May 7, 2004

I have been a Kroger customer all my adult life. The reason I'm writing today is to ask you if you wish to continue to earn my business.

I've learned that you are enabling criminals and discriminating against my fellow American's civil rights in your Cincinnati-area stores by prohibiting their right to protect themselves. Specifically, you don't want armed customers in your stores there - customers that have undergone thorough state mandated background checks and training.

What sets me apart from others that may contact you is that I have stopped a violent crime in your Bartlett, TN store.

Last September while shopping, a predator snatched the purse of an elderly woman who was shopping in your store at 5995 Stage Rd. in Bartlett, TN. He almost ripped her arm off in the process. While I was armed with a concealed handgun, the situation was not life threatening, so I, along with Kroger employees and other customers apprehended the purse snatcher with appropriate force, including my using pepper gas, rather than my firearm. The lady got her purse back and the bad guy went to jail - another example of responsible armed citizens.

Also late last year, three predators walked into your store at 4770 Germantown Rd. in Memphis, TN and shot, in cold blood, your guard, who was a uniformed Memphis Police Officer. Guess what? The monsters that shot the police officer, and robbed your store WERE NOT legally armed citizens. They were bottom feeding, gangster reprobates. Monster criminals who don't care about the law or your signs. Can you imagine the law suits, had this happened in Ohio, and customers were injured or killed because they were complying with your criminal enabling discrimination policy?

If you are going to discriminate against my fellow Americans and deny their civil rights in Ohio, then I will not be shopping with you any more down here. If you'll check the records at your Bartlett store, you'll see based on my check and debit card purchases, that my wife and I spend thousands of dollars a year there. Please let me know what your decision is. Thanks in advance for your reply.

Sincerely,

Pat McGarrity

Commentary:
Tennessee's laws are similar to Ohio's - a private business must post signs if they wish to render their customers defenseless. Kroger stores are NOT posted in Tennessee, or any other state.

Short of installing metal detectors (which may present a problem for the shopping karts), there is NOTHING Kroger can do in ANY state which can prevent criminals from being armed in their stores.

Related Story:
Kroger digs in for a fight

Ohioans For Concealed Carry is pleased to announce that MicroCenter has made a corporate decision to treat their Ohio customers exactly as they've been treating customers across the country for years.

Discriminatory signs banning CHL-holders in Ohio stores are coming down, effective today.

----- Original Message -----
From: Customer Relations
Sent: 5/7/2004 1:18:45 PM
Subject: New policy

Dear Mrs. *** ****

Thank you for your input regarding our "No Firearms" signs.

Effective this morning, May 7th, we have decided to remove those signs. We hope we can count on your continued patronage and support.

Thank again,

Albert Rogers
Micro Electronics, Inc.
Customer Relations
614-850-3036

---------
Click here to thank this company for weighing the facts, considering their extensive good experience with CHL-holders in other states, and making the safest, most-responsible decision.

Other multi-state corporations have joined Microcenter, and taken back down their signs after OFCC revealed that they do not discriminate against CHL-holders in other states. There is simply no logic reason for a company with years of experience with millions of concealed handgun license (CHL)-holders to decide that they would post signs in Ohio.

But that's not stopping Cincinnati-based Kroger Co....

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

You heard it here first....

May 07, 2004
Cleveland Plain Dealer

Columbus- Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro asked the Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to stop sheriffs from issuing applications for concealed-handgun permits.

The Toledo-based Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence filed the suit just a week after the new concealed-handgun law went into effect April 8.

The coalition says it wants justices to halt the process because sheriffs lack information about the mental health of some applicants and have insufficient money to process applications, and because other elements of the law are unconstitutional.

In a legal motion, Petro argued that the lawsuit should have been filed in common pleas court. The coalition's complaint is devoid of any facts to support the allegations and is little more than an effort by the group to strike down the concealed-carry legislation passed by the General Assembly, according to the motion.

"Therefore, it is clear from the face of the complaint that this case requires significant factual discovery and development prior to the court being able to make any determination," the motion said.

Toby Hoover, executive director of the coalition, could not be reached for comment.

Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Cuyahoga County Sheriff Gerald McFaul has been settled. The suit was filed by Jim Irvine of Ohioans for Concealed Carry to force McFaul to begin taking concealed-carry permit applications.

McFaul had delayed the process while the sheriff's office was being renovated.

After settling the case with Irvine, McFaul announced this week that his office is now accepting appointments for applications.

"They agreed to pay court costs and there was no admission of guilt by either side," Irvine said.

Related Stories:
FLASH: Ohio Attorney General files Motion to Dismiss anti-CCW lawsuit

Gun ban lobby seeks to block Ohio Right to Carry in court
Cuyahoga Sheriff can't avoid duty under law; settles concealed carry lawsuit