If you are new to OFCC PAC, please click here to learn more about OFCC PAC's efforts to promote the election of candidates that desire to protect and defend the constitutional right of Ohioans to carry firearms for self-defense.


Anti-gun groups like Americans for Gun Safety prove they are nothing of the sort, since they offer absolutely NO training for safe firearms handling on their website. If you've come here to learn what their name implies they advocate, click here.


Lesson #1: CCW Reform Is Right for OHIO:

There are many myths being propagated by the anti-gun and anti-self-defense culture. These myths are generally spread unchecked in the media and by many politicians. They are hereby debunked: Prominent Myths Related to Self-Defense and Concealed Carry Reform (adapted from talk.politics.guns "Official Pro-Gun FAQ").

Lesson #1 (Extra Credit): Another excellent study on Ohio concealed carry has been prepared for University of Akron Professor of Sociology Dr. Brian Pendleton (PhD), and can be accessed here: 'Ohio Concealed Carry'


Lesson #2: Citizens CAN Use Guns Competently - and Law Enforcement agrees

An excellent thesis was published by Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel in their book "SHALL ISSUE: THE NEW WAVE OF CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT LAWS” (1994). This chapter handily refutes claims by Gov. Taft and the Ohio Highway Patrol, and can be accessed here: 'Can Citizens Use Guns Competently?'


Lesson #3: Know Thy Enemy: A Psychiatrist's Examination of the Anti-Gun Mentality

Dr. Sarah Thompson, is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, and also writes The Righter, a monthly column on individual rights. She is also a psychiatrist, and has published an excellent essay examining the anti-gun mentality from a psychiatric perspective. Not only does she explain how such people think, but she gives excellent advise on how to better communicate with them. Dr. Thompson's piece can be accessed here: 'Raging Against Self-Defense'


Lesson #4: The Right to Bear Arms in Ohio: A Fundamental Right That Is Neither Fundamental Nor Much of a Right (Klein v. Leis)

Scott B. Johnson's examination of the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling on Klein v. Leis concludes with these words:

"The Ohio Supreme Court has done an amazingly risky thing. While it may appear to those justices in the majority that it is politically correct to permit the legislature to limit what the court itself calls a fundamental right, it is not constitutionally correct to do so. The court must carefully consider the precedent it has set. If statutes regulating fundamental rights need only pass rational basis scrutiny, there is no limit to the abuse that government can inflict on the citizen or the rights that can be whittled away, chip by chip."

Johnson's law review can be downloaded in a Word document by clicking here.


Lesson #5: As CCWs proliferate, issues arise

John Ray Habb examines some of the legal briar patches that CHL holders must make themselves aware of. Following is his report, Carry At Your Own Risk (originally printed at www.gunsandammo.com).


Lesson #6: Ohio's Gun Ban Extremists Play Fast & Loose With Truth

OFCC Membership Coordinator Dan White examines the Speculation and Misinformation That Fuels Ohio Gun Controllers' Arguments


Lesson #7: Interpersonal Communications and Officer Survival

Although composed to train law enforcement officers, the following document is also an excellent study for citizens interested in the art of detecting danger signs by reading body language and understanding its meaning: The Boyd Cycle.


Lesson #8: Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life

The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being... (Historian J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.)

There is nothing like having your finger on the trigger of a gun to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch — ultimate decision, with the ultimate price for carelessness or bad choices: Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun.


Lesson #9: Who Wins, Who Actually Loses, When Firearms Owners And Businesses Are Banned From the Premises?

Recently, one major U.S. bank toyed with the idea of closing all its accounts with customers who owned firearms-related businesses. Another chain of banks, and several businesses, established policies which banned concealed carry of firearms on their premises. Other businesses have adopted spokespersons or advertising actors who have openly spoken out against firearms owners. Some businesses have allowed fringe groups to put up kiosks or pamphlets on their premises opposing gun ownership. Many of these quickly withdrew or denied the policies in the face of strong and immediate pressure from firearms owners.

Who gains by such ban policies, and who loses? Are these policies effective in any way? Do these business policies prevent any firearms-related crime? Or do they affect only law-abiding customers? This excellent piece, published by T. Dave Gowan, Ph.D., can be accessed here: Who Wins, Who Actually Loses, When Firearms Owners And Businesses Are Banned From the Premises?


Lesson #10: Concealed-carry in a post office may lead to rude awakening

There is considerable confusion over whether an Ohio Concealed Handgun Licensee (CHL) can carry a concealed firearm at the post office. This confusion mostly centers around the wording on the signs posted at the post office.

Attorney Ken Hanson has this to say of his examination of this issue:

"I do not want to be right about the answer to this question, because I see no problem with a CHL carrying in a post office. However, I think some of the information/discussion going on in forums has the potential to expose the Ohio CHL to a rude awakening."

Hanson's piece can be accessed here: Concealed-carry in a post office may lead to rude awakening.


Lesson #11: Education Guide: The Second Amendment
From: NRA-ILA: The Second Amendment

On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units."

Many people have heard about this definitive analysis, but probably few have read the actual report. It's exhaustive and convincing. For hard core Second Amendment supporters, it's a must read. This is an historic document that will influence the interpretation of the Second Amendment for decades to come.

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.

Follow this link to access the full paper.