May 23
Wednesday
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

Victim Runs; Attackers Shoot Him Anyway

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

Those who have participated in the required training to obtain a Concealed Handgun License are familiar with the Attorney General's publication on Ohio's Concealed Carry Law. In that publication it states that "The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that a defendant must
prove three conditions to establish that he acted in defense of himself or another."

  • Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
  • Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
  • Condition 3: Duty to Retreat

    It would appear that one victim in the following story would have been justified to act in his own defense had he possessed the means to do so.

    Nbc4i.com in Columbus is reporting that something very scary happened in a typically pretty quiet place on Sunday.

    From the story:
      Residents say Westerville is typically a pretty quiet place.

      "It's very scary for the Westerville uptown area," resident Scott Vaughn said. "Something like this, I don't know of happening and I've lived here all my life."

      But now police say they may be able to connect four recent crimes.

      The men go up to the victim and ask for cigarettes to try to stop them in some way. Then, they ask for money, tell them to get on the ground and take whatever possessions they have, police said.

      On Sunday morning, police said the suspects got even more violent with a 21-year-old victim.

      Police said the man was walking through a parking lot along West Main Street on his way to a friend's house when he was approached by several men.

      They demanded that he get on the ground, surrounded him and showed him a gun. The man tried to run away but the men shot him in the arm and the foot and fled, police said.
    This story suggests that the man was not at fault, had a reasonable and honest belief that he was in danger and tried to run away. How was he rewarded? By being shot in the arm and foot despite following steps that gun ban extremists and certain law enforcement personnel often advocate. They would have us believe that running away or driving off when faced with danger will bring a pleasant outcome to the event. Unfortunately, as this story indicates, criminals do not follow the same guidelines.

    We cannot presume the outcome of this situation had the victim attempted to defend himself. What we do know is that he was extremely lucky to have escaped with only the injuries he sustained and that the perpetrators are out there looking for their next victim.

    Will the next innocent person that tries to run from these thugs be so lucky? What do you trust for your self-defense, Nike running shoes or Smith & Wesson?