May
24
Thursday
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
The Myth of Mandatory Training
- Published on Monday, 16 March 2009 08:55
- Written by Jeff Knox
The Knox Update
From the Firearms Coalition
(March 12, 2009) Rights activists are shooting themselves in the foot whenever they advocate for mandatory training for concealed carry, and theyre shooting themselves in the foot a lot lately. There is absolutely no question that all gunowners, especially those who choose to carry in public, need to take their responsibilities seriously and seeking out quality training is just the beginning of the responsibility.
But legislating training is a seriously bad idea.
If it is reasonable and prudent to mandate training for concealed carry, why would it not be reasonable and prudent to mandate training for open carry? If that is reasonable, what about mandating training for anyone wishing to even own a firearm, and mandatory training for anyone who lives in a home with a firearm? If mandatory training makes sense, then what is the argument against mandatory storage requirements? The bottom line is that firearm safety is a matter of personal responsibility and that responsibility can not and should not be legislated by government. Personal responsibility is, by definition, personal.
The idea of mandatory training stems from the huge and disturbing assumption that the people have no common sense of their own and must be led to sensible behavior by the government.
The error of that assumption is proven every day in states that do not require training; Alaska, Vermont, Washington, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and other states where training is not required do not have higher rates of accidents or erroneous shootings than states with strict training requirements.
Washington State has had a shall-issue concealed carry permit, with no training requirement, since 1961 and Vermont has never had any requirement for training and requires no permit to carry a firearm.
Alaska removed their permit requirement several years ago and there has been no increase in crime or accidents.
Arizona requires several hours of classroom and range instruction for a concealed carry permit, but open carry is virtually unrestricted and has been common in the state for decades. Arizonas legal open carriers are no more accident or error prone than their highly trained concealed carrying counterparts.
As a matter of fact, lawfully armed citizens in states requiring training and permits and those which do not typically have lower firearms incident rates than do sworn police officers.
What the record demonstrates is that individuals who choose to carry a firearm for personal protection take their responsibilities seriously and the vast majority of them take the necessary precautions to ensure that they are able to do so safely and responsibly. The irresponsible minority who do not are very unlikely to be helped by any amount of training or education because, as the saying goes, beauty may be only skin deep, but stupid goes all the way to the bone.
The fact is you probably knew everything you really need to know about firearms safety when you were just 4 or 5 years old. You knew that pulling the trigger makes a gun go Bang. And you knew that whatever the gun is pointed at when it goes Bang will be killed or destroyed. It took a few more years for you to understand what killed or destroyed really mean, but the basic knowledge was there and thats all anyone really needs to be safe with a gun. That knowledge, along with the assumption that All guns are always loaded, make up the cardinal rules of firearms safety: Never let the gun point at anything you are not willing to see killed or destroyed, and Keep your finger away from the trigger until youre ready to shoot. All other gun safety rules are just expansions of those basics.
Firearms safety is so basic that the whole idea of firearms accidents has been rejected by serious firearms aficionados who have replaced the term accidental discharge with unintentional or with the truly descriptive, negligent discharge. Accidents are a result of unforeseeable circumstances. A firearms discharge is virtually always the result of operator error or mishandling and they are comparatively rare. Unintentional firearms related injuries have been going down for decades while at the same time the number of guns and gunowners has skyrocketed. Forty eight states now make some provision for concealed carry and although the training requirements in the various states runs the gamut from no training requirement, to minimal training, to extensive training, the real-world results are virtually indistinguishable.
How is that possible? Its because responsible people are going to learn what they need to know to be safe, but no amount of government mandated training will ever change an irresponsible person into a responsible one.
Is professional training a good idea? Absolutely. Is professional training a necessity for safety? Not at all. Should training be mandated by law? Absolutely not, and anyone who advocates otherwise is undermining the whole concept of individual rights.
Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalitions bi-monthly newsletter, The Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108. ©Copyright 2009 Neal Knox Associates



