May 22
Tuesday
image image
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
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

Study: “No-guns” signs cause negative reactions, and not just among CHL-holders

  • Print
Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
Written by Jeff Garvas

According to a new academic study, and as reported in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal, ‘no-guns’ signs have a negative emotional effect on whomever passes by -- employees and customers alike.

Stephen Morgan, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at Concordia University-St. Paul, told the newspaper he felt "weird and ill at ease" whenever he passed one of those signs. So he decided to find out whether other people felt the same way.

From the story:

    Morgan conducted an experiment in which he added one of the signs to a building entrance, then asked students to rate the emotional value of a set of photographs of people's faces. He used some stock photographs that had been "validated" by researchers as showing a set range of emotions -- sad, angry, happy, etc. All things being equal, people rated those photographs the same way.

    Morgan's test group -- those who did not walk by the "bans guns" sign -- rated the faces in the standard way.

    But students who had walked by the sign rated the faces as "significantly more negative" than the test group. The angry faces were rated as more angry, the sad faces were rated as more sad, and the happy faces were rated as less happy.

    Morgan said these negative ratings are a subtle measure of the emotions of persons taking the test. In psychology, it is called projection -- negative people interpret their environment in a negative way. That means that walking by these signs makes people feel bad, creating a less hospitable work environment, more prone to feelings of anger, frustration and resentment.
Ohio businesses now have all they need to support their decision to remove their discriminatory, unsafe and “negative” signs.

  • Law-enforcement officials confirm (and gun control extremists admit) that these signs do not deter criminals, burying any notion that customer or employee safety is enhanced with the posting of signs.

  • Ohio law provides legal immunity to businesses that allow concealed carry, negating any suggestion that there are insurance or liability concerns with allowing customers their right to bear arms for self-defense.

  • Ohio CHL-holders are already proving to be some of the most law-abiding citizens in who will ever darken the door of these businesses, and are likely the only customers who have endured fingerprinting and background checks.

  • This study now proves that even non-gun-owners are turned off by these signs, erasing any notion that only CHL-holders are disgusted to be greeted by these discriminatory signs at the door of a business.


    Why would businesses that spend tens, hundreds, or even millions of dollars to create an inviting shopping environment, and a positive company image, ruin it all by posting “no-guns” signs on their doors?