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
Expert tells Toledo businesses job shootings aren't so rare
- Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
- Written by Jeff Garvas
Readers of the Toledo Blade business section were recently treated to a story on workplace shootings, which included some extremely biased and questionable information.
The story was prompted by the recent a shooting in a no-guns Jeep plant, and featured details on a seminar in Toledo sponsored by SKY Insurance, and attended by 200 area business leaders.
The seminar speaker, Paul Michael Viollis, Sr., is president of Risk Control Strategies, of New York. Described by the Blade as a a national expert on workplace violent crime, Viollis told business leaders that the general aspects of the Jeep plant shooting are consistent with about 3,000 cases he has studied for 20 years.
In the story, the Blade noted that he declined to discuss specifics to back up his claim. Perhaps there is a reason:
In order for his claims to be accurate, simple math shows:
- 3000/20 = 150 "Jeep-like" shootings per year;
or about 3 "Jeep-like" shootings per state per year;
or about 3 "Jeep-like" shootings per week nationwide.
It is important to note that when citing these statistics, Viollis includes violence OF ALL TYPES (fists, clubs, hammers, knives, guns, etc.), and includes single homicides and cases of domestic violence. Given the size and population of the United States, is really not as startling a number as it first appears. Even so, we are given to question whether Viollis is including victims of crime (i.e. defenseless employees murdered in robberies) in his homicide count.
John Wingerter, a Sky Insurance training coordinator, told the Blade the forum was geared toward educating human resource directors on behavioral cues in the aftermath of the Jeep shootings. Was Sky Insurance also expecting Viollis to regurgitate his anti-gun vitriol at the seminar?
Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.
From the story:
- State legislators, he said, are reluctant to challenge the Second Amendment. In Ohio, employees can still legally take loaded weapons to work unless their employers display placards forbidding them. Oklahoma has a law that forbids companies from disciplining anyone who takes a weapon onto work premises. Mr. Viollis described the latter as "the most ludicrous, most irresponsible piece of legislation I've ever seen."
As we have seen all too much, those planning to do harm will ignore policies and signs to bring a weapon, (which is not necessarily a gun) into the work place. As for the argument that having a gun on hand will increase the chance of violence: Those who are taken by the moment will seize what is at hand. Factories, and even offices, are full things that can easily be used as deadly weapons by a person in a fit of rage.
Perhaps what was not mentioned in the story speaks the loudest:
Gun ban policies and signs succeed only in removing the most effective means for employees to defend themselves. In numerous cases of multiple shootings nationwide, employees, students, and customers have effectively stopped attacks and reduced the loss of life and injury without further endangering bystanders.



