Ohioians for Concealed Carry article on interaction with law enforcement

MyWifeSaidYes said:

OFCC actually locks the public out of many of their forums, such as the guns for sale area. It's their forum and I'm okay with them limiting access.

At BFA, the public has access to the "Tinfoil Hat Club" forum. I think THAT one should be hidden.

My only question to OFCC and BFA is "Why limit access to the OC forum?"

Click to expand...

I agree with your question.
The only RIGHT we have to carry is to carry openly, I would think any GUN RIGHTS organization would put OC front and center

eye95 said:

I don't dispute the right of the owners to run the site any way they choose. The way they choose kinda guarantees that I will be providing them zero support in their efforts.

What I really object to is the use of titles like "Ohioans for Concealed Carry," as though the site is an official part of some grassroots movement when it is in fact reflecting the views (enforced top-down) of an "owner" or set of "owners." True grassroots efforts don't need to rely on secretive tactics and this-is-my-site-and-I'll-run-it-as-I-see-fit attitudes.

However, I'd love to see the answer to the question you pose.

Click to expand...

OFCC is as grassroots as you can get.
It started with one guy collecting signatures at gun shows
And today stands as the organization our legislators listen to

I'm a dumb old farm boy from rural Ohio, but when I go to the Statehouse with the OFCC gang those legislators all listen to me and treat me respectfully.
I doubt that would happen on my own

JmE said:

But the licensed privilege of concealed carry is based upon the unlicensed right of open carry in Ohio. As such, the license becomes worthless without the force of the right. So, the GM and Ford analogy falls apart in this circumstance.

As to them hiding open carry from public view on the forum... it still doesn't answer the question. WHY are they blocking it from view? Open carry is crucial to their target audience of concealed carry so it can't be an audience issue. Open carry doesn't hinge upon concealed carry so this forum upon which we are exchanging ideas doesn't need a specific CC section. If it had one, would it be hidden? If it was then I'd be asking the same question.

Here are some disturbing thoughts that keep rolling through my head...
1) OFCC/people is/are afraid that if open carry is too public then it will negatively affect concealed carry. My answer is (**to anyone that might think that; you means a person that believes as such and not you personally, cabledawg**), "Tough! Your licensed privilege doesn't supersede anyone's legal and natural right. If you believe that it does then you're on the wrong side as you desire permission slips from the government to do that which you already possess the natural and constitutional right to do. You are not fighting for rights, you are begging for special treatment... Brady, Schumer, Pelosi, and the rest are over there and have a seat saved for you."
2) OFCC /people is/are more concerned about keeping their concealed carry cartel going in Ohio and fear that the unlicensed masses might make a concealed carry license less special.
3) They want to keep the public in the dark about open carry rights so that concealed carry holds its special allure. If enough Ohioans realized that we could have constitutional concealed carry then groups like OFCC would become almost unnecessary.

Click to expand...

They're scared of Open Carriers for some reason
I can't figure it out

JmE said:

But the licensed privilege of concealed carry is based upon the unlicensed right of open carry in Ohio. As such, the license becomes worthless without the force of the right. So, the GM and Ford analogy falls apart in this circumstance.

As to them hiding open carry from public view on the forum... it still doesn't answer the question. WHY are they blocking it from view? Open carry is crucial to their target audience of concealed carry so it can't be an audience issue. Open carry doesn't hinge upon concealed carry so this forum upon which we are exchanging ideas doesn't need a specific CC section. If it had one, would it be hidden? If it was then I'd be asking the same question.

Here are some disturbing thoughts that keep rolling through my head...
1) OFCC/people is/are afraid that if open carry is too public then it will negatively affect concealed carry. My answer is (**to anyone that might think that; you means a person that believes as such and not you personally, cabledawg**), "Tough! Your licensed privilege doesn't supersede anyone's legal and natural right. If you believe that it does then you're on the wrong side as you desire permission slips from the government to do that which you already possess the natural and constitutional right to do. You are not fighting for rights, you are begging for special treatment... Brady, Schumer, Pelosi, and the rest are over there and have a seat saved for you."
2) OFCC /people is/are more concerned about keeping their concealed carry cartel going in Ohio and fear that the unlicensed masses might make a concealed carry license less special.
3) They want to keep the public in the dark about open carry rights so that concealed carry holds its special allure. If enough Ohioans realized that we could have constitutional concealed carry then groups like OFCC would become almost unnecessary.

Click to expand...

That may very well be true. I was merely speculating as to why they didnt have OC open to the public by relating to other forums I frequent.

Chuck! said:

And today stands as the organization our legislators listen to

I'm a dumb old farm boy from rural Ohio, but when I go to the Statehouse with the OFCC gang those legislators all listen to me and treat me respectfully.
I doubt that would happen on my own

Click to expand...

That's an important point. They have done a lot of good work. I also believe that they could do so much for the actual right in Ohio if they were of a mind to.

cabledawg said:

That may very well be true. I was merely speculating as to why they didnt have OC open to the public by relating to other forums I frequent.

Click to expand...

Yeah, my rant mode went off from my frustration and not from your post. It gave me a chance to think out loud. Thanks.

Chuck! said:

OFCC is as grassroots as you can get.
It started with one guy collecting signatures at gun shows
And today stands as the organization our legislators listen to

I'm a dumb old farm boy from rural Ohio, but when I go to the Statehouse with the OFCC gang those legislators all listen to me and treat me respectfully.
I doubt that would happen on my own

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was how it was with ALOC. We started with about a half-a-dozen guys at a blood drive. That was grassroots. Then two guys took it over--including the "owner." They still insist that it is grassroots. It isn't. The -if-you-don't-like-it-post-elsewhere attitude is a dead giveaway. I read that quote, turned around, and walked away. You'd be hard-pressed to get me to rethink that decision. I experienced way too much ALOC deja vu!

Grassroots is bottom-up, with regularly chosen leaders. Grassroots doesn't have bosses who my-way-or-highway things.



---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?43gcfs
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

Grassroots is bottom-up, with regularly chosen leaders. Grassroots doesn't have bosses who my-way-or-highway things

Click to expand...

+1

It is quite disingenuous it exploit a Constitutional Right (open carry) to gain a fabricated privilege (conceal carry) and then kick that Constitutional Right to the side of the road.

Chuck! said:

I'm a dumb old farm boy from rural Ohio, but when I go to the Statehouse with the OFCC gang those legislators all listen to me and treat me respectfully.
I doubt that would happen on my own

Click to expand...

So are you saying you have no confidence in your own self worth? Or you don't believe in your own ability to command respect? I mean no disrespect, but little old me has rocked the local politicians boat to the point that when I talk they do listen. I know or another member of the forum that commands the same respect from the local politicians.

Organizations don't exist without members. Once those organizations take those members for granted, usually the organizations begin to become insignificant. Especially when the organization starts to attack their rank and file.

Commanding respect and demanding respect are two different things.

color of law said:

So are you saying you have no confidence in your own self worth? Or you don't believe in your own ability to command respect? I mean no disrespect, but little old me has rocked the local politicians boat to the point that when I talk they do listen. I know or another member of the forum that commands the same respect from the local politicians.

Organizations don't exist without members. Once those organizations take those members for granted, usually the organizations begin to become insignificant. Especially when the organization starts to attack their rank and file.

Commanding respect and demanding respect are two different things.

Click to expand...

Much like in a republic, where the individual is more important than the state, in a grassroots organization, the organization exists to serve the individual, not vice versa. It never ceases to amaze me that organizations that promote republican ideals (little "r") behave in decidedly unrepublican ways.

Not very much surprise here, honestly. Jeff (Garvas), I highly doubt Slack never sent the information to you...

BB62 said:

March 8, 2011, jgarvas says “The good news is if we know we've sent a letter to an agency and they have an incident we do a public records request to prove they received the letter and any discussion that took place internally...”

Click to expand...

What wishful thinking.

An unsolicited letter is not a “record” under Ohio’s Public Records Law. In other words, OFCC's “To Whom It May Concern”letter (http://www.ohioccw.org/files/oc-letter_merged.pdf) is nothing more than a solicitation. Not worth the paper it's written on.

An item received by a public office is not a record simply because the public office could use the item to carry out its duties and responsibilities.
See, State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. v. Whitmore, 83 Ohio St.3d 61, 1998-Ohio-180 (judge read unsolicited letters but did not rely on them in sentencing defendant, therefore, letters did not serve to document any activity of the public office).

The Ohio Supreme Court expressly rejected the notion that an item is a “record” simply because the public office could use the item to carry out its duties and responsibilities.
See, State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. v. Whitmore, 83 Ohio St.3d 61, 1998-Ohio-180.

The public office must actually use the Item; otherwise it is not a record.
See, 2007 Ohio Op. Att’y Gen. No. 034 (an item of physical evidence in the possession of the Prosecuting Attorney that was not introduced as evidence was found not to be a “record”); State ex rel. WBNS-TV, Inc. v. Dues, 101 Ohio St.3d 406, 2004-Ohio-1497, ¶27 (judge used redacted information to decide whether to approve settlement); State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. v. Whitmore, 83 Ohio St.3d 61, 1998-Ohio-180 (judge read unsolicited letters but did not rely on them in sentencing a criminal defendant, therefore, letters did not serve to document any activity of the public office and were not “records”); State ex rel. Sensel v. Leone, 85 Ohio St.3d 152, 1999-Ohio-446 (letters alleging inappropriate behavior of coach not “records” and can be discarded) (citing to Whitmore, supra); State ex rel. Carr v. Caltrider, Franklin C.P. No. 00CVH07-6001 (May 16, 2001); State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake County Sheriff’s Dept., 82 Ohio St.3d 37 (1998) (allegedly racist e-mail messages circulated between public employees were not “records”).

A lie told often enough becomes the truth — Lenin.

If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth — Goebbels

So what's the answer?
To NOT send letters?

Hell, I'll try anything
You don't like the letters,
What should we send?

Color of Law, thank you. I've tried to point that out many times in the past that any letter one sends to a governmental agency is not public record. I actually find it funny how much Jeff thinks is public record and how much actually exists. I recall one time they were talking about something and he kept saying he knew there was more public records available. Well, there may have been and may not have been. Just because one doesn't feel they don't have it all doesn't mean it's not all.

Even if they sent those letters certified, there's still no guarantee any PD got it. Generally some $10/hr clerk signs for the mail and then it makes it's way to the appropriate departments. Only after about 5 hands are on it does whoever it is addressed to actually read it. Sometimes they may not even be the first one to read it.

Chuck! said:

So what's the answer?
To NOT send letters?

Hell, I'll try anything
You don't like the letters,
What should we send?

Click to expand...

Letters educate a few but there's no guarantee they make it all the way down to the bottom and through every department. Chief Craig with Cincinnati is doing a pretty good job with letters and placing either them or a revised version in their staff bulletins which all officers are required to read. I can tell you, I know a few places where the letters never left the command staff.

In my opinion, the first group you need to target are actually every day citizens. I would guess 80% of what law enforcement deals with on a daily basis are dispatches from dispatchers. However, you can't have a dispatcher tell on the phone what is actually going on. As a dispatchet, I can tell you many incidents where the phone call I took was 180 of what actually took place. Joe Smith calls me with a male walking down the street with a gun, I'll ask the questions to see how he is walking and how the gun is being handled, but an officer is getting sent no matter what.

You want to educate one to stop the calls, educate the public. Billboards? Newspaper? Reporters? Lesson the amount of people calling 911 for a subject with a gun and you will lesson the number of OC problems.

JediSkipdogg said:

In my opinion, the first group you need to target are actually every day citizens.

Click to expand...

JediSkipdogg said:

You want to educate one to stop the calls, educate the public. Billboards? Newspaper? Reporters? Lesson the amount of people calling 911 for a subject with a gun and you will lesson the number of OC problems.

Click to expand...

^^^ This ^^^

And I will add: The more commonly citizens see other citizens openly carrying a sidearm, the less of an event that it will appear to the casual observer. There is no substitute for as many people as possible carrying openly everyday and everywhere possible. There's a lot of social conditioning to undo.

The fact that the open carry section of OFCC is closed to public view detracts from the goal of educating the public about the legality of it. Surely, some CHL holders and potential licensees out there don't spent as much time cruising the internet as the rest of us. It would be logical for them to browse "Ohioans for Concealed Carry" since they are, or are planning on, carrying concealed in Ohio. Many could very well miss out on information regarding the option of carrying openly in Ohio and all of its nuances.

I gave a reporter a short list of websites to research for further information last month when she called me for a statement and to ask questions about firearm carry in Ohio. Since she seemed a bit stuck into going in the direction of concealed carry (I don't think she was able to process open carry at that time), I'd venture a guess that if she only had time for one website, it was OFCC. If she only looked at OFCC then she probably missed an opportunity to read and write about the right to open carry, both for her current project and for future compositions.

Chuck! said:

So what's the answer?
To NOT send letters?

Hell, I'll try anything
You don't like the letters,
What should we send?

Click to expand...

Read the law.
understand the law.
And apply the law.

When you do those three things you can accomplish almost anything.

color of law said:

Read the law.
understand the law.
And apply the law.

When you do those three things you can accomplish almost anything.

Click to expand...

Who let Yoda in here? :lol:

For officers:
Read the law. Understand the law. Apply the law. OBEY the law.

color of law said:

Read the law.
understand the law.
And apply the law.

When you do those three things you can accomplish almost anything.

Click to expand...

But I thought that letter was reviewed by a licensed attorney at law, in good standing, with more than twenty years in practice...?? :shocker::shocker: