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
Police Officers in New Orleans Confiscating Most Firearms
- Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
- Written by Jeff Garvas
The New York Times is reporting that law enforcement is confiscating most firearms from almost anyone remaining in New Orleans.
This is a double edged sword in a sense. While government sponsored disarming of Americans is unacceptable, some would argue that New Orleans is sometimes just as dangerous as some insurgent infested areas of Iraq.
Does that justify taking firearms since you're evacuating the people to a safer area, or does it embolden the arguement that citizens need those firearms to defend themselves against the lawless?
New Orleans, for the time being, is a city that should not be lived in. For the past week people have looted stores, ransacked pawn shops, and shot at rescue workers and technicians fixing cellular towers and other utilities.
Anarchy and chaos have ruled for some time, but the New York Times article implies that calm has taken over. Where is the perceived threat justifying confiscation?
Disarming evacuees might be understandable in such limited and extreme cases if certain "return" guarantees were met, but the fact remains that these confiscations are not being applied uniformly at all, and that reveals the true discrimination in New Orleans.
From The New York Times Story: (Emphasis added)
-
No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.
But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property. The guards, employees of private security companies like Blackwater, openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons.
Ironically Ohioans For Concealed Carry just recently highlighted the fact that in times of disaster such as riots, looting, and now Hurricane Katrina, those left behind seek out the bare neccesities in life: Food, Water, and the tools to defend yourself.



