http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/AuditSea ... ermont.pdf
Sorry to keep bumping this up.....but a search of the property records show that the fairgrounds is owned by the.....County!!!!!
http://www.clermontauditorrealestate.or ... &tp=1&cp=1
302913A018.
1000 LOCUST ST CLER CO AGRICULTURAL SOC
Parcel
Address 1000 LOCUST ST
Class EXEMPT
Land Use Code E - EXEMPT PROPERTY OWNED BY COUNTIES
Neighborhood 04248
Total Acres 37.77
Taxing District 30
District Name STONELICK TWP / CLERMONT NE LSD
Gross Tax Rate 58.15
Effective Tax Rate 41.157955
Sorry for the long link....
I spoke with a nice lady at the Ag Society, she asked me to fax over this info and she would forward it to the President of the Ag Society. I faxed the info per her request and included the AG opinion as well.
The Enquirer called, my 1st letter will be published in a few days. The text of the letter is below (props to the Best Buy Letter, I borrow some of his text):
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Mon 7/17/2006 1:17 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: Clermont County Fair-No Guns Allowed
I found your article very interesting and after a phone call to the
Clermont County Agricultural Society they confirmed the following for
me:
While their intent in posting the sign is to promote the safety of
attendees and employees, it in fact has the opposite effect. A
criminal, intent on committing criminal acts, will freely bring any
weapons he chooses past their sign. In fact they might as well post
a "Criminal Friendly Zone, all of our customers have been disarmed for
your convenience" sign. The "No Guns" sign will however turn away those
law-abiding citizens who have passed criminal background checks, have
no history of mental illness and completed training and education to
be granted a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) by the State of Ohio. So
to sum it all up…..those law abiding citizens holdings CHLs are
treated as defacto criminals whilst real criminals simply will waltz
pass the no guns sign…just as they always do.
Jeff Riley
Here is a copy of an email I received in reply to my letter/email to the story in the Cincinnati Enquirer regarding Clermont Count Fair banning concealed carry at the fair:
"Brunsman, Barrett" <[email protected]>
Sent Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:03 am
To [email protected]
Cc
Bcc
Subject RE: Clermont County Fair-No Guns Allowed
Jeff:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
The only answer I have for you is that the Clermont sheriff says his men can provide all the protection needed. He also notes the following:
"If a CCW permit holder is found carrying a gun in a prohibited area not only could they be charged with a crime (felony or misdemeanor depending on circumstances), but ALSO their CCW permit could be permanently revoked. Bottom line: 'Leave your guns at home'' when coming to the Clermont County Fair."
Regards,
Barrett
Here was my reply to his email:
Barrett,
Thanks for your reply,
While I am sure that the sheriff means well and has planned accordingly, 8 deputies does not exactly go very far if attendance at the fair is equal to past years:
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/0 ... air25.html
"Despite their growing suburban populations, Butler and Clermont expect to attract 100,000 visitors to their fairs, which is considered a good year." End quote.
Unless they plan on searching each and every person attending, the "No Guns" sign is a "feel good" measure that is not going to deter any serious criminal, only law-abiding citizens, including CHL holders. They cannot guarantee safety, nor are the required by case law. The Supreme Court in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, June 27th 2005:
"It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989)."
"By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband." From Foxnews.com July 18th, 2005:
"In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters' abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.
The next morning, Simon committed "suicide by cop." He shot a gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon's pickup truck."
The Court fell back on a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
Part of being a CHL holder is being responsible for my own and my family’s protection, and I am not willing to count on someone else to be my primary form of protection. The police are spread thin, and you can't count on them always being there when you need them. Under the best of circumstances, 3 minutes is a great response, and allot of bad things can happen in 3 minutes time.
I guess we will have to disagree on this, and I will take their Fair's hint about not being welcome and not attend.
Jeff
