I was recently pointed to this discussion and I found it so absolutely misleading as to my intentions I found it necessary to create an account here and respond. If there is any doubt that I made this account myself feel free to ask the moderators of this forum if my email address used to create this account was legitimate.
I guess the OFCC folks are having issues concerning stops and they decided to write an article. I disagree with many of the aspects for the article, maybe you do too.
I'm sorry you disagree with the article that Mr. Kessler wrote. I had nothing to do with it and I neither told David to write it, nor do I "vet" what people who have authority to post on our websites write. I'm all for respecting Mr. Kessler's free opinion on the topic.
It's awfully hard to get into a ******* match on the the street if you ID yourself as required by law, demand to know if you're free to leave, refuse consent to ANYTHING, and refuse to speak without an attorney present.
"Am I free to leave?"
"No?"
"I have nothing further to say without my lawyer present."
And the answer to "Mind if I look in <insert location>?" is ALWAYS "I do not consent to ANY search."
^ I completely agree with this. What I stated on the OFCC Forums is that if you're going to draw the line in the sand DO what is said above. Don't back down and give them your name, give them your SSN, or answer questions whose answers can be manipulated into an accusation that you lied, mislead, or otherwise obstructed. On the flip side, I also believe that if you're going to go about open carrying and you simply give them your name the matter will wrap up. -- What I personally believe is that is a decision to be made by each person who chooses to carry openly. Unfortunately, some here seem to believe that I don't agree with someone's right to open carry in whatever manner they wish. Such accusations are false, unfair, and I consider them a personal attack on my character.
From the article: "
An OFCC member who cooperates politely with an officer is far more likely to receive support from OFCC afterward, at least in terms of correcting officer mistakes, than a person who behaves in an antagonistic manner."
So, according to OFCC, antagonism = exercising one's rights.
I think Mr. Kessler's point here is absolutely correct and you are mischaracterizing this as if OFCC will not support someone who is antagonizing. Kessler used the words "more likely" because a person who is cooperative (or, alternatively, someone who chooses to shut up entirely) is going to have so much more going for them from a legal stand point. A person who starts answering questions of a police officer in a less-than-100%-absolutely correct manner creates legal challenges and hurdles. A person who uses disrespectful language with a police officer may find themselves in Harley's position - found guilty of a completely unrelated charged because of their inability to maintain their composure.
The absurdity of the accusation that OFCC won't consider every single case that comes before us is proven false by the Dan Sayers incident. Dan Sayers was a completely uncontrollable character on the OFCC forums who repeatedly made a name for himself. Nobody was surprised to find out he found himself dealing with the Oregon, Ohio police. Who here has not cringed at the spectacle that Dan Sayers put on in the back of the patrol car? It served him absolutely NO purpose to go on a tirade in the back of the patrol car. Had that case gone to trial the prosecution would have put that video on for the jury and assassinated Sayer's character.
The point Kessler makes (in my opinion, I have not asked him) is that if you're going to find yourself needing to go to court all of your actions will be used against you, so tread lightly.
I hope Jeff Garvis gets lots of email regarding his article.
I have not. I will tell you that I don't expect everyone to agree or disagree with every single thing we write on our website and I don't lose any sleep over it. The way our website stories operate is quite free form - someone who is a regular contributor to the organization can write an article and we post it. If its a controversial topic or something we are working on in terms of an organizational statement we peer review or peer author, review, proof read, etc. I can assure you a substantial majority of the topics discussed on our website are NOT reviewed by me as some here wish to believe. If anything I am more so the defender of our organization's volunteers and their right to say things.
If you don't like Mr. Kessler's points of view by all means, disagree with them. But please (and this is not pointed at anyone specific other than the OFCC bashers in this thread) do not bash OFCC and come to ignorant conclusions based on speculation. That simply makes you look biased and stupid.
Come on, man. You know (or ought to know) better than that. Jeff Garvas is OFCC. If the attorney's opinion didn't mesh with Jeff's opinion (as reiterated on the Riverside thread on OFCC), it would never have gotten near OFCC's front page.
Jeff, you're wrong and you're coming to an ignorant conclusion. I had never read Kessler's article in it's entirety until tonight. I saw the post go by on a Twitter feed while I was at work and I actually thought it was something completely different. (I thought we were covering something else someone else had written). I neither vetted, consulted with, nor discussed David's article with him at any time. I didn't even know he was writing an article. So as much as you might think that I am somehow controlling OFCC by my thumb you're quite wrong.
I've interacted with Jeff, in person or online, since the days when OFCC's form of "discussion" was via an e-mail "talk-list", since before lots of disillusioned people in leadership left OFCC to form BFA. I know of whom I speak.
Its quite obvious you have a vendetta of some sort. I can't help that you've clearly come to a preconceived conclusion as to who I am and what I think. I'm not going to go out of my way to change your mind because its not worth my time. Why do you find it necessary to bash my character here against the rules of this forum when I wasn't even a member?
(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!
Push Jeff hard enough and you'll find that he likes using OC and OCers for shock value, and wants nothing more to do with them otherwise. He's really not a rights guy, but he's desirous of OFCC having an appearance of a gun RIGHTS organization.
I think you're unfairly taking my words out of context from past discussions. What I've openly and admittedly stated in the past is that OFCC used open-carry walks in the early years before concealed carry became law as a "shock and awe" approach to making the media and legislators follow our cause, realize our demands, etc. We used it as a publicity tool by coordinating elaborate open carry walks long before 2004 - prior to preemption, prior to local gun laws not being able to be used against you. Long before it became "chic" to be the open carry activist.
We used them as a activist tool and I openly admit that. I also believe that there is a dangerous side to open carry activism and that having such an opinion of that here is not going to be something many agree with. My fear is that in the right political circumstances open carry activism could lead to a statewide ban on printing, as is the case in Florida. My fear is that in the right circumstances open carry activism has caused otherwise non-posted business establishments to post their businesses "No Guns". Does it mean I think people shouldn't do it?
Nope. By all means - have fun doing it. But if you're going to do it, do it smart so that you don't create unnecessary legal hurdles like saying you don't have a car, or that you don't have identification, etc. that can be readily found by running the license plates of cars in the vicinity and then turn into a prosecutor trying to convince a judge you
"We are about freedom. We are an advocate for all firearms related rights" Uh-huh.
As much as you seem to think or want to think that this is about those who ostentatiously challenge LEOs, it's really not. It's a good debate technique, but nothing more.
Jeff, if you don't like OFCC then don't participate in our forums and stop accusing us of not being what we claim to be. I think there is a difference between words vs. deeds. Publicly OFCC has gotten behind numerous "less than clean" cases such as the Sayers case and the Barlett case in Canton. There was an underlying undesirable element to the Barlett case that we have taken heat from more people than will ever write me about Barlett's case. The fact of the matter is that almost EVERY case that comes before OFCC has always come with baggage. Consider this case which was never made public:
A man is lawfully carrying concealed at his place of employment. A fight ensues and it is later realized he has a firearm. The police go after HIM instead of the instigator and attempt to charge him with being in a liquor establishment with a firearm, failure to notify (I think), and maybe even a couple of other charges. This happens long after SB17 is law. I don't recall if he was arrested or not, but the charges are subsequently dropped. The individual in question later admits he is a priest for the church of Satan. OFCC declines to get involved in the case.
Why do you think we declined? Quite frankly the knee jerk conclusion is because he must be a satanic worshiper right? Wrong. The reason OFCC refused to get involved in this case is because of ignorant decisions. The individual in question apparently called the city up and
threatened to sue them, which caused them to re-file all of the charges against him so that they would have a bargaining chip to plea bargain away a 1984 civil rights waiver. Hindsight is 20/20 - if the individual in question came to OFCC and said "What should I do?" before he called up the city and made veiled threats we would have directed him to competent legal council one way or another. We CHOSE not to get involved because the individual's actions brought the charges upon himself and the fact of the matter is it will most likely end in a plea bargain requiring the gun owner to waive any civil claims against the city.
OFCC doesn't exist to poke one city in the eye at a time. The point of anything we do has to come with some tangible case law, some tangible benefit. This is why despite the fact that the City of Campbell lawsuit had absolutely NOTHING to do with concealed carry Ohioans For Concealed Carry got involved looking to create Statewide Pre-emption case law.
That case law, regardless of what you think of OFCC, would protect your right to do whatever you wish with respect to openly carrying a firearm.
Don't the rules here prohibit you from bashing OFCC or any other gun rights organization for their efforts and actions? I just created my account so I happened to read them:
(12) NO BASHING OF OTHER GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS: Regardless of how convinced you are that another gun rights organization is not doing their job, this is not the place to air those concerns unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization. All other rants against other gun rights groups will be deleted or the thread locked.
Is it just me or is DSK over there trying to start a argument. Seems like OFCC has taken up their old ways against open carriers if we don't abide by JG's way of thinking.
That guy (DSK) hasn't said anything positive all day, just running his mouth. Definitely not even trying to be part of the solution.
I refer you again to rule 12 of this forums rules. Why the OFCC bashing? If you don't like the discussion on our forum stop reading it. While I have not read anything said in that particular forum about this topic since i last posted in it I can say this unequivocally:
OFCC isn't opposed to open carry. I do, however, think its quite silly to presume that OFCC should share everyone's opinions on exactly how everything should be done, period, end of story, otherwise we are subject to ridicule.
If you don't like what OFCC does, or says, or tries to accomplish then just don't participate in OFCC. Nobody over there is begging you to see anything our way - and we're just as entitlted to have opinions collectively, individually, etc. as you are here.
Jeff Garvas
Ohioans For Concealed Carry
