved every time a store or business posts a “no firearms” sign, but we do look at situations on a case by case basis and if we believe there is an issue that affects a large number of members where we can make a difference, we may get involved.

This is one of those situations.

Farm and Fleet recently posted a sign at the door of one of their stores (Oak Creek, Wisconsin) which prohibits any and all carry from their stores. This policy, which WCI has confirmed with their corporate office, prohibits open-carry (which is currently legal in Wisconsin) and it will ALSO prohibit concealed carry when passed (expected to happen in 2011).

Yesterday, I placed a call to Farm and Fleet’s corporate offices (Blain’s Supply, Inc) in Janesville, WI and spoke with “Gary Hilt” a Vice-President who handles this issue.

Gary was nice enough to spend about 1/2 hour on the phone with me discussing the issue and genuinely, he was very receptive and seemed to consider my points and was not dismissive of information provided.

He shared with me some information about how Farm and Fleet came to their policy on a “weapons free environment” (at least weapons free from those who carry legally).

At this time, my personal opinion is that the information Farm and Fleet relied on to come to their policy -(input from legal counsel/insurance/anecdotal customer survey) was not as robust and informed as it could have been. I don’t think it gave them a true picture of the support that right to carry has. (again just my opinion based on our conversation in addition to considering that SO many other regional and national retailers – Woodmans, Pick n Save, Best Buy, Dunhams Sports, Home Depot, Wal-mart, CULVERS, Starbucks, etc) ALL surely went through a similar exercise and came to a DIFFERENT conclusion to ALLOW carry as provided by state law. Farm and Fleet definitely isn’t an “anti-gun” organization in principle (just in practice).

Mr. Hilt advised me that he was going to go back to the board over the next 2 weeks (lots of people on vacation this week with the holiday and review their policy).

At the current time, their policy has not changed, but he IS going to review it.

AS SUCH, I think the time is right and there is an opportunity to influence their decision if we all send polite letters and make contact with Farm and Fleet to let them know that their customer base really DOES support the right to carry. Let Farm and Fleet know you prefer to continue to patronize their stores, but cannot in principle as they don’t support your right to carry in practice.

Let Farm and Fleet know that since nearly ALL other regional and national retailers ALLOW lawful carry, they place themselves at NO competitive disadvantage by allowing carry as well. Almost all major stores/retail chains allow lawful carry. The few people would prefer to shop in a store that restricts the right to legally carry have very few alternative choices. People who want to shop in a store that DOES support the right to carry have MANY options.

Farm and Fleet’s policy is ill-advised. Also share with Farm and Fleet that major retailers like: Gander Mountain, Dunham’s Sports, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Woodman’s, Pick n Save, Starbucks, Culvers, and hundreds of other stores/chains all ALLOW lawful carry.

It was also interesting. Mr. Hilt shared with me that in the 55 year history of their company there has never been an instance IN THEIR STORE of someone being assaulted or needing to defend themselves. Of course as the nightly news proves, the papers are full of “never thought it would happen here” situations where innocent people are not around today because they had no opportunity to defend themselves.

I think as you all drop letters and make polite contact with Farm and Fleet you might offer the knowledge that while no one may have been assaulted IN their store (yet), a person’s safety IS in jeopardy walking FROM their store to their car.

Case in point, just a few days ago a person was assaulted and badly beaten in a Farm and Fleet parking lot after leaving the store in Madison: www.badgerherald.com/news/2010/12/08/crime_in_brief.php

Farm and Fleet may be able to claim that in 55 years no one has been assaulted IN their store (yet), but they surely can’t claim that no one has been assaulted OUTSIDE their store. Criminals ARE committing crimes in Farm and Fleet parking lots against INNOCENT defenseless people. By prohibiting people from carrying IN their store, they are also making those people defenseless victims IN THEIR PARKING LOT as shoppers return to their vehicle unarmed. Criminals now CLEARLY know (based on posted signs) that anyone coming from Farm and Fleet will be unarmed. (even after Wisconsin passes concealed carry this year)

Share this example with Farm and Fleet when you contact them.

POLITE LETTERS AND CONTACT CAN BE MADE VIA THE FOLLOWING METHODS:

Farm and Fleet has a facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/BlainsFarmandFleet?v=wall Post up on their wall and let them know what you think of their new signs prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying in their stores.

Blain’s Farm and Fleet 24 hour customer care hotline: 1-800-210-2370

Electronic contact opportunities: (use customer contact form on this page) http://www.farmandfleet.com/customer_care/default.aspx

Lets politely share with Farm and Fleet how many of their customers do NOT support their policy of banning the right to carry in their stores and that we will happily continue to shop there ONLY after they change their policy.

Carry On

About:
Wisconsin Carry, Inc is a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and reclamation of the basic rights critical to a free society. We believe that “Open-Carry” and “Conceal Carry” are choices to be made by law-abiding citizens based on what suits their needs best. Our mission is to preserve, advance and expand these basic rights which law-abiding citizens are entitled to have a practical ability to exercise. Visit: www.wisconsincarry.org

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland 5 Comments »

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Firearms Preemption Law – Cleveland Gun Ban Loses

Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Ohio --(Ammoland.com)- As released by the Ohio Supreme Court. Analysis to follow.

2009-2280. Cleveland v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6318.
Cuyahoga App. No. 92663, 185 Ohio App.3d 59, 2009-Ohio-5968. Judgment of the court of appeals reversed, and cause remanded to the court of appeals.
Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-6318.pdf

(Dec. 29, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio today upheld as constitutional a state law enacted by the General Assembly in 2006 that provides that only federal or state regulations can limit an Ohioan’s individual right to bear arms.

In a 5-2 majority opinion authored by Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, the Court held that R.C. 9.68, which displaces all local gun-control ordinances previously adopted by Ohio municipalities, does not infringe on the “home rule” powers of those municipalities under the Ohio Constitution and does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.

Enacted in December 2006 as part of Sub. H.B. 347, the statute, R.C. 9.68: 1) stated that it was the legislature’s intention in enacting the section “to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, carrying, sale or other transfer of firearms, their components and their ammunition,” 2) declared that “except as specifically provided by the U.S. Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law or federal law” gun owners in Ohio may buy, sell, transfer, transport, store or keep any firearm “without further license, permission, restriction, delay or process,” and 3) directed that in any subsequent court case challenging a local gun control ordinance, state courts “shall award court 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.”

The City of Cleveland filed a declaratory judgment action in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas challenging the constitutionality of R.C. 9.68 under the Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution. That amendment, contained in Article XVIII, Section 3, provides that municipalities within the state have the inherent authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their borders local police regulations to protect the safety and health of city residents, so long as such regulations do not conflict with “general laws” of the state. The city argued that R.C. 9.68 violated its home rule authority because the statute had the effect of invalidating multiple Cleveland city ordinances regulating the possession, sale and registration of firearms within the city. The state filed pleadings opposing the city’s petition for declaratory judgment and seeking summary judgment that the challenged statute was constitutional.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the state, citing the Supreme Court of Ohio’s 2008 decision in Ohioans for Concealed Carry v. Clyde. In that decision, the Court held that a Clyde city ordinance prohibiting the concealed carry of weapons in city parks was void and unenforceable because it was in conflict with the uniform statewide guidelines for concealed carry that had been adopted by the General Assembly as part of Sub. H.B. 347.

The city appealed. On review, the 8th District Court of Appeals held that R.C. 9.68 was unconstitutional because it violated both the Home Rule Amendment and the separation of powers doctrine. The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court with a directive to enter summary judgment in favor of Cleveland. In its decision, the 8th District specifically found that R.C. 9.68 was not a “general law” under a four-part test set forth in the Supreme Court of Ohio’s 2002 decision in Canton v. State. The state sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 8th District’s decision.

Writing for the Court in today’s decision, Justice Stratton noted that courts considering a constitutional challenge to a law enacted by the legislature must “presume the constitutionality of lawfully enacted legislation,” and may invalidate a challenged statute only if the challenger establishes that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Stratton wrote that in analyzing constitutional challenges to a state law based on the Home Rule Amendment, the Court has held that “A statute takes precedence over a local ordinance when (1) the ordinance is an exercise of the police power, rather than of local self-government, (2) the statute is a general law, and (3) the ordinance is in conflict with the statute.” In this case, she noted, “The first and third parts of the analysis are not involved … The city acknowledges that its firearm ordinances are an exercise of municipal police power. Further, the city does not argue that its local firearm ordinances do not conflict with R.C. 9.68. Thus, our focus is on the second part of the home rule analysis, which involves determination of whether R.C. 9.68 is a general law.”

“In Canton v. State (2002) … this court held that to constitute a general law for purposes of home-rule analysis, a statute must ‘(1) be part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment, (2) apply to all parts of the state alike and operate uniformly throughout the state, (3) set forth police, sanitary, or similar regulations, rather than purport only to grant or limit legislative power of a municipal corporation to set forth police, sanitary or similar regulations, and (4) prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally.’”

While the 8th District concluded that R.C. 9.68 was not a general law because it failed the first, third and fourth prongs of the Canton test, today’s majority opinion rejected each of those findings and held that R.C. 9.68 meets all four Canton criteria and therefore qualifies as a general law that takes precedence over conflicting local ordinances.

In addressing the 8th District’s holding that R.C. 9.68 is not “part of a comprehensive statewide legislative enactment” because the specific bill in which it was enacted (H.B. 347) did not address many aspects of firearms regulation, Justice Stratton wrote: “(T)he the court of appeals erred in analyzing R.C. 9.68 in a vacuum. She pointed to a host of state and federal laws regulating firearms, and noted that “… (a) comprehensive enactment need not regulate every aspect of disputed conduct, nor must it regulate that conduct in a particularly invasive fashion. ‘omprehensive’ does not mean ‘perfect.’ … Nor does ‘comprehensive’ mean ‘exhaustive.’ And the fact that regulations of firearms appear in various code chapters does not nullify the fact that they are all part of a comprehensive enactment concerning firearms.”

“We note that when we determined in (Ohioans for Concealed Carry v.) Clyde (2008)that R.C. 9.68 is part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment, we took into account that the General Assembly had ‘express its intent for statewide comprehensive handgun possession laws.’ The General Assembly indicated that its intent in enacting R.C. 9.68 was ‘to provide uniform laws throughout the state’ for firearm ownership and possession. … We reaffirm the holding that R.C. 9.68 is part of a statewide comprehensive legislative enactment.”

The majority also rejected the court of appeals’ holdings that R.C. 9.68 does not set forth police or other regulations rather than merely limiting local authority to legislate, and that the statute does not set forth a rule of conduct upon citizens generally.

Finally, the Court contradicted the 8th District’s conclusion that the provision in R.C. 9.68 awarding attorney fees to litigants successfully challenging citations under local firearm ordinances violated the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches. Justice Stratton pointed to multiple provisions of state law that expressly provide an award of attorney fees to parties who prevail in certain types of cases, including public records requests, the motor vehicle “Lemon Law,” child support contempt proceedings and violations of the state Consumer Sales Practices Act, among others. In light of those provisions, and multiple court decisions affirming their validity, Justice Stratton wrote, “(T)he General Assembly is clearly within its legislative authority to authorize the award of attorney fees and costs in R.C. 9.68.”

While reversing the judgment of the 8th District on all of the constitutional issues that court addressed, the Court remanded the case to the 8th District for review of one remaining constitutional challenge to the legislation enacting R.C. 9.68. That claim, which the 8th District dismissed as moot, alleges that H.B. 347 violated the constitutional provision limiting legislative bills to a “single subject.”

The majority opinion was joined by Justices Maureen O’Connor, Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer entered a dissent, joined by Chief Justice Eric Brown, in which he cited the Supreme Court’s 2006 holding in American Financial Services Assn. v. Cleveland that “‘A statement by the General Assembly of its intent to preempt a field of legislation is a statement of legislative intent … but does not trump the constitutional authority of municipalities to enact legislation pursuant to the Home Rule Amendment …’ From this, I conclude that the General Assembly is incapable of casting a preemption blanket over an entire field.”

“The key issue when analyzing whether a local ordinance is a proper subject of home rule is whether the ordinance conflicts with general laws. In Cincinnati v. Hoffman (1972), we stated that ‘in order for … a conflict to arise, the state statute must positively permit what the ordinance prohibits, or vice versa, regardless of the extent of state regulation concerning the same object.’ … It is not enough to determine that R.C. 9.68 is a general law or that R.C. 9.68 is extensive, the Cleveland ordinances must be shown to conflict with the statute. In this case, I conclude that the Cleveland ordinances do not conflict with R.C. 9.68, because they do not permit something that the statute forbids or vice versa.”

Contacts

• Benjamin C. Mizer, 614.466.8980, for the state of Ohio.
• Gary S. Singletary, 216.664.2737, for the City of Cleveland.

About:
Ohioans for Concealed Carry, founded in 1999, is a grassroots political activist organization. When founded, the primary goal of OFCC was getting concealed carry passed into law in Ohio. With that accomplished, our mission became to refine the concealed carry law and to expand and preserve the rights of all gun owners in Ohio. Visit: Ohioccw.org

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland No Comments »