The following letter was recently sent to OFCC by a man who says an armed criminal attempted to rob his 79 year-old father after visiting his daughter-in-law, who was a patient at the Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton. The writer says this incident occurred in the hospital's Apple Street Garage.

My mom was in the hospital and I notice that they had "no gun" signs all over the place. My dad, 79 years old, was walking to his car when a man tried to rob him.

align="right">
He ran, and yelled to some people to help him. The man he asked for help told him to back up against the wall, then the man pulled a gun on the would-be robber and told him "one more step and you die."

Thank God...

When the signs go up the bad guys come out.

Donald G.

This hospital is one of many which posted signs after an anti-concealed carry campaign was waged by the Ohio Hospital Association early this year.

Signs are posted at entrances to the hospital and in the parking garage elevators, thus necessitating that any visitors must traverse to and from their parked cars while completely disarmed.

Not all physicians have come under the spell of the gun ban lobby. Those Ohioans fighting battles against a misinformed medical community would do well to consider the words of Dr. Timothy M. Billups, MD, FACEP, who submitted written testimony in support of HB12. Billups is a "residency trained, Board Certified Emergency Medicine physician" with "nine years of clinical experience in several Emergency Departments in the Cleveland and Akron areas".

For an even greater resource, check out Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws which a collaborative effort by members of KeepAndBearArms.com.

Or consider the words of this Ohio physician, who emailed OFCC during the Ohio Hospital Association's initial assault against self-defense:

I am a physician who has been stalked and at times I have feared for my safety and my life. Unfortunately, all hospitals to which I go have now posted signs prohibiting concealed carry on their property.

While hospital(s) may have good security, they certainly don’t search every person who comes into the building, so I am not protected and in fact, I am actually in the same danger as pre-concealed carry (legislation). Such hospital policies also prevent me from carrying to and from work, when I might be at increased risk of being attacked, since technically I can’t even have a firearm in my car or I would violate hospital policy, since my car is parked in a lot which is their property. I could always just keep a firearm in the car anyway, but if my car were to be stolen or broken into, and it were discovered that I violated hospital rules, I would lose my privileges to practice at that hospital and could be fired from my primary hospital (of which I am also an employee).

Policies such as this really make concealed carry for self-defense rather meaningless, especially if many businesses have similar policies. What can be done at a legislative level to change this?

Dr. M. N.

What can be done? For starters, contact this and other hospitals, and contact the Ohio Hospital Association, and tell them about stories like these. Tell them whenever possible, you'll take your business to medical facitilies that respect your human right of self-defense.

Secondly, concerned citizens can contact their legislators and ask them to push for passage of a parking lot exemption which was contained in the bill which passed the House last year, but was removed by a few state Senators. Ohio law should not allow businesses to enact de facto bans on self-defense for customers and employees traveling to and from these locations.

Related Stories:
Mad science: Gun-law demise worries ''health experts''

Op-Ed: Docs Gun for a Ban

Union Hospital ER shooting...when CCW was illegal

Dayton VA Hospital shooting proves folly of gun prohibitions

Dayton Children's Medical Center planning to discriminate against CHL-holders

Ohio doctor registered as sex offender permitted to continue practice

Buried at the bottom of a Cleveland Plain Dealer story about a campaign finance reform bill that was unveiled by Republican state lawmakers Friday was this little bombshell:

Ohio lawmakers are planning their own version of McCain-Feingold's free-speech ban, right here in our state!

The only mention of the 30 days provision came as follows:

Bill Todd, a lawyer who represents the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, said the bill's plan to ban issue ads 30 days before the election will hurt the ability of business and other nonaffiliated political players seeking to affect elections.

"Groups as diverse as the Sierra Club, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and Ohio Right to Life are going to be restricted from communicating their messages during the period when Ohioans are most likely to be listening," he said. "I understand the need for campaign-finance reform, but it's always got to be balanced against the right to political speech."

We couldn't agree more.

What the media and politicians call “special interests” or “big money” for the most part turns out to be everyday voters.

The National Rifle Association, Sierra Club and even more nefarious groups like MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans For Truth and POWS For Truth are, for the most part, made up of people who banded together to gain a spot at the table during the electoral process.

Now the Ohio legislature, with the backing of Governor Bob Taft, is using several fund-raising scandals to take away that voice by banning issue based political ads within thirty days of an election. Under the guise of “reform” they are, in fact, infringing on the First Amendment rights of everyday Ohioans.

They are also guaranteeing that control of the electoral process will be left to the two major political parties. Otherwise politicians would not raise the limit on individual contributions to $10,000 and then severely restrict the effectiveness of groups that can spend the money – except for the two major political parties.

If this legislation passes as written, the average concerned citizen, on both sides of an issue, would now have to decide whether to donate to their issue-based advocacy group (that can no longer advertise during the most crucial time period) or give to the Party of their choice that has no such restriction.

Each Party also has a vested interest in keeping their often distorted version of the truth from being challenged. They also don’t want their campaigns' messages damaged by "friends" like Michael Moore, who clearly hurt John Kerry in during his run for the White House.

Restricting issue-based ads during the last thirty days of an election cycle neatly addresses both concerns and can be listed among other important “reforms.”

But in reality, not only does it not "reform" campaign finance laws, but it chips away further at the rights of Ohioans and the control they have on the electoral process.

Commentary by Gerard Valentino, OFCC Central Ohio Coordinator