The future of OFCC

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Brian D.
Posts: 16221
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: The future of OFCC

Post by Brian D. »

Chuck wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:05 pm
You realize, of course, that you just described BFA.

Long before I came into the picture, OFCC brass decided they didn't want to pursue the fund raising model that paid lobbyists require.
BFA is still here though, but we gone. And for at least the last ten years, if local media here talked to somebody about gun rights stuff in Columbus, it was BFA. Joe Eaton most of the time. A couple reporters I knew had zero awareness of OFCC for the last decade plus.

Early on I offered to be the OFCC spokesmouth for SW Ohio, but the suits wanted tight reins kept on anything like that. Hell, the original VP berated me as though I was a child for bringing nametags to the Picnic.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
User avatar
Glock Rock
Posts: 990
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:50 am
Location: Belly of the Beast (Cleveland)

Re: The future of OFCC

Post by Glock Rock »

There is no CHL in OH without OFCC.

The singular focus back early this century was making OH CHL a reality.

They did it.

A life well lived!
carmen fovozzo
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 19032
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:08 am
Location: NEO

Re: The future of OFCC

Post by carmen fovozzo »

When I don't like being at some place, I just leave. I like it here.
Life is full of God given coincidences..
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: The future of OFCC

Post by bignflnut »

carmen fovozzo wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 1:12 pm When I don't like being at some place, I just leave. I like it here.
^^^ This ^^^ is why the long march through the institutions worked and why "cancel culture" has damaged our liberty so.

We (reasonable people with the better argument) generally run. The crazy crybullies stay and fight. Thankfully, OFCC stood and fought against so many governors and other forces aligned against RKBA (to include some NRA/BFA operatives).

===============================================================================

Is it not time to do a post mortem on OFCC? Is that not the point of this post?

I'm not attacking anyone personally. I've sung the praises and given the flowers where appropriate.

I'd like to hear from Chuck / Jeff or other leaders regarding where they think OFCC fell short and what they may have done differently -if they had to do it over again. Granting a lack of volunteers, what would you suggest attempting (to future leadership)?

I hope we can all agree that it's not ideal to fold up the tent after certain primary objectives have been achieved.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: The future of OFCC

Post by BB62 »

Brian D. wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 7:41 am ... Hell, the original VP berated me as though I was a child for bringing nametags to the Picnic.
I remember that. What an idiot.
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)

Got Freedom?

Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: The future of OFCC

Post by Bearable »

Before I got booted it was a fight to get an open carry topic on this forum. And open carry is the only God given right this government recognizes. Constitutional carry is still a privilege. Until the USSC emphatically makes clear that conceal carry is a right, the fight is still on. And the Bruen ruling is just the beginning. The 1968 Gun Control Act is the next to be axed. The fight has just begun.

This whole gun rights fight is part of the big picture. This country is sitting on the brink of collapse. We are in a fight of our lives. And we have to quit being nice guys. Being nice guys doesn't work.

Quote Heller:
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that "surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century.
Now we need the court to drive this home; conceal carry is a God given right.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4764
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: The future of OFCC

Post by M-Quigley »

Bearable wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 6:19 am Before I got booted it was a fight to get an open carry topic on this forum. And open carry is the only God given right this government recognizes. Constitutional carry is still a privilege. Until the USSC emphatically makes clear that conceal carry is a right, the fight is still on. And the Bruen ruling is just the beginning. The 1968 Gun Control Act is the next to be axed. The fight has just begun.

This whole gun rights fight is part of the big picture. This country is sitting on the brink of collapse. We are in a fight of our lives. And we have to quit being nice guys. Being nice guys doesn't work.

Quote Heller:
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that "surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century.
Now we need the court to drive this home; conceal carry is a God given right.
Ginsberg wrote this? Why? Wasn't she one of the most notorious anti gunners on the court?
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: The future of OFCC

Post by Bearable »

M-Quigley wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:57 am
Bearable wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 6:19 am Before I got booted it was a fight to get an open carry topic on this forum. And open carry is the only God given right this government recognizes. Constitutional carry is still a privilege. Until the USSC emphatically makes clear that conceal carry is a right, the fight is still on. And the Bruen ruling is just the beginning. The 1968 Gun Control Act is the next to be axed. The fight has just begun.

This whole gun rights fight is part of the big picture. This country is sitting on the brink of collapse. We are in a fight of our lives. And we have to quit being nice guys. Being nice guys doesn't work.

Quote Heller:
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that "surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century.
Now we need the court to drive this home; conceal carry is a God given right.
Ginsberg wrote this? Why? Wasn't she one of the most notorious anti gunners on the court?
Anti-gunner or not, she is being honest to the meaning of "carry" as it applies to "Carry arms or weapons." To carry on your person in your clothes/pocket versus about your person, meaning in a satchel or purse; not what the opinion ruled. The opinion ruled that "Carry arms or weapon" is not limited, but expansive. Meaning the term carry extends to a person who knowingly possesses and conveys firearms in a vehicle, including in the locked glove compartment or trunk of a car, which the person accompanies. Both Scalia and Souter joined her in her dissent.

Link to Muscarello v. United States: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... 5/case.pdf

I think Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) is bad case law since Heller, McDonald and especially Bruen.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4764
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: The future of OFCC

Post by M-Quigley »

Bearable wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 4:36 pm
M-Quigley wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:57 am
Bearable wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 6:19 am Before I got booted it was a fight to get an open carry topic on this forum. And open carry is the only God given right this government recognizes. Constitutional carry is still a privilege. Until the USSC emphatically makes clear that conceal carry is a right, the fight is still on. And the Bruen ruling is just the beginning. The 1968 Gun Control Act is the next to be axed. The fight has just begun.

This whole gun rights fight is part of the big picture. This country is sitting on the brink of collapse. We are in a fight of our lives. And we have to quit being nice guys. Being nice guys doesn't work.

Quote Heller:

Now we need the court to drive this home; conceal carry is a God given right.
Ginsberg wrote this? Why? Wasn't she one of the most notorious anti gunners on the court?
Anti-gunner or not, she is being honest to the meaning of "carry" as it applies to "Carry arms or weapons." To carry on your person in your clothes/pocket versus about your person, meaning in a satchel or purse; not what the opinion ruled. The opinion ruled that "Carry arms or weapon" is not limited, but expansive. Meaning the term carry extends to a person who knowingly possesses and conveys firearms in a vehicle, including in the locked glove compartment or trunk of a car, which the person accompanies. Both Scalia and Souter joined her in her dissent.

Link to Muscarello v. United States: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... 5/case.pdf

I think Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) is bad case law since Heller, McDonald and especially Bruen.
I agree that she is being honest, I'm just not used to hearing honesty from most anti gun types. For most of them I've heard or read, honesty and facts that don't advance their agenda tend to get ignored.
User avatar
AlanM
Posts: 9435
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:38 am
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA

Re: The future of OFCC

Post by AlanM »

I moved out of Ohio in 2011 but still spend a lot of time reading the posts on this site.
I got my first CHL in 2004 and have carried ever since even here in Virginia.
(I DO, of course, have a Virginia CHL.

I would be willing to contribute some cash help keep this site viable.

BTW I was on the original OFCC mailing list which morphed into this site.
AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.
Post Reply