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 |
''Mum's the word'' from anti-gun writer
- Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
- Written by Jeff Garvas
By Chad D. Baus
When a notorious op-ed columnist from the Toledo Blade recently took her latest swipe at OhioCCW in a piece criticizing the job Bob Taft is doing as governor, by claiming that when Taft signed House Bill 12 he "gave the state something most of its citizens never sought or desired", I decided to ask her a few questions. And just as another member of the media did recently, Marilou Johanek has proved to be more inclined to ask questions than to answer them...
Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Chad D. Baus
To: \n This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005
Subject: Taft, concealed carry and media credentials
Ms. Johanek:
I saw your latest column today, concerning Gov. Taft [...and] noted your latest jab at concealed carry.
Tell me - how do you reconcile your continued assertion that Ohioans didn't want concealed carry with the 2004 Zogby Values Poll, which found that the nation's "voters overwhelmingly favor these self-protection laws by a margin of 79% to 18%. Right-to-Carry drew better than 70% support in every demographic group, with even non-gun owners indicating their backing by 73% to 23%"?
If we are to judge a program by the total number of participants, I wonder if you would favor eliminating the Ohio Public Information Officers media credential program. A recent public information request done by Ohioans For Concealed Carry has found that only 1521 cards have been issued, and MANY of those to non-journalist jobs such as payroll administrators, secretaries, sales people, promotions directors, etc. etc. It appears the Ohio Dept. of Public Safety bureaucrats who dreamed up this program knuckled under to a very vocal minority.
I notice that you are among the 1521 who have received OPIO cards (we have copies of every application, which you will probably recall contain private information such as hair and eye color, height and weight, a photograph, address, etc.) Since you are a card-holder, I wonder if you can answer a question for me:
The ODPS has informed us that there are no background checks on OPIO applicants, no fingerprints required, and no social security number is requested. There are no training requirements, and there is no booklet from the state Attorney General on journalistic ethics. Applicants don't have to be felony-free or drug-free for their lifetime. There seems to be no concern that applicants may have ever been institutionalized for mental health. There is no policy regarding revocation. Stephen A. Hill, former WCPO (Cincinnati) reporter, is currently serving a five year sentence for crimes related to having sex with teenage boys. Our investigation shows his card still shows as valid, as do 99.997% of all the OPIO cards ever issued. Do you have any concerns on this in terms of security, given than these cards are accepted to allow access at sensitive/secure locations? For instance, were you aware these cards are accepted as ID for after-hours access at the Ohio Statehouse?
Do you believe that media credentials which will allow a person off-hour access to the Statehouse and other sensitive or secure areas are necessary for payroll managers, sales persons, secretaries and interns? Does it concern you that people who have left these jobs likely still possess these cards and may in fact be using them to gain access to such places?
I'll look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Chad D. Baus