May
22
Tuesday
OFCC Sues City of Cleveland Heights, Ohio
The sign you see here is posted in Cleveland Heights Parks implying possession of a firearm is a crime.
On Friday August 12th, 2011 Ohioans For Concealed Carry Filed a lawsuit against the City the City of Cleveland Heights. The litigation comes after many attempts to resolve concerns over laws that Cleveland Heights not only allowed to remain on their books, but also posted signs at their parks that continue to imply it is illegal to be armed. The City of Cleveland Heights has chosen to ignore our attempts at civil discourse. When individuals have contacted them representing themselves as residents of the City of Cleveland Heights their concerns apparently fell on deaf ears. When representatives of the organization have formally contacted the city's legal representation they've been laughed at and hung up on by the Law Director. It is this arrogance and refusal to work with Ohioans For Concealed Carry that has forced us to seek a remedy through the courts.
Our press release follows. Read the Full Story
Our press release follows. Read the Full Story
Canton PD Event Leads to New OFCC Legislation
When officer Harless of the Canton, Ohio police department came upon a vehicle stopped in the roadway most of us were focused on getting restaurant carry legislation signed into law.
What took place that evening has become an international viral video, calls for the resignation of the City Council president, and criminal charges against a man who is clearly heard trying to state that he has a license.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry has not just raised thousands of dollars in a legal defense fund, but we've written legislation to resolve this matter that Representative Danny Bubp has stated he's going to introduce this fall
Read the Full Story
Search OhioCCW
Join OFCC Today!
Upcoming Events
| 2012 Party In The Park When: August - TBD |
Letter to the Editor: Confronting violence with nonviolence
- Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
- Written by Jeff Garvas
February 14, 2005
Akron Beacon Journal
The headline on the Jan. 25 front-page story got it right: "Calm words halt vow to kill.'' But the quote in the last paragraph was off base.
The story told how a Brimfield Township man, Rick Reichard, saved his and his mother's lives by facing up to a killer. The suspect had an AR-15 rifle and, police say, had just shot and killed his girlfriend and her 7-year-old son. The alleged killer, wandering through the neighborhood, came upon Reichard, who had just stepped out of his garage. Reichard's mother, Lois Scott, on her way home, stepped out of the house and joined her son, who was facing the suspect with his hands raised, as ordered.
The suspect vowed to shoot and kill them, and Reichard and Scott calmly talked him out of it. They did not try to run, or reach for a weapon of their own or otherwise threaten the suspect. The suspect walked away with his weapon without harming them, and they walked into the house and called 911.
A responding police officer told Reichard and his mother that it was a miracle they were not the suspect's next victims. It was not a miracle but just their good handling of a violent and potentially lethal situation.
What this incident shows is that confronting violence with nonviolent alternatives does work. Does it work all the time? Maybe and maybe not, but it has been proved over and over again that confronting violence with violence, or even threats of violence, doesn't work. It doesn't end the violence, but just results in more. To have a nonviolent society, which we all say we want, we must accept this fact and always seek nonviolent alternatives if and when violently threatened.
Jim McNenny
Stow
Commentary:
Mr. McNenny's theories are so logically bankrupt that it's tempting not to respond.
If confronting violence with non-violent alternatives is such a great thing, why are the three other unarmed people James Earl Trimble confronted that night dead?
Since McNenny claims the Reichards survived because "they did not try to run, or reach for a weapon of their own or otherwise threaten the suspect", the logical conclusion is that the other three victims' own fault they were killed, because they just didn't exercise "good handling of a violent and potentially lethal situation".
One more point, which comes from Snyder's "Nation of Cowards." The officers who eventually apprehended Trimble were armed. Does the letter-writer recommend that officers not respond with violence? Would he respond nonviolently to watching someone rape a family member or friend?
Statistics prove unarmed victims are more likely to be harmed than are those who arm themselves and resist. People tempted to accept Mr. McNenny's poor advice to "always seek nonviolent alternatives if and when violently threatened" should keep that in mind.