May
23
Wednesday
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 |
LTE: Pulitzer judges were journalism's second string
- Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
- Written by Jeff Garvas
April 11, 2005
Cleveland Plain Dealer
As The Plain Dealer's paroxysms of elation over Connie Schultz's Pulitzer Prize slowly abate, it is instructive to look at exactly who it was that made the award to her.
Seven judges decided the prize for newspaper commentary. Four were women. Females have a tendency to relate to those needing a helping hand, so that explains why the judges liked the fact that Schultz's columns "provided a voice for the underdog and underprivileged."
Let's look at the credentials of the judging panel: The four women were an associate editor of the Houston Chronicle, the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal, the editor of the Buffalo News and an assistant professor of journalism at Columbia University. The three men were executive editors at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Keene (N.H.) Sentinel, and the Anniston (Ala.) Star. That isn't exactly a pantheon of journalism luminaries.
Quite illuminating is what John Simon, theater critic of New York Magazine, had to say about award competitions. In an interview at Broadway.com, Simon said: "I've always thought the Pulitzer was the worst prize in existence, and I've said it to one of the Pulitzers himself. . . . Let's face it - all prizes, starting with the Nobel, are questionable. But some are worse than questionable. Some are appalling."
Ronald Khol
Lyndhurst
Related Story:
Plain Dealer columnist wins Pulitzer for, in part, commentary bashing OhioCCW